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 ...
so are they now not liable for felonious drug trafficking occurring on their premises?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I would imagine the rentor IS liable for any criminal activities and will be fined accordingly.
Doesn’t matter that one was kicked out of the last 10 places they lived, for the same charge and the rentors again held responsible.
Of course, try to sell and you will probably get fined.
The word FAIR should be restricted to weather forecasts and things such as County Fair, Book Fair, Food Fair etc etc
Oh dear God, what next?
Horrible time to be a landlord or even an apartment dweller in Seattle, because who knows?
Sometimes you’ve just gotta be paranoid about everyone.
“Seattle landlords will no longer be able to ask about criminal records, pending charges, juvenile records or any arrest record when choosing tenants.”
Oh well, they are all public records, and all credit screening companies provide searches of those records along with credit screening for an additional fee. I don’t think making searches of public records illegal will go over well for Seattle if it goes to court.
I own income property in King and Pierce counties. This is another reason I won’t get near the city of Seattle. If I don’t screen my tenants, who knows what I’d get and to evict someone takes months. The insanity of these communists is staggering. No investor in their right mind should get anywhere near Seattle.
.
Only a fool would live in Seattle, or ‘own’ property there.
.
“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.”
You definitely don’t want a written policy about that, because that’s a huge violation of federal law.
So, Seattle is giving up the rule of law.
Now that many courts are posting their docket sheets on the internet you can just look up their criminal activity.
“You definitely don’t want a written policy about that, because that’s a huge violation of federal law.”
I know a couple of landlords and they automatically decline Section 8 people. (We are all too small to have written policies.) But you simply have to be a large corporation to deal with the government. People I know who have dealt with Section 8 say the government is slow to pay and never makes good on all the damage. While I am sure there are “good” Section 8 renters, the stories I have heard are all horrible in terms of malicious damage.
While I have probably an average of $75k invested per double-wide, insurance will only cover $20k total. Renters can run up $20k in damage easily. Two of those and I’d be out of business. This is what I am doing for my retirement. If I get hurt I will probably never recover from it.
I have had two former convicts and I have two present ones. Those are the only people who have hurt me so far. The first two weren’t necessarily malicious, just terrible people. Fortunately, the sheriff swooped in, knocked down their door, and took them away. Of the other two, the wife is on 30 months probation and virtually unemployable as she steals to feed a drug habit. Her husband used to give her the rent to give to me; big mistake. The husband really does work, but I’ll wager his IQ for things not related to drugs is about 80. I’ll go over for something and the air conditioner will be running flat out with a few windows open.
I am certain there are some good people who made one bad mistake. I even have one working for me. But he is about to inherit a vehicle which he plans to drive without a license as he still owes $1700 in fines to Virginia and therefore can’t get one here, even though he’s paid the Florida fines. He’s an otherwise intelligent and “honest” guy, I trust him with keys, but he continues to make bad decisions. (I let him know I don’t want him driving to and from my locations. It’s a butt pain, as I must play chauffeur to use his services.)
I wonder if they’ve thought of making it easier to be a landlord (i.e. less regulations/taxes/hassle). The way to solve this “problem” is to have so much housing that landlords can’t be choosy on who the rent to. If you want housing to be a “right” for all, this is they way to do it. Doing it other ways is more about the government deciding who does/doesn’t get housing than ensuring housing to all.
If landlords have to pick one of many applicants, criminal background is a very sensible discriminator and does not limit the total number of people who get housing. At least short term - in the long term, many landlords may decide it just isn’t worth it if they may be renting to a criminal and do something else with the property.
Not content with merely trying to catch up to Oakland, Seattle votes to jump over that goal post and head straight for Detroit.
“Does a government agency have the legal authority to do this?”
Seattle would seem to have the State Supreme Court in their pocket.
Oddly enough, this is a federal prerogative, and a lawsuit will likely prevail against the city.
HUD, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the federal agency in charge, has very explicit and precise rules about most elements of housing.
Ben Carson is its current director, and has already slashed billions of improper spending by the agency. Good job, Mr. Carson, and good for him.
However, these HUD rules are pretty clear, and woe be to any landlord who does not carefully follow them.
And I strongly suggest that this Seattle rule will run afoul of HUD rules.
Currently, convicts that HUD *allows* to be excluded from rentals include: child sex offenders, drug convictions, aggravated assault, and rape.
Mr. Carson should be able to include other offenses as he sees fit. No matter what Seattle thinks.
Not surprising at all.But consider this...a year or so ago SCOTUS accepted a 2nd Amendment case from the Massachusetts Supreme Court called "Caetano v Massachusetts".Long story short SCOTUS ruled,9-0,that the state's Supreme Court issued a "frivolous" ruling in upholding Ms.Caetano's conviction on a gun possession charge stating that the ruling was in direct defiance of the recent Heller and Chicago rulings.
So any ruling issued in Olympia (the state's capital?) could very well be blown out of the water in DC.
Then they have to meet the FIRST criteria - $200 more
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.