Landlords Don't Rent To Criminals? Racists

[Kathianne]

Yep, that's where the administration is now going. Longest eight years, ever:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/04/obama-admin-tells-landlords-they-cant-refuse-to-house-criminals/


Obama Admin Tells Landlords They Can’t Refuse To House Criminals


BLAKE NEFF
(http://dailycaller.com/author/bneff/)Reporter (http://dailycaller.com/author/bneff/)

The Obama administration released a warning Monday telling the nation’s landlords that it may be discriminatory for them to refuse to rent to those with criminal records.
The Fair Housing Act doesn’t include criminals as a protected class, but the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) says refusing to rent based on a criminal record is a form of racial discrimination, due to racial imbalances in the U.S. justice system.

“The Fair Housing Act prohibits both intentional housing discrimination and housing practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of race, national origin, or other protected characteristics,” say HUD’s newly-released guidelines (http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_OGCGuidAppFHAStandCR.pdf). “Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics. While the Act does not prohibit housing providers from appropriately considering criminal history information when making housing decisions, arbitrary and overbroad criminal history-related bans are likely to lack a legally sufficient justification.”

http://engine.newsmaxfeednetwork.com/i.gif?e=eyJhdiI6MTIwMTI4LCJhdCI6MTMsImJ0IjowLCJjbS I6Mzg3MjM5LCJjaCI6MTc4NDEsImNrIjp7fSwiY3IiOjEzNzQ4 NTAsImRpIjoiNGQ3OTU0MjgwZTM5NDQ4N2FmYjdhMmEwNDRjMW QyNjAiLCJkbSI6MSwiZmMiOjE1ODY2OTksImZsIjoxMjg2OTQ1 LCJpcCI6IjE2Mi4xNTguNTYuNDAiLCJrdyI6ImFnZTwyMCxhZ2 UyMC00MCxhZ2U0MCxhZ2U2MCxhZ2U-NjAsYm90aCxmZW1hbGUsbWFsZSxhcG9saXRpY2FsLGNvbnNlcn ZhdGl2ZSxkZW1vY3JhdGljLHJlcHVibGljYW4sZmluYW5jZSxw b2xpdGljYWwsaGVhbHRoLGVudGVydGFpbm1lbnQsc3BvcnRzLG RpY3Rpb25hcnksaW5jb21lbG93LGluY29tZW1pZCxpbmNvbWVo aWdoLGluY29tZS1hbGwsaW5jb21lLW1pZGRsZWNsYXNzLGluY2 9tZS1hZmZsdWVudCxyZWxpZ2lvdXMsbm9ucmVsaWdpb3VzLGNo cmlzdGlhbixqZXdpc2gsb3RoZXIsMjUwMDAwMDAsY29uc2Vydm F0aXZlLGdvcCxyZXB1YmxpY2FuLHJlYWdhbix0ZWEgcGFydHks cmlnaHQgd2luZyIsIm53Ijo5NjUwLCJwYyI6MC4zLCJlYyI6MC 4zNSwicHIiOjYxMjc1LCJydCI6MywicmYiOiJodHRwOi8vd3d3 LmZyb250cGFnZW1hZy5jb20vcG9pbnQvMjYyNDAyL29iYW1hLW 5vdC1yZW50aW5nLWNyaW1pbmFscy1yYWNpc3QtZGFuaWVsLWdy ZWVuZmllbGQiLCJzdCI6MzE0OTUyLCJ1ayI6InVlMS1jYzdiM2 IwMTFiNTM0MDgyYmU4OTU3OWZlZTIzYWMwNCIsInpuIjoxMzM3 MzIsInRzIjoxNDU5ODI3OTkwMDg1LCJiZiI6dHJ1ZSwicG4iOi JhemszMzU1MSJ9&s=sgzBrT1rPDNonSMmc0ZbN4WZL_k
About 25 percent of Americans have some kind of criminal record, which can range from felony convictions to arrests that never led to charges. As HUD correctly notes, criminal history is not equally distributed across racial groups. For instance, while blacks are about 12 percent of the U.S. population, they are about 36 percent of the prison population. Hispanics are also overrepresented behind bars, though to a much smaller degree.


...

[Gunny]

I hate to kind of agree with that jacka$$ for once in 8 years, but define "criminal". People released from jail/prison? Their debt to society is allegedly paid. People conducting an ongoing criminal enterprise are a different matter.

On the other hand, I think ANY landlord has the right to rent to who he/she wants.

