Attention landlords...criminals now a protected class

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_OGCGuidAppFHAStandCR.pdf (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_OGCGuidAppFHAStandCR.pdf)

[rmt]

So, if I have a duplex, I can't decide who I want to live beside/rent the other side to? What about child predators? Do they count?

[CosmicCowboy]

At least they exclude convicted meth cookers.

what a relief.

[Blake]

Eh, you can still not lease out to convicted ex criminals if you can prove you have a good reason as is outlined in there

[vy65]

crofl a landlord will be crucified in a premises liability case if a plaintiff shows they knew an assailant had a criminal history but leased to them anyway. Fucked and unfuckable

[Avante]

So easy to get around all that sort of thing, no problem.

[hater]

Lol america

In Medellin if you don't rent to criminals they not only burn your rental property down. They burn your house down too preferably with you in it :lol

Smh

[ElNono]

That's not what it says at all:

"... a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider"

What they're actually saying is that you can't use a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate by, say, race or religion. ie: you don't rent to the black guy because he has a criminal record, but willingly rent to a white guy with a criminal record. All the paper says is that the black guy might have a legitimate claim that he was discriminated by race.

[vy65]

That's not what it says at all:

"... a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider"

What they're actually saying is that you can't use a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate by, say, race or religion. ie: you don't rent to the black guy because he has a criminal record, but willingly rent to a white guy with a criminal record. All the paper says is that the black guy might have a legitimate claim that he was discriminated by race.

That's kind of but not exactly what it says. I think this is the gist of HUD's opinion:


But housing providers that apply a policy or practice that excludes persons with prior convictions must still be able to prove that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. A housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any conviction record – no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then – will be unable to meet this burden.

The idea is that if you're going to exclude someone because of their past criminal history, you have to show that, for example, the methodology you use in rejecting their lease application is rationally related to a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose, i.e., premises safety. There's overlap for sure, but they're not the same

[TheSanityAnnex]

That's not what it says at all:

"... a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider"

What they're actually saying is that you can't use a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate by, say, race or religion. ie: you don't rent to the black guy because he has a criminal record, but willingly rent to a white guy with a criminal record. All the paper says is that the black guy might have a legitimate claim that he was discriminated by race.
And that's legitimate. But they decided to go further.


Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.8 Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability).9 Additionally, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).


people will easily find ways around this though by just giving vague reasons for denials and never mentioning criminal history.

[ElNono]

The idea is that if you're going to exclude someone because of their past criminal history, you have to show that, for example, the methodology you use in rejecting their lease application is rationally related to a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose, i.e., premises safety. There's overlap for sure, but they're not the same

Yeah, but it notes: "... having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act...". So I would assume the burden is on the complainant to prove that the criminal record was used to discriminate against him because he was a minority.

[ElNono]

And that's legitimate. But they decided to go further.


Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.8 Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability).9 Additionally, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).


people will easily find ways around this though by just giving vague reasons for denials and never mentioning criminal history.

See my previous post. And yes, they can probably price them out anyways.

[vy65]

Yeah, but it notes: "... having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act...". So I would assume the burden is on the complainant to prove that the criminal record was used to discriminate against him because he was a minority.

Never said it was a protected class. So you're right about the burdens.

The point here is that HUD is treating denial of access to housing as a constitutional right for convicted felons -- regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, that's still notable. Especially since a landlord can't apply a blanket restriction on convicted felons. This'll make it much harder for smaller landlords to tip toe liability.

[ElNono]

Never said it was a protected class. So you're right about the burdens.

The point here is that HUD is treating denial of access to housing as a constitutional right for convicted felons -- regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, that's still notable. Especially since a landlord can't apply a blanket restriction on convicted felons. This'll make it much harder for smaller landlords to tip toe liability.

The title of the thread did say that... that's why I was saying it was misleading...

[boutons_deux]

so does TSA want ex-cons to be discriminated against for life after prison? end up homeless? no address so can't get a job?

[TDMVPDPOY]

but when leasing out property, dont u screen the applicants first b4 deciding?

this is why i hate living in areas with alot of investment properties, the landlord doesnt give a shit who they rent it out as long they get their weekly rent,

then you ask why ur suburb is doing shit or not enough growth

[Blake]

Weekly rent?

[Winehole23]

yet another bullshit post from TSA. can't make a point without stretching it unreasonably.

[hater]

Weekly rent?

Weekly rent is very prevalent all over Europe and Aussie/NZ. Maybe Asia too

[TheSanityAnnex]

The title of the thread did say that... that's why I was saying it was misleading...

I should have used "Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions"---I'm sure that would have really got the discussion going.

[TheSanityAnnex]

so does TSA want ex-cons to be discriminated against for life after prison? end up homeless? no address so can't get a job?
I want people to have the choice to discriminate against criminals and not be punished.

[boutons_deux]

I want people to have the choice to discriminate against criminals and not be punished.

yep, checkbox asshole, screwing people is what rightwingnuts love to do.

[CosmicCowboy]

Even worse is the trend to force all landlords to accept Section 8 renters. That's bullshit.

[TheSanityAnnex]

yep, checkbox asshole, screwing people is what rightwingnuts love to do.

I'm not rightwing dipshit. Forcing people to accept criminals doesn't sit well with me.

[Wild Cobra]

That's not what it says at all:

"... a criminal record can constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for a refusal to rent or other adverse action by a housing provider"

What they're actually saying is that you can't use a criminal record as an excuse to discriminate by, say, race or religion. ie: you don't rent to the black guy because he has a criminal record, but willingly rent to a white guy with a criminal record. All the paper says is that the black guy might have a legitimate claim that he was discriminated by race.

It also points out that arrests aren't always followed by convictions.

I just skimmed through it, but it seems reasonable to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Even worse is the trend to force all landlords to accept Section 8 renters. That's bullshit.

LOL...

That would be funny as the states and feds don't have enough resources to grant all the owners who want to go section 8.

Besides, they can't force all, unless they drop their standards. Many places don't qualify the government nit-picking to be approved.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL...

That would be funny as the states and feds don't have enough resources to grant all the owners who want to go section 8.

Besides, they can't force all, unless they drop their standards. Many places don't qualify the government nit-picking to be approved.

It's being done at the state and city level. Already law in 12 states.

As a landlord I would be furious if I was forced to rent a class A property to a section 8 tenant without any guarantee of large security deposits, etc. I have seen what happens in the local housing projects and it's almost criminal how they mistreat the units.

[Wild Cobra]

It's being done at the state and city level. Already law in 12 states.

As a landlord I would be furious if I was forced to rent a class A property to a section 8 tenant without any guarantee of large security deposits, etc. I have seen what happens in the local housing projects and it's almost criminal how they mistreat the units.

That's wild. Here in Oregon, every now and then, I hear of where owners want to rent to section 8 tenets, but the state says the property doesn't qualify. My understanding is the state pays for damages, and guarantees rent. maybe I'm wrong. Or, maybe its different on a state by state basis.