New Guidance Warns Landlords They Could Face Discrimination Charges For Turning Down Tenants With Cr

[Wilbur Right]

obama has now created a new industry...criminals out of jail can just target private property owners for legal action and wait for the settlement checks to come in......

But really. A new industry by Obama. Lawyers are in on the fix. Pretty soon the government will own all the houses.
Republicans will be forced to share some bedrooms with Dennis Hasert. OMG. IF all the republicans aren't in the relocation camps.

OMG it's gonna be terrible I tell you. I will have to evict all my good tenants to replace them with republican child molesters.
OMG.

LMAO.

You fuckers are ridiculous.

 

[Wilbur Right]

My point is clear..............if it's your property you should have the right to deny them..............if they are unsavory types who you shouldn't rent to.............

My point is clearer. If you as a landlord are too stupid to select your tenants without making someone think you are discriminating against them........then you must be a stupid republican landlord.

It ain't ******* rocket science dude.
How long you been a landlord? If ever.

 

[2aguy]

obama has now created a new industry...criminals out of jail can just target private property owners for legal action and wait for the settlement checks to come in......

But really. A new industry by Obama. Lawyers are in on the fix. Pretty soon the government will own all the houses.
Republicans will be forced to share some bedrooms with Dennis Hasert. OMG. IF all the republicans aren't in the relocation camps.

OMG it's gonna be terrible I tell you. I will have to evict all my good tenants to replace them with republican child molesters.
OMG.

LMAO.

You fuckers are ridiculous.

Your left wing buddies on my other thread about democrats molesting children now say you can't use dennis hastert.....you might want to check in on your talking points.....

 

[2aguy]

My point is clear..............if it's your property you should have the right to deny them..............if they are unsavory types who you shouldn't rent to.............

My point is clearer. If you as a landlord are too stupid to select your tenants without making someone think you are discriminating against them........then you must be a stupid republican landlord.

It ain't ******* rocket science dude.
How long you been a landlord? If ever.

No, your point is now irrelevant....obama has now stated that criminals can just sue...and the government will back them up....all they need is a criminal record and someone else to get the apartment they wanted to rent....that is enough of a case now for the government to get involved....

your left wing regressivism has made you weak....

 

[eagle1462010]

My point is clear..............if it's your property you should have the right to deny them..............if they are unsavory types who you shouldn't rent to.............

My point is clearer. If you as a landlord are too stupid to select your tenants without making someone think you are discriminating against them........then you must be a stupid republican landlord.

It ain't ******* rocket science dude.
How long you been a landlord? If ever.

I'm responding to the OP...........and NEW RULES that they are trying to push..............

Read it.......or .

They are pushing New DISCRIMINATION policies with HUD...........because this nation has so many criminals coming out of prison. So they will CHANGE the ******* HUD standards to make Land Lords MORE LIABLE if they REFUSE TO RENT to EX-CONS............

Mr. DUMB ASS.............

That is my point.............and I don't like it one bit.............because they are always trying to push NEW RULES and NEW REGULATIONS down the American people.............so they can bust Renters asses by allowing DISCRIMINATION SUITS against them. In other words trying to FORCE Renters to rent to unsavory or even dangerous people.

You are splitting hairs saying we are STUPID, because you say we shouldn't disclose information on why they were denied to Rent a property from the Renter...............

That doesn't mean someone is gonna give them a danged written document saying you have been denied because you are listed as a Sex Offender..............

How about you have been denied because you have NO EMPLOYMENT RECORD or NO RENTAL HISTORY....................but in reality you found out they were a PERVERT from the criminal background check.

Yeah..........I'm gonna say to them..........YOU ARE A PERVERT.........GET THE **** ON...........ON THE PAPERWORK.

Get real Mr. Evan Almighty.

 

[Wilbur Right]

obama has now stated that criminals can just sue...and the government will back them up....all they need is a criminal record and someone else to get the apartment they wanted to rent....that is enough of a case now for the government to get involved....

You are to ******* stupid to try and communicate with.

My state landlord tenant laws have not changed. To say they have proves how stupid you are.

But ODS will do that to you. I see it a lot on here. People who may have some sense go ******* bat shit crazy when their ODS kicks in. Seek mental health counselling. You need it.

 

[eagle1462010]

New HUD guidance on criminal records puts landlords in a bind

Therefore, if landlords refuse to rent to people who have been arrested or convicted, and this policy unintentionally ends up discriminating against a protected class of people, the policy is unlawful “if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect,” HUD said.

What’s not clear is how landlords should treat potential renters with criminal convictions. The guidance does not prohibit them from asking about conviction records but says that “arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans” will probably run afoul of HUD’s interpretation of the act.

It describes a three-step process for how disparate-impact cases would proceed under the act. First, the plaintiff must prove that a housing provider’s criminal history policy has a discriminatory effect on a group of people because of race or national origin.

Under step two, the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove that its policy “is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider.” A policy of rejecting all applicants with convictions “will be unable to meet this burden,” it says.