So the question would be where do the rights of one begin and the other end?

[Kathianne]

I hate to kind of agree with that jacka$$ for once in 8 years, but define "criminal". People released from jail/prison? Their debt to society is allegedly paid. People conducting an ongoing criminal enterprise are a different matter.

On the other hand, I think ANY landlord has the right to rent to who he/she wants.

So the question would be where do the rights of one begin and the other end?

Ah, but that's not the argument being made-'done your time.' Nope, it's as wrong as those that say, 'blacks are inferior/more violent/blah, blah.' What they are saying is that since the 'justice system' is unfair, so is using criminal records, since those records reflect the inherent racism of the justice system.

In both cases ignoring the fact that there are reasons that minorities, that the young, that males are more prone to criminal acts. It's not necessarily caused by race, nor is it necessarily caused by the justice system.

[Gunny]

Ah, but that's not the argument being made-'done your time.' Nope, it's as wrong as those that say, 'blacks are inferior/more violent/blah, blah.' What they are saying is that since the 'justice system' is unfair, so is using criminal records, since those records reflect the inherent racism of the justice system.

In both cases ignoring the fact that there are reasons that minorities, that the young, that males are more prone to criminal acts. It's not necessarily caused by race, nor is it necessarily caused by the justice system.

Sounds dumb to me. You can pay rent or you can't. I don't see where a criminal record has any bearing, and if you're a black criminal? Tough. Try being white and poor. You ain't getting the same apartment as the black guy. This is just another overreach by this administration.

I wish the nightmare would end but the way the GOP is going it looks like we're getting 4-8 more years of it.

[Kathianne]

Actually if one is a 'poor criminal' probably wouldn't apply to often-their landlords likely don't check the backgrounds.

If one has a decent building, decent neighborhood, good tenants? A different story. Many would rather be secure in the knowledge that their neighbor doesn't have a record, especially a violent record. Same with predatory behaviors.

[Gunny]

Actually if one is a 'poor criminal' probably wouldn't apply to often-their landlords likely don't check the backgrounds.

If one has a decent building, decent neighborhood, good tenants? A different story. Many would rather be secure in the knowledge that their neighbor doesn't have a record, especially a violent record. Same with predatory behaviors.

Try renting an apartment in Texas, ma'am. You'd think you were applying for a Top Secret clearance.

I DO understand what you are saying, but where exactly do you draw the line? Treat a former convict like he's still a convict and how do you think he's going to behave? All that touchy-feely crap they teach them in prison is fine but if it doesn't translate to the real world? Once your sentence is done, by law, your debt to society is paid.

This dovetails with TF's stuff in the airplane thread. Ar what point is a line drawn in your 4th Amendment Rights? If you are a sex offender, you have to register as one? I don't recall that one in the Bill of Rights.

And, FYI, I'm not taking a side. But no one ever wants to touch this argument. I think actual sex offenders are lower than whale sh*t. But we'll give Islamic terrorists Constitutional Rights if they step on US soil? Seems rather convoluted to me.

[Kathianne]

Try renting an apartment in Texas, ma'am. You'd think you were applying for a Top Secret clearance.

I DO understand what you are saying, but where exactly do you draw the line? Treat a former convict like he's still a convict and how do you think he's going to behave? All that touchy-feely crap they teach them in prison is fine but if it doesn't translate to the real world? Once your sentence is done, by law, your debt to society is paid.

This dovetails with TF's stuff in the airplane thread. Ar what point is a line drawn in your 4th Amendment Rights? If you are a sex offender, you have to register as one? I don't recall that one in the Bill of Rights.

And, FYI, I'm not taking a side. But no one ever wants to touch this argument. I think actual sex offenders are lower than whale sh*t. But we'll give Islamic terrorists Constitutional Rights if they step on US soil? Seems rather convoluted to me.

I just know that I wouldn't like living in a building with an ex-con. There, I'm very non-PC when it comes to that. I also think the landlord should have the right to rent to those who can pass the background check and refuse those that don't.

Past criminal behavior is indicative of future performance. ;) I do think that commonsense must kick in, such as 'after 5 years' or something along those lines.

[Gunny]

I just know that I wouldn't like living in a building with an ex-con. There, I'm very non-PC when it comes to that. I also think the landlord should have the right to rent to those who can pass the background check and refuse those that don't.

Past criminal behavior is indicative of future performance. ;) I do think that commonsense must kick in, such as 'after 5 years' or something along those lines.

