Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pabianice

“A new report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development found that when searching for a new home to rent, black people are shown 17 percent fewer available homes than white people.”

I once owned a duplex, lived in one, rented the other. The rental rented for $1350 a month. During a tenant turnover, I received two applications from whom I suspected were Black people, though I never met them, only spoke on the phone. One had an income of $1850 a month and the other had an income of about $2100 a month on a job she had been on for 6 weeks. I showed neither one of them the apartment.

That was not racial discrimination. That was affordability discrimination. But HUD would undoubtedly show such circumstances as racially oriented.


10 posted on 09/14/2016 6:53:57 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (I had a cool idea for a new tagline and I forgot it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Pseudo statistics like that keep going out without saying “Normalized for income level and work experience etc.”

How about we also tried “Normalized for penchant to listen to rap?” If black people wallow in depictions of themselves as bad and hopeless and desperate, they should beware the self fulfilling prophecy.


28 posted on 09/14/2016 7:09:49 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
Yup. Just had a similar experience: black woman, state employee (good job) with +$50K/year income.

But her credit history showed late rent, unpaid parking tickets, booted car, etc.

Her explanation was a litany of 'problems' that caused bills to be unpaid, i.e. a complete inability to manage her income or save any money.

The icing on the cake was the application for an $1800/month apartment when she had been living in a $750/month unit.

42 posted on 09/14/2016 7:32:49 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
That was not racial discrimination. That was affordability discrimination.

A landlord has to be smart to avoid the pitfalls of accusations of racism. First, he has to treat all applicants equally. I personally don't want to meet the prospective tenant until he's been vetted. Each must fill out an application form and submit a credit report with it. That eliminates the really unworthy. The form specifies that among acceptable applications the first received will be the first to receive a response; among parties wishing to take the rental after showing the first deposit received prevails.

Foolproof? No. But pretty good protection against discrimination charges.

58 posted on 09/14/2016 7:46:55 AM PDT by JimRed (Is it 1776 yet? TERM LIMITS, now and forever! Build the Wall, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

You were using the rent/mortgage is no more than 35% of net income rule as the basis for not showing the unit?

If so, I agree it is not racism to ensure the new tenant has the financial stability to pay the rent consistently. That is just good business practice.

As I understand the rules, it could have been racism if you had shown the rental units to whites/other races that had exactly the same incomes you listed.


76 posted on 09/14/2016 8:39:50 AM PDT by Captain Rhino (Determined effort today forges tomorrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson