Thread: Is This Housing Discrimination?

Originally Posted by Beast Mode

You're kind of being sarcastically sarcastic. That's the type of disposition that can make race relations worse because people will misunderstand your point.

I don't think many would misunderstand because the race card shield gets used way too often to go undetected.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

How does it being real or not effect the outcome of deciding if it is racism?

If it really happened and all that stuff is accurate then there's certainly some sort of discrimination at play, and a member of a suspect class deserves protection under the law. If it didn't really happen, then you're just creating a victim out of thin air to make some sort of point that is unnecessary. Or if you're trying to illustrate to someone their hidden bias, it's gonna take more than a poll to show them.

You have to deal with the root cause which is denial. Shaming someone and rubbing their nose in it with make believe scenarios is just going to reinforce their denial. Every single person has personal biases over one thing or another so it's kind of hypocritical to shame someone over theirs, IMO. Besides, the racism we encounter everyday is subtle. That's the real racism that people need to understand and be taught.

But to answer the original question, yes the landlord should get sued for discrimination at the very least.

Actually, now that I think about it maybe not. You might only be able to get back the deposit at most, since the dooshy landlord ultimately did let the woman live there.... unless he damaged some of her personal property. Could probably sue him for harassment though.

Originally Posted by Beast Mode

Actually, now that I think about it maybe not. You might only be able to get back the deposit at most, since the dooshy landlord ultimately did let the woman live there.... unless he damaged some of her personal property. Could probably sue him for harassment though.

Actually I was told by a discrimination investigator it was pretty strong evidence of discrimination because the owner would need to explain how each interaction represented a legitimate purpose and did not infringe on her rights as a tenant. There is also a statute called "Quiet Enjoyment" where tenants are protected from abusive/controlling landlords whether or not they are in a dispute.

Originally Posted by Beast Mode

If it really happened and all that stuff is accurate then there's certainly some sort of discrimination at play, and a member of a suspect class deserves protection under the law. If it didn't really happen, then you're just creating a victim out of thin air to make some sort of point that is unnecessary. Or if you're trying to illustrate to someone their hidden bias, it's gonna take more than a poll to show them.

You have to deal with the root cause which is denial. Shaming someone and rubbing their nose in it with make believe scenarios is just going to reinforce their denial. Every single person has personal biases over one thing or another so it's kind of hypocritical to shame someone over theirs, IMO. Besides, the racism we encounter everyday is subtle. That's the real racism that people need to understand and be taught.

But to answer the original question, yes the landlord should get sued for discrimination at the very least.

I thought it was a good case proving discrimination and created the thread to see if people could argue it isnt discrimination and explore the veracity and implications.

I cannot imagine a more racist piece of crap landlord staying in business long enough to turn a profit. What a low-life! I hope his attorney asks for a full retainer up-front. There might not be anything left from which he could extract payment when the jury gets through with that cockroach.

Originally Posted by SkyStryker

Property owner hires a broker for two rental properties consisting of ten apartments. In the previous 9 years the property owner did it all by himself and during that time not a single African American was rented an apartment nor anyone with kids or pregnant women. Property owner says to the broker:

"Watch out for blacks....err....I mean some of them are okay but not enough."

Broker ignores the directive and rents based solely on who shows up first with qualifications and correct amount of money. At one point two different apartments were rented at the same time to two different females of the same age. One is white and the other is black. Immediately after but before they moved it, the property owner saw one was black and the other was white. (he physically saw them). The black woman was a pharmacist who had been employed by the same company for seven years while the white tenant was a secretary assistant employed for only 6 months. The black woman's salary was $75,000/year and the white girl made $24,000/year. However, he told the broker to ask the black woman for:

Paybstubs
Proof of being a licensed pharmacist
Criminal Background Check
Bank Statements for the previous five years
Three references in addition to the normal two
Tax Returns
She also had to pay full security
Said he would raise her rent after 6 months

For the white tenant:

asked for no paperwork at all
never asked about a single reference
charged half of the security deposit instead of the full security he charged the black woman.

Shortly after the black woman moved in he accused her of:

getting heating oil by fraud
selling drugs (she had some visitors who were black)
running a prostitution ring (because an unknown white van was suddenly being parked in front of the house. one of the neighbors bought it after she moved it)
trying to move out without notice
being behind on rent when she gave notice to move out (months later) but refused to show how.
illegally having a satellite dish put on the roof without his permission. (he said if it was hers she would be evicted. when he found out it was done by a different tenant who is white there was no problem and he wasn't upset with him.)

Fast forward a bit and a new white tenant female moved in. He was very polite for the first five weeks until he saw she had a black boyfriend and black friends. Afterwards, a neighbor complained she was too loud one night. He threatened to kick her out and I said that was completely unreasonable and he then said it was because she had some "shady looking people" around. Four times I patiently asked what made them look shady. He couldn't give a single reason. Afterwards, the tenant was driving one of the neighbor's car and he saw this and called the tenant if she owned that car. She didn't respond because it wasn't his business. Then these events happened:

Told her to not use a tower fan heater she bought with her own money and cited "safety" but just two weeks prior he gave a different tenant in the same house a tower fan heater. The only visible difference was the color of the heaters.

An old pump for her toilet broke and needed to be replaced. Afterwards he told her how much it cost him and implied she would not get her security deposit back even though she did nothing to cause it to break.

Three different times after it was installed he demanded to go in to her apartment to "check it out" even though he was there when it was installed completely and tested. The times he requested were when he knew she would be at work.

She works early in the morning and at least four different nights he was doing work on the house right next to her apartment banging loudly between the hours of 10 pm and 1am. None of it was an emergency.

A different day he knocked on her door and told her she could not burn a small candle she purchased and was limited to using incense only.

A different tenant who had been there for over a year, always paid rent ahead of time and never received a single complaint from other tenants informed us he would be moving out. At the end of the 30 days the property owner called him and made bizarre accusations and threatened to take him to court. I don't have to say the tenant was African American do I?

There is more but I'm wondering if that is sufficient to prove discrimination?

Seems provable. You'd need a legal advisor to be sure.

Morally speaking, however, I dont see why someone, no matter how much of a prick, cant discriminate as they see fit with their private property.

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

Morally speaking, however, I dont see why someone, no matter how much of a prick, cant discriminate as they see fit with their private property.

To not regulate such ass hattery would be to allow those with the money to buy up available housing to exclude minority races from entire areas and, eventually, ecconomic opportunities. Just another hedge against oligarchy.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

To not regulate such ass hattery would be to allow those with the money to buy up available housing to exclude minority races from entire areas and, eventually, ecconomic opportunities.

Indeed. Doesnt change the fact it is entirely legitimate.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Just another hedge against oligarchy.

Not really. The only reason to impose limits would be if the situation were so bad that people being discriminated had no avenue of finding some other means of achieving their interests, but that isnt the case currently. Imposing values, of any kind, without realistic necessity is a form of oligarchy, which would aptly describe the situation here if this landlord couldn't discriminate as he chose.

Sure, he's obviously discriminating her because of her skin colour but he owns the property and it's his choice to whom he will rent it to, regardless of the reasons. In my opinion he's perfectly free to only rent to white people, he has the freedom to be racist.