Okay. But how do these people rehabilitate and merge back into society without a fair shake? Basically, if you do time, you no longer have Constitutional Rights. People won't hire you. No one wants to live around them. Yet we wonder why they return to their old lifestyles. It's like using the scarlet letter.

I just always wonder how many people we throw in the trash thinking like we do.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yep, that's where the administration is now going. Longest eight years, ever:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/04/obama-admin-tells-landlords-they-cant-refuse-to-house-criminals/

Same thing in essence --- tyrannical =



http://www.bostonteapartyship.com/the-quartering-act

The Quartering Act (May 15, 1765)
The colonists disputed the legality of this Act because it seemed to violate the Bill of Rights of 1689.

British officers who had fought in the French and Indian War found it hard to persuade colonial assemblies to pay for quartering and provisioning of their troops. Lieutenant General Thomas Gage, Commander in Chief of British North American Forces, asked Parliament to do something about it. Many colonies had supplied the troops with provisions during wartime, but this issue was now being debated during peacetime. The Province of New York assembly passed an act to provide for the quartering of British regulars, which expired on January 1, 1764.

Colonists Disputed the Act
The Quartering Act of 1765 went way beyond what Thomas Gage had requested. Of course, the colonists disputed the legality of this Act because it seemed to violate the Bill of Rights of 1689, which forbid taxation without representation and the raising or keeping a standing army without the consent of Parliament. The colonists wondered why the British troops remained in North America after the French had been defeated. The Quartering Act stated that Great Britain would house its soldiers in American barracks and public houses. And if the soldiers outnumbered colonial housing, they would be quartered in inns, alehouses, barns, other buildings, etc. 1,500 British troops arrived in New York City in 1766 and the New York Provincial Assembly refused to comply with the Quartering Act and refused to supply billeting for the troops; the British troops were forced to remain on their ships. For failure to comply with the Quartering Act, Parliament suspended the Province of New York’s Governor and legislature in 1767 and 1769. In 1771, the New York Assembly allocated funds for the quartering of the British troops. All other colonies, with the exception of Pennsylvania, refused to comply with the Quartering Act; this act expired on March 24, 1767.

“All other colonies, with the exception of Pennsylvania, refused to comply with the Quartering Act; this act expired on March 24, 1767. ”

There was a reason why it expired-- the colonists said hell no and stood against it.
Will anybody say hell no to our dictator that now issues clearly unconstitutional decrees as if they are law???--Tyr

[tailfins]

Okay. But how do these people rehabilitate and merge back into society without a fair shake? Basically, if you do time, you no longer have Constitutional Rights. People won't hire you. No one wants to live around them. Yet we wonder why they return to their old lifestyles. It's like using the scarlet letter.

I just always wonder how many people we throw in the trash thinking like we do.

There's a whole segment of society that people try to throw in the trash who have committed no crime. I regularly see people who have Masters degrees and Ph. D.s doing jobs like emptying trash cans or rounding up shopping carts, many give up and live off Social Security disability. They go through life broke, alone, with their parents until those die, then live in a sleeping room. Then there's those like me who won't tolerate being discriminated against.

And if anyone wonders why I don't trust "liberated" women, it's because they are the most likely to discriminate against those with Autism.

[Kathianne]

Okay. But how do these people rehabilitate and merge back into society without a fair shake? Basically, if you do time, you no longer have Constitutional Rights. People won't hire you. No one wants to live around them. Yet we wonder why they return to their old lifestyles. It's like using the scarlet letter.

I just always wonder how many people we throw in the trash thinking like we do.

I actually do agree with you to an extent about how to reintegrate, for those that actually want to. The numbers though are not on the side of reform, never have been. I wouldn't have a problem with working with non-violent offenders. I can even see some merit in communities reaching out to facilitating job hiring and encouraging events that create opportunities for non-criminals to meet ex-cons that want to integrate. Perhaps there could be voluntary 'mentoring' programs where an employer or 'friend' without record could 'vouch for' an ex-con, acting as a mentor?

I must say though, I'd much rather help with such support for the vets that have not successfully rejoined their communities or found employers that will back them. I feel they have already proven their desire to be good citizens and it's a shame that so many continue to fall through the cracks.

[jimnyc]

It should be like any other business. Perhaps have stricter rules if the government is involved with some sort of $$. But if it's someone's personal property - they should have the sole say in who they rent to and why or why not. They should be able to deny renting if they simply don't like the way the person looks. It's THEIR property and they simply don't want to enter into a contract with someone, and I think it's lame if they are somehow forced to do so.

