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

While I am inclined to agree with your sentiments, a criminal conviction can be a lifetime sentence for homelessness, unemployment, the loss of your right to bear arms and vote, etc.. Furthermore, the expiration of a criminal sentence is no guarantee that a criminal won't return to a life of crime.

Life isn't fair, as any victim of a criminal act can tell you...

 

That's why we have our own opinions. You can treat them like they never did anything wrong. Just don't force others do it.

 

There is an appeal process for anyone who feels he has been unfairly denied housing. If a person can prove to the Housing Commission that he has been through a drug treatment program and has resolved past drinking or drug problems, they could be allowed to rent. The Fair Housing Act protects recovering alcohol and other drug addicts who have been through treatment.

I believe that has been the case for several decades.

 

Nah I think I'll stick with forcing others to do what's right. The harder society makes it for those Who serve their time to integrate back into society the more likely they are to offend again.

 

In America, bigots are prohibited from discriminating against other Americans.

I hope that you can live with that.

 

And landlords told obama where he can shove himself.

 

Strange thing for Obama and the Fair Housing Act to say because the government requires a criminal background check to qualify for section 8 housing. And you can be turned down for a number of reasons, some outright, others on a case by case basis. They and all landlords use the same justice system records which the fair housing act says is somehow unfair. In short, what a load of ripe stink.

 

Not to mention, one bad neighbor can run off all the good neighbors. After that, you're stuck renting to irresponsible people and that neighborhood becomes a dump, and kids' Playskool toys end up all over the front lawn along with trash and dirt patches or ruts where cars park for partying.

 

Back up your claim then, I've never seen a "righty" that doesn't mind guns in the hands of a person they wouldn't rent to.

 

Those people shouldn't be roaming the streets in the first place. But they have to make room for pot smokers, and have no room for the white collar criminals that do more damage than any gang banger.

 

All this is doing is weaponizing the courts against landlords. When a criminal is denied an apartment, he can now legally steal money from that landlord through the legal system.

Those of us with rental property already know how difficult it is with the laws favoring the tenant.

There will be commercials soon "Were you denied housing due to your criminal history? call the law offices of Screwem Goode and Hart!"

 

Ha! You had me going there for a moment, Natty. Before you posted that New Duranty Times article I thought you were against ideologically-biased sources with obvious agendas.

 

Criminals tend to vote Democrat, so the Obama admin is doing what it usually does - reward the groups who vote the right way, while punishing those who do not. It's the progressive way.

 

I expect no less from the "crew " !

 

Steve I have a solution for you already, its something us landlords have been doing for decades now... it will solve your worries, and give you indications of how someone is today versus what person they were eons ago and no longer are... its the same thing your automobile insurance does now, the same thing many employers do now, the same thing every credit card across this nation does before you get one... we run a credit check on you... and depending on your score, you either get the opportunity to put down first/last/security, or we toss your application aside and move on to the next... no worries Steve, we solved this problem decades ago...

P.S. its okay to charge them an application fee as long as you keep good records for the costs you incur in order to run a credit check, but check with local and state laws before doing it, I've read in the trade magazines some states have banned this practice, thankfully I do not live in one of those states... you'll also find, most people won't apply when you state you will run a credit check, it'll actually save you a TON of time, the younger ones however think they can game the system, youngins are silly...

 

Ignorance.

Upon some convictions and even mere suspicions, property managers of Section 8, Public Housing, Voucher and project based Section 8 properties are mandated to deny applicants and evict tenants.

Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions
in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance

Maggie McCarty
Specialist in Housing Policy

Gene Falk
Specialist in Social Policy

Randy Alison Aussenberg
Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy

David H. Carpenter
Legislative Attorney

November 18, 2015

Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42394

Introduction

This report describes and compares the drug- and crime-related policy restrictions contained in selected federal programs that provide assistance to low-income individuals and families: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and the three primary federal housing assistance programs (the public housing program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, and the project-based Section 8 rental assistance program). These programs were
chosen because they serve many of the same families.

