Posted on 08/15/2017 9:01:38 AM PDT by PROCON
SEATTLE - The Seattle City Council voted 8 to 0 to prohibit landlords from using criminal records to screen prospective tenants. The only exception to the new ordinance are sex offenders.
City leaders and supporters of the measure; 'Fair Chance Housing Ordinance' insist its goal is to reduce housing discrimination and barriers.
Inside Seattle Council Chambers there was overwhelming support for a measure.
In short, it will restrict how landlords can use arrest and conviction records to exclude prospective renters. Seattle landlords will no longer be able to ask about criminal records, pending charges, juvenile records or any arrest record when choosing tenants.
Council member Sally Bagshaw told KOMO News prior to the vote that she planned to vote yes because housing is an essential right to everyone and she hoped the measure will be an extra tool in the toolbox to help deal with the city's homeless crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at komonews.com ...
A new "Right" is invented by progressives because of Fairness....
Landlords should sell, sell, sell QUICK!
Sell.
Murderers good, sex offenders bad.
PING for more Seattle craziness.
Doesn’t surprise me in the least, except that I AM surprised that this has not already been the case for Sodom-attle.
And then move.
The inmates are definitely running the Seattle asylum.
I just looked at a picture of the Seattle City Council and LOL yep
so are they now not liable for felonious drug trafficking occurring on their premises?
“Council member Sally Bagshaw told KOMO News prior to the vote that she planned to vote yes because housing is an essential right to everyone and she hoped the measure will be an extra tool in the toolbox to help deal with the city’s homeless crisis.”
Sally allegedly lives in “Downtown Seattle”.
Wonder if she’s listed her office as her residence.
http://www.whitepages.com/name/Sally-Bagshaw/Seattle-WA
What an idiot law. I would bet the local courts have online dockets that can be easily searched by landlords.
“However landlords will continue to be held civilly and criminally liable for any and all mayhem caused by said tenants.”
So you do the credit report officially and the criminal search unofficially. If the applicant has a criminal background but has a nice credit history, probably won’t be a bad tenant.
Watch many buildings go condo, in order to attract a better crowd, since the landlords won’t be able to check criminal records.
Ok but who can they sell to????
And I am sure insurance companies will gladly release landlords from liability arising from personal or property damage resulting from activity by those with such records. Not to mention no risk of civil forfeiture by law enforcement based on criminal activity involving such property.
NOT!
“Landlords should sell, sell, sell QUICK! “
What landlord’s do depends on the wording of the law. They might, for example, subcontract all screenings to an outside firm. (I’d choose a firm located outside the reach of the new law.)
In addition, if that firm screens clients, or, even if landlords do it, how can the authorities find out? Further, a landlord can still pick the candidates most able to pay; those having good jobs and references. As long as they don’t racially discriminate, which brings in the feds, then there shouldn’t be an issue. I can tell you from experience that having a good job cuts the odds that you will have any issues with the renter, down to almost nothing.
A set of written policies helps too. For example, not accepting any Section 8 or welfare recipients would cut down on damage and safety issues. However, if the landlord accepts any government payout of any type, they will have their hands tied even further. In my experience, those type landlords are politically protected; unlike their renters who have to live next to whatever the government sends, regardless of how dangerous they might be.
I would not be surprised to find it was being a poor credit risk and lack of sufficient income and references that prevented the one woman from getting an apartment and not her past record. That would have shown she had served her sentence and lack of any further involvement with the justice system.
Happy to know that sex offender are still being screened. But, what about those who have records of assault, robbery, home invasion, etc.?
Those felons ought to be screened as well. I can understand not allowing renters to be screened for a DWI or perhaps a smoke of pot [esp if done years ago], but really, are not law-abiding citizens allowed any protections from unsocial behaviors of some citizens?
That's the finest example of delusional thinking that I've come across so far today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.