[Kathianne]

It should be like any other business. Perhaps have stricter rules if the government is involved with some sort of $$. But if it's someone's personal property - they should have the sole say in who they rent to and why or why not. They should be able to deny renting if they simply don't like the way the person looks. It's THEIR property and they simply don't want to enter into a contract with someone, and I think it's lame if they are somehow forced to do so.

I agree, within the law. When you decide to 'rent' you set the parameters within the laws. How high will be the rent? What conditions must the property be kept at. What is the person renting responsible for-beyond rent. Utilities for their unit? Restoring the rental to 'occupation conditions upon leaving?' Passing the background check. How many people may occupy the premises.

Deciding to rent property creates both opportunities and responsibilities. You can't discriminate regarding the renters, if they meet all the conditions set up, they are qualified.

The problem I see with the proposed Obama 'justice discriminates' is that they are trying to end run against the background checks-which is a bit further than a credit check-that has always been legal.

[jimnyc]

I agree, within the law. When you decide to 'rent' you set the parameters within the laws. How high will be the rent? What conditions must the property be kept at. What is the person renting responsible for-beyond rent. Utilities for their unit? Restoring the rental to 'occupation conditions upon leaving?' Passing the background check. How many people may occupy the premises.

Deciding to rent property creates both opportunities and responsibilities. You can't discriminate regarding the renters, if they meet all the conditions set up, they are qualified.

The problem I see with the proposed Obama 'justice discriminates' is that they are trying to end run against the background checks-which is a bit further than a credit check-that has always been legal.

I agree with all of that.

And yes, the local jurisdictions and state law will dictate what a landlord can get away with within a contract. There are many places where being a convict of some sort has no protections, nor do I believe there should be any. I don't think there should be any for any group at all, for that fact. But should there be a law, then the landlord should either abide, or take it off the market, or move to an area where they can dictate things better and buy up some property there. But you can in fact discriminate if there are no laws on the books protecting such. There are tons of discriminatory reasons, which are fully legal, in which an owner can deny to rent to someone. Smokers being another example, convicts, bad credit...

[Abbey Marie]

There's a reason Bernie has come along right now.The concept of private property in this country is slowly being eroded into nothing.

Stories like this, the marriage clerk, the bakers, etc., make me very sure I would never want to own a business dealing with the public.

[sundaydriver]

For starters, we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country in the world. Aside from lifers we're gonna see most of them back in society, some only for a short visit. I think any Landlord that is hands on can sort out the shady ex-cons as well as anyone else thru a credit check & talking to them. I've had rentals in the past and there were people that I found too dodgy that were never in a cell. Up too the Landlord I think, but a past conviction wouldn't disqualify someone depending on the crime.

As for being difficult for the ex-con, let me tell you what goes on in my small neighborhood. The elderly couple next door have a mother in law apartment which they have rented to a couple in their early 50's for the past 18 months or so. The husband was released from prison ~2 years ago after serving 16 years for killing a friend of his in a bar fight. The wife is a laundry list of medical issues and has been hospitalized many times since moving in and has probably spent 6 or 7 months total in that period. The Landlords
find them to excellent tenants and have to qualms.

One woman in the neighborhood decide that he shouldn't be living here even though she has only had limited contact with them as have most of us have and and wants him out. She has gone to all the neighbors and the local police departments to complain about him. Her complaints are that he broke into her house, nothing was stolen, but her cat escaped, he sells drugs, when he walks his small dog down the road at night it's to search mailboxes for any meds that might have been delivered, and he sneaks around looking in her windows. I don't know how he has time to do all of this with all the time he spends at the hospital 60 miles away or taking care of his wife at home. Just stigmatized by his past.

[Elessar]

Reading the OP makes me shake my head. Although not regulation at all, just singling out
Blacks (I refuse the term African-American) had already established a racist intent on the
part of the author.

Background checks being used in this context is a smokescreen; an excuse to make simple
procedure seem complex. If a felon has a record of arson, drug manufacturing, child sexual abuse,
why should not a landlord refuse rental to protect his property or other tenants? Race does not
matter; however this piece wants to make race as the issue. That it totally inaccurate and reflects
the mindset of this present administration.

When I rented, I had to provide the property owner / landlord a list of references. My record is
clean so I fail to see what the problem is here. If a felon has been cleared, it is the property
owners right to ensure that is so.

