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

slippery slope... what crimes are we supposed to be forced to rent to, and which ones do you deem acceptable to deny?


the issue is, now, whenever I have a guy with a clean record competing with a guy with a rap sheet a mile long, including crimes such as property destruction... if I choose the clean record to rent to, the criminal can now claim rent-ism against me and use the govt to punish me.


How can you prove I background checked all applicants and then chose the clean record over you? This is an uneforceable rule left to the interpretation of the offended to determine if I was rent-ist against them.

 

I would agree *** IF *** they have done their time and paid their debt back to society.... we are a nation of second chances... that said, if they are still doing their time, all bets are off

- - - Updated - - -

pedophiles should be in prison for life, so it should not be a issue, at the very least they should be on probation for life so they never complete their time

.

 

I agree with your premise on the whole.

But here is a good question to consider. What does the no-longer-criminal do if NOBODY gives him/her a chance? Many people that have served their time already have a HUGE obstacle trying to get a job/home/etc. BECAUSE of their previous actions, even though they have paid for their crimes.

 

Why don't you inform me what I'm ranting about which isn't true? Obama & Co said that by not giving rentals to criminals it amounts to racism. Doesn't that concern you?

Here, let me post it again:

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.

 

obvious answer, they become career criminals....

and of course this has zero to do with race, Criminals come in all shapes, sizes and colors

.

 

Good question. But I don't think every potential landlord will follow the law, heck, many people in this thread would rent to them just judging by what they posted. I agree that some crimes should be overlooked and a long stretch of staying clean should work in a former criminal's favor.

At the same time, a rental application is much like a job application and the landlord should be able to choose the person who best fills his needs, i.e. prompt rent payment, clean people, no drugs, etc.

 

your right, it could only be proved if the apartment set idle for months after they came to rent it

 

Sounds like it has to be a pattern.

 

Nice HUD is saying criminal = minority..

Can you imagine the outrage if Trump the blowhard said this?

 

Yes but implying racism is all it takes it seems.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Castro

Now does it make sense

 

If Obama wanted to legislate and write laws, he should have stayed in the Senate.

If obama were competent enough to comprehend the Constitution which he isn't, the Executive branch of government isn't in the legislating business.

This is what happens when stupid and uniformed voters go to the polls and puts a community organizer into the White House.

 

I'll assume that you have nothing to contradict the information that I posted, but that you don't like it.

 

If you deny someone because they have some petty crap that does not involve stealing or violence then you are just being an ass to not rent the property to them. Yeah if some guy has rape on his record, or a woman has counts of assault on hers I am unlikely to rent out my property because I am looking out for my neighbors.

But all in all, unless someone has some serious crap on their record I am more worried about their work and rental history than anything.

 

Law-abiding folks such as myself must tolerate those alienated from America.

I happen to own several rental properties, and am well aware that I am not required to rent to anyone who poses a danger to my community, the tizzy the fussbudgets get themselves in, notwithstanding.

Knowledge vanquishes fear.

 

White collar criminals do more damage than gang bangers, whaaa?

 

What we need to know is what constitutes "at risk". Is there a set guideline? I admit, i have not looked.

 

assuming their probationary period is over, then they have served their time... I see too many people who want to give those on probation all the worlds credits as if getting out of jail or prison was their biggest life accomplishment and they are magically a better person... statistically speaking, before probation is over, they are most likely to end up back in prison... there is a reason this happens, its not because the world is against them, its because THEY are against the world... why make a landlord suffer?

but this is why I say credit checks should be used... its the most fair way to judge a person today, compared to who they were in the past... in a year or two, most people can solve many of the credit problems they face, most however will not, by choice... they will choose not to address the issues of their past and let them fester and boil and continue to negative impact their score, is this the fault of a landlord protecting their property? no... its the fault of the person who failed to readdress their life and means...

but credit scores would be the great equalizer if they were the preferred method pushed by the president, it would give those who finally became good people the credit they deserve, figuratively and literally... however everyone wants to claim they discriminate too, because somehow being responsible is just simply an impossible expectation that is too great a burden to expect from some people... not because they can't do it, but because "white guilt" seems to be flourishing as ideology...