A housing provider with a more tailored policy that excludes individuals with certain types of convictions “must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.” HUD gives no examples as to what types of criminal conduct, such as murder or grand theft, could be excluded under this policy.

However, the act does not prohibit discrimination (intentional or not) against a person who has been convicted of making or distributing illegal drugs defined in the Controlled Substances Act.

 

[2aguy]

obama has now stated that criminals can just sue...and the government will back them up....all they need is a criminal record and someone else to get the apartment they wanted to rent....that is enough of a case now for the government to get involved....

You are to ******* stupid to try and communicate with.

My state landlord tenant laws have not changed. To say they have proves how stupid you are.

But ODS will do that to you. I see it a lot on here. People who may have some sense go ******* bat shit crazy when their ODS kicks in. Seek mental health counselling. You need it.

obama is just now pushing this...moron........

 

[2aguy]

New HUD guidance on criminal records puts landlords in a bind

Therefore, if landlords refuse to rent to people who have been arrested or convicted, and this policy unintentionally ends up discriminating against a protected class of people, the policy is unlawful “if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect,” HUD said.

What’s not clear is how landlords should treat potential renters with criminal convictions. The guidance does not prohibit them from asking about conviction records but says that “arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans” will probably run afoul of HUD’s interpretation of the act.

It describes a three-step process for how disparate-impact cases would proceed under the act. First, the plaintiff must prove that a housing provider’s criminal history policy has a discriminatory effect on a group of people because of race or national origin.

Under step two, the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove that its policy “is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider.” A policy of rejecting all applicants with convictions “will be unable to meet this burden,” it says.

A housing provider with a more tailored policy that excludes individuals with certain types of convictions “must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.” HUD gives no examples as to what types of criminal conduct, such as murder or grand theft, could be excluded under this policy.

However, the act does not prohibit discrimination (intentional or not) against a person who has been convicted of making or distributing illegal drugs defined in the Controlled Substances Act.

Thanks.....wilbur will still not understand......

Each step....is money down the drain as soon as the convicted felon files the law suit.........the property owner will have to lawyer up......and some left wing regressive activist group, with the aid of HUD will handle his case for free.........

wilbur is too stupid to understand what this now does to property owners......

 

[Wilbur Right]

What are the legal reasons that a landlord can reject a prospective tenant?

A landlord must base the selection of tenants on pre-established and objective criteria. A landlord may reject prospective tenants based on a fair screening process that requires all tenants to undergo the same application process. A landlord may consider the following when screening a tenant:

• Credit history
• Income
• History of nonpayment of rent
• Prior bankruptcies
• References
• Some types of criminal convictions
• Pets

- See more at: Housing Discrimination: FAQs - FindLaw



Like I said, you might be a stupid republican landlord if you can't figure out who you want to rent to without having a discrimination complaint filed against you.

 

[2aguy]

What are the legal reasons that a landlord can reject a prospective tenant?

A landlord must base the selection of tenants on pre-established and objective criteria. A landlord may reject prospective tenants based on a fair screening process that requires all tenants to undergo the same application process. A landlord may consider the following when screening a tenant:

• Credit history
• Income
• History of nonpayment of rent
• Prior bankruptcies
• References
• Some types of criminal convictions
• Pets

- See more at: Housing Discrimination: FAQs - FindLaw



Like I said, you might be a stupid republican landlord if you can't figure out who you want to rent to without having a discrimination complaint filed against you.

Wow....you just don't get it......this is all irrelevant.....all the guy has to be is a criminal who doesn't get the apartment or the house.......then he can sue.....and the property owner is now on the hook against the Federal government.........

 

[eagle1462010]

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf

Disparate Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision also upholds the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s disparate impact rule which establishes a burden-shifting framework for addressing disparate impact claims. HUD issued its rule in February, 2013, to establish a standard by which disparate impact cases would be adjudicated.

The Court found that the Fair Housing Act’s “results-oriented” language - “otherwise make unavailable”, under §804(a) and “discriminate against any person in” making certain real-estate transactions “because of race” or other protected characteristic, under §805(a) - address the “consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent.” The language of the Act together with legal precedents decided by the Supreme Court related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 made it clear to the Court that there is “strong support for the conclusion that the FHA encompasses disparate-impact claims.” The Court, in its wisdom, recognized that discrimination is not always overt and that disparate impact is an important tool to permit “plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

The Court recognized that disparate impact is not a new standard but a long-established protection that millions have come to rely upon in order to access housing opportunities. Indeed, the Court was loathe to go against the “longstanding judicial interpretation of the FHA to encompass disparate-impact claims and congressional reaffirmation of that result” commenting that the disparate impact protection has been in place for over 4 decades with no “dire consequences.” The Fair Housing Act was passed not just to address individual acts of discrimination but to also eradicate systemic practices that create and perpetuate residential segregation and racial isolation in America. Realizing the full purpose of the Fair Housing Act is not possible without disparate impact. Without disparate impact, our country is indeed doomed to the gripping conclusion reached by the Kerner Commission. The Court’s opinion not only lauds the Fair Housing Act’s lofty purpose but highlights the need for the continuation of the disparate impact standard since the Fair Housing Act’s purpose has not been fully achieved. In the Court’s words, “[m]uch progress remains to be made in our Nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation.”