[Elessar]

Ah, but that's not the argument being made-'done your time.' Nope, it's as wrong as those that say, 'blacks are inferior/more violent/blah, blah.' What they are saying is that since the 'justice system' is unfair, so is using criminal records, since those records reflect the inherent racism of the justice system.

In both cases ignoring the fact that there are reasons that minorities, that the young, that males are more prone to criminal acts. It's not necessarily caused by race, nor is it necessarily caused by the justice system.

You are completely accurate.

However, the justice system is not at fault much. The fault lays in the laps of those that commit the crimes
and their lack of remorse doing so.

[Gunny]

There's a whole segment of society that people try to throw in the trash who have committed no crime. I regularly see people who have Masters degrees and Ph. D.s doing jobs like emptying trash cans or rounding up shopping carts, many give up and live off Social Security disability. They go through life broke, alone, with their parents until those die, then live in a sleeping room. Then there's those like me who won't tolerate being discriminated against.

And if anyone wonders why I don't trust "liberated" women, it's because they are the most likely to discriminate against those with Autism.

Huh? I get the first paragraph. The second makes no sense to me.

[Gunny]

It should be like any other business. Perhaps have stricter rules if the government is involved with some sort of $$. But if it's someone's personal property - they should have the sole say in who they rent to and why or why not. They should be able to deny renting if they simply don't like the way the person looks. It's THEIR property and they simply don't want to enter into a contract with someone, and I think it's lame if they are somehow forced to do so.

I don't disagree with that. I was waxing philosophical about the former convicts more than heading into the stratosphere. You bring up a valid point and the same old question: where do your rights end and mine begin or vice-versa?

[Gunny]

For starters, we incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country in the world. Aside from lifers we're gonna see most of them back in society, some only for a short visit. I think any Landlord that is hands on can sort out the shady ex-cons as well as anyone else thru a credit check & talking to them. I've had rentals in the past and there were people that I found too dodgy that were never in a cell. Up too the Landlord I think, but a past conviction wouldn't disqualify someone depending on the crime.

As for being difficult for the ex-con, let me tell you what goes on in my small neighborhood. The elderly couple next door have a mother in law apartment which they have rented to a couple in their early 50's for the past 18 months or so. The husband was released from prison ~2 years ago after serving 16 years for killing a friend of his in a bar fight. The wife is a laundry list of medical issues and has been hospitalized many times since moving in and has probably spent 6 or 7 months total in that period. The Landlords
find them to excellent tenants and have to qualms.

One woman in the neighborhood decide that he shouldn't be living here even though she has only had limited contact with them as have most of us have and and wants him out. She has gone to all the neighbors and the local police departments to complain about him. Her complaints are that he broke into her house, nothing was stolen, but her cat escaped, he sells drugs, when he walks his small dog down the road at night it's to search mailboxes for any meds that might have been delivered, and he sneaks around looking in her windows. I don't know how he has time to do all of this with all the time he spends at the hospital 60 miles away or taking care of his wife at home. Just stigmatized by his past.

I take issue with that kind of crap. The biddies that have their noses in everyone else's business get on my last nerve.

[Elessar]

It should be like any other business. Perhaps have stricter rules if the government is involved with some sort of $$. But if it's someone's personal property - they should have the sole say in who they rent to and why or why not. They should be able to deny renting if they simply don't like the way the person looks. It's THEIR property and they simply don't want to enter into a contract with someone, and I think it's lame if they are somehow forced to do so.

That is right.

It is their LIABILITY at stake, and the Feds have no business butting
in to that.

This present administration reeks of an attempt at totalitarian governing.

[Gunny]

That is right.

It is their LIABILITY at stake, and the Feds have no business butting
in to that.

This present administration reeks of an attempt at totalitarian governing.

Reeks? It's dipped, painted and sealed in it.:laugh:

[Elessar]

Reeks? It's dipped, painted and sealed in it.:laugh:

You are right, and anyone thinking otherwise is blind, deluded - or both!:laugh:

[Gunny]

You are right, and anyone thinking otherwise is blind, deluded - or both!:laugh:

I don't think it's the Federal government's business anymore than minimum wage. You can thank old "Uncle Abe" for that. Ever since he wiped his butt with the Bill of Rights, our personal freedoms have been intruded on by the government and eroded down to very little.

They can't even do the job they're supposed to (like secure our border) but they've got time to stick their noses where it doesn't belong.