 

how would you know he is sober, you can't ask him that question on his application, its illegal... in fact a LOT of questions people would like to ask are illegal to ask... so how do you know if he's sober now? better to just use a credit check to see if he's responsible enough to maintain a good level of credit through consistent life decisions...

 

society does create its own monsters, like when republicans wanted to start a work program for inmates that transitioned into a minimum wage job on the outside, replacing city union workers with probationary inmates giving them employment the DAY they step out of prison... but democrats and unions balked at the idea of putting criminals before union members who would make 4x as much as the inmates... so either democrats have a better solution or they just don't want to lose their cush incomes... seems to me society has created this issue because the side that claims they care the most, is the least willing to take one for the team at their expense...

sure I wouldn't want to lose my job to an inmate, but isn't serving the city, the ideal reform for these criminals... serving the communities they offended... isn't this the most ideal solution, a constant workforce that can exit a prison system, have employment, learn skills needed in the real world, and then as they find better jobs, move to those jobs but always have this fallback position until their probationary period is up... but hey who am I to judge right, I just want criminals to stop being criminals, however when we make attempt sto use the least expensive methods to reform them, one side hates the idea then refuses to put forth counter proposals... where have we heard that before...

so how about it... lets save city taxpayers money, and allow criminals coming out of jail to work for the city doing the manual labor we currently pay someone 4x more for... is there a problem with criminals serving their city? or are democrats only worried about overpaid union voters keeping them in positions of power, more so than helping those criminals who need society to give them a fair shake coming back into society? its time democrats put the money where their mouth is and back reforms like this...

 

Apart from the partisan remarks I agree. Perhaps where you and I disagree is that I see both parties are being part of the problem. As you pointed out in the above we could be doing a whole lot more, including making housing available to those with criminal records.

 

well housing is a whole separate issue, I think we can clearly identify averages in this scenario... every year and every month we expect "x" number to return back from our states prisoners... so we know we need at least "x" number of beds and jobs... I think it would almost be a no brainer to have public housing dorms, for prisoners who are released, where the buses can come each morning, and pick them up for their city jobs that serve the community... the dorm room style places won't be very nice, in fact it'll almost be like prison cells still, but the psychology behind it, is they can come and go as their probation rules allow... its the "soft transition" while keeping some elements of prison, yet giving them more freedoms to slowly work their way back in... however most end up with family or friends... so we won't need a full "x" capacity...

but I think democrats need to start putting up or shutting up and stop protecting union city workers, and start using those jobs for released inmates who need something to occupy their time from day ONE or else they are immensely likely to go back into the prison system for good... plus many who get out, its shocking to see how many never actually held a job in their entire life, their entire life has been leeching and criminal activity... this is a chance to put them among others who are all working and all housed in a "half-way" style system that still has checks and drug screenings to make sure their idle time is not spent in a negative way... its a win for everyone except union workers... which is why nobody ever supports my insanely liberal yet conservative idea... its literally a great mix of both ideologies...

sadly... neither side does whats "right"... they only do whats advantageous to their parties... which is why I wish the popular vote nationally was used for the presidential race, so we could really start putting third party candidates into the mix and really screw up the power hold these two parties have on the current system...

P.S. someone stuck in the middle can dream right... lol...

 

HUD doesn't want you to be able to refuse to rent to drug dealers so the Justice Department can come in and take your house because you obviously knew they were selling drugs out of it. We've got bills to pay, damn it.

 

You don't have to rent to drug dealers. Any other dopey conspiracies?

- - - Updated - - -

Source? I've seen a million ads for alcohol and drug free tenants wanted.

 

You do if they are black. HUD just said so

Hillary will be the next President.