Housing assistance benefits are provided to households. As a result, the background of all the members of the household is taken into account when determining household eligibility and screening households for suitability. Generally, if one member of the household is deemed ineligible or unsuitable, the entire household is deemed ineligible or unsuitable, unless the offending member is removed from the household. When it comes to ongoing assistance and termination of tenancy, the behavior of all members of the household is considered. So, if one
member of the household engages in actions that provide grounds for termination of assistance, then the entire household is at risk of having their assistance terminated, at the discretion of the local administrator. Further, in the case of drug-related criminal activity, the household may be evicted based on actions of a guest or other person under the tenant’s control, again, at the discretion of the local administrator.

Love these:

“One Strike and You’re Out” and “No-Fault” Evictions

President Clinton, in his 1996 State of the Union speech, stated “I challenge local housing authorities and tenant associations: Criminal gang members and drug dealers are destroying the lives of decent tenants. From now on, the rule for residents who commit crime and peddle drugs should be one strike and you're out.” Following President Clinton’s address, HUD issued guidance to PHAs regarding how to implement the crime and drug-related sanctions, including eviction based on the actions of other household members and guests, that had been in the law since the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, described earlier in this report. The “One Strike” policy included so-called “no-fault” eviction rules, which permit PHAs to evict assisted households because of the actions of a guest and for events that take place outside the assisted unit. These rules proved controversial and were the subject of legal challenge.

In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld HUD’s no-fault eviction rules. The case in Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker began when the Oakland Housing Authority sought to evict four tenants: two whose resident grandchildren were caught smoking marijuana in a housing project parking lot, one whose daughter was found with cocaine three blocks from the apartment, and a disabled 75-year-old man whose caretaker was found with cocaine in his apartment. The housing authority did not claim that the elder tenants knew about, facilitated, or condoned the drug activity. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal law was not ambiguous and that it permitted eviction of tenants for the actions of third parties regardless of their knowledge of drug or criminal activity.108

"Medical Marijuana"

With respect to medical and recreational marijuana, HUD has concluded that public housing agencies or owners “are required by [law] to deny admission” to applicants who are using medical marijuana, but “have the discretion to evict or not evict current tenants for their use of marijuana.”123

.....................

You just can't make this stuff up.

Cheers
Labour

 

If they paid their debt to society they should not be refused service, a gun, or the right to vote. Otherwise how can you expect them to pay taxes?????

 

Criminal's have supposedly paid their debt to society. Should they then not have some right to privacy in relation to their criminal record ?

 

So it's official US policy under Obama's edict. Officially blacks are criminals!

 

“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. “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://dailycaller.com/2016/04/04/ob...use-criminals/

I just want to know why it should even be considered "racist" or "discriminatory" in the criminal justice system.

OK, blacks are still a minority, but damn, they sure do commit a lot violent crimes throughout this country.

 

Don't you just love hearing that?

"Criminal's have pay their debt to society".

I just wonder if the victims ever fully recover from any of those violent crimes?

 

You'll only make it harder.

 

Then you can rent the other half of your house to the pedophile down on the corner in the box. God bless sympathizers like you. I don't envy you a bit.

 

Good point. The problem is that not all criminals are guilty of violent crimes.

What about for criminals who were convicted for non violent offences. Is their debt to society paid ?

Regardless - right to privacy is a separate question. Right of the landlord to invade that privacy is yet another.

I said good point because I think an argument can be made that a Landlord does have at least some right to know that he may be in danger due to a persons violent past.

Perhaps the landlord has a right to know if a person is habitually late paying their bills although this is not clear. There are at least some good arguments on both sides.

In the case where someone engaged in a criminal activity does not put the Landlords person at risk.. I have trouble making a case for his right to privacy invasion of a prospective tenant.

 

Isn't it ironic that this is coming out right after obama released so many criminals from jail and back into society?