 

[2aguy]

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf

Disparate Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision also upholds the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s disparate impact rule which establishes a burden-shifting framework for addressing disparate impact claims. HUD issued its rule in February, 2013, to establish a standard by which disparate impact cases would be adjudicated.

The Court found that the Fair Housing Act’s “results-oriented” language - “otherwise make unavailable”, under §804(a) and “discriminate against any person in” making certain real-estate transactions “because of race” or other protected characteristic, under §805(a) - address the “consequences of an action rather than the actor’s intent.” The language of the Act together with legal precedents decided by the Supreme Court related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 made it clear to the Court that there is “strong support for the conclusion that the FHA encompasses disparate-impact claims.” The Court, in its wisdom, recognized that discrimination is not always overt and that disparate impact is an important tool to permit “plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

The Court recognized that disparate impact is not a new standard but a long-established protection that millions have come to rely upon in order to access housing opportunities. Indeed, the Court was loathe to go against the “longstanding judicial interpretation of the FHA to encompass disparate-impact claims and congressional reaffirmation of that result” commenting that the disparate impact protection has been in place for over 4 decades with no “dire consequences.” The Fair Housing Act was passed not just to address individual acts of discrimination but to also eradicate systemic practices that create and perpetuate residential segregation and racial isolation in America. Realizing the full purpose of the Fair Housing Act is not possible without disparate impact. Without disparate impact, our country is indeed doomed to the gripping conclusion reached by the Kerner Commission. The Court’s opinion not only lauds the Fair Housing Act’s lofty purpose but highlights the need for the continuation of the disparate impact standard since the Fair Housing Act’s purpose has not been fully achieved. In the Court’s words, “[m]uch progress remains to be made in our Nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation.”

Wow.....now you are trying to explain it with more truth, facts and reality...wilbur will just not understand........is there a way you could "lie" or use emotion to get your points across.....he can only deal with lies and emotions so that might help him get it.....

 

[eagle1462010]

Coming to a theater near you wilbur............new CFR's that will force you to rent to criminals and it will no longer be SOME criminal activity you can deny....................BUT you will RENT TO THEM..............because the GOV'T WILL ORDER YOU TO RENT TO THEM.

You just can't see the forest for the trees..............

BOHICA.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is part of the Democrat plan to attack property rights. Specifically, property ownership and redistribute the owner's property. It does not provide immunity to landlords forced to rent to criminals. Rent to a sex offender, burglar, home invader, who reoffends with the neighbors. The victims can sue you for knowingly placing them in danger. That you were obeying the law is no defense.

 

[2aguy]

This is part of the Democrat plan to attack property rights. Specifically, property ownership and redistribute the owner's property. It does not provide immunity to landlords forced to rent to criminals. Rent to a sex offender, burglar, home invader, who reoffends with the neighbors. The victims can sue you for knowingly placing them in danger. That you were obeying the law is no defense.

They have to destroy the rental market to make housing impossible to get.....then they can step in.....typical left wing regressive tactic.....

 

[Wilbur Right]

They have to destroy the rental market to make housing impossible to get.....then they can step in.....typical left wing regressive tactic.....

LMAO.

Stupidity without bounds is you.

How long have you been a landlord?

 

[eagle1462010]

They have to destroy the rental market to make housing impossible to get.....then they can step in.....typical left wing regressive tactic.....

LMAO.

Stupidity without bounds is you.

How long have you been a landlord?

Such a diverse comment.................

Riddle me this...............New CFR's come out........which is how it usually works.........and under the fair Housing Act you cannot refuse those with criminal back grounds for rent.................and you must by law rent it out....................You find out the new applicant just got out of jail for being a child rapist...........will you rent to him...............and then what will you do when you are sued by other tenants after their 8 year old daughter gets raped by this scumbag.........

Are you gonna rent to him?

 

[Wilbur Right]

find out the new applicant just got out of jail for being a child rapist...........will you rent to him...............and then what will you do when you are sued by other tenants after their 8 year old daughter gets raped by this scumbag.........

Are you gonna rent to him?

Nope. But it will be because he/she doesn't meet job stability and have a satisfactory prior landlord reference. I won't even know they were in prison
No where on my application do I ask if a perspective tenant is a felon.

Job stability and prior landlord reference are what I looking at.

You who are freaking out act like a landlord has no say in who the landlord rents to.

Which pretty much proves you don't know what the **** you are talking about. LMAO.

 

[Wilbur Right]

If you deny a black felon a place to rent and then rent to a white felon with the same circumstances as the person you denied, you discriminated and will have a problem.

That is what the law says.