On the issue of Marion County being run by total idiots

[88GT]

In line with the City-Council's proposal to register landlords in an effort to find and track absent landlords and Ballard's initiative to fund universal preschool by increasing property taxes, there is another effort by our illustrious Councillors in Marion County:

Proposal 215 amends the existing Human Relations ordinance to say an applicant cannot be screened on the source of income. Specifically, the proposed definition of source of income includes “income derived from Social Security, supplemental security income, housing assistance, child support, alimony, or public or state-administered general assistance.” This would mean that landlords would not be able to deny an applicant strictly because they are a participant in the Section 8 program. Section 8 is a federal program that was designed to be a voluntary due to the fact that participation also includes a list of additional regulations, including inspections​ ​ ​

In effect, source of income just because a protected class in Marion County. Protectionism at its finest.


Link to PDF version of full proposal here.

It should be noted that the County may impose these regulations on itself with regard to hiring/firing practices, and other governmental related activities. But the expansion of this limitation to private property owners is wrong.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How many mistakes are they allowed before we decide it is intentional?

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you can't 'discriminate' by source of income, can you require employment over a satisfactory term of time as proof of character and values?

 

[88GT]

If you can't 'discriminate' by source of income, can you require employment over a satisfactory term of time as proof of character and values?

For the time being.

There are two issues. The first I mentioned, government protection for its minions. But there's the second issue of the very real threat that this makes acceptance of Section 8 subsidies mandatory. As it stands now, if I get a call asking if I accept Section 8, I answer in the negative and the caller moves on. But I can see how someone with more time on his hands than brain cells figures that a negative answer is discrimination based on income. The case law that comes from the law suit will make the voluntary Section 8 program will now become mandatory. If a Section 8 voucher-holder wants to live in my unit, I will not be able to deny him based on that alone.

When I first started landlording, I didn't require a minimum gross monthly income. I figured people were generally smart about what they could afford. I have just recently altered that requirement. Applicants must now have a minimum gross monthly income of at least 3x the monthly rent (2x for the units where utilities are included in rent). There isn't a government paycheck in the world that meets that requirement all by itself. And if it does, the individual probably has higher standards and wouldn't want to live there. So I won't really have to worry about this (except for the mandatory Section 8 participation risk). But it's just irritating the way Marion County keeps trying to make us Detroit Part Deux.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just for fun, would it be viable to acquire some property suitable for Section 8 use and keep it dedicated for the purpose, or would this be tantamount to requiring that you rent anything you own in the county to anyone capable of making the payment, deliberately avoiding your 3x the rent income requirement for the sake of exploring the topic?

 

[88GT]

The short answer is yes, you can. Properties have to qualify for Section 8 subsidies. Much like FHA loans, there are minimum property standards that must be met in order for the government to spend money on the property. (In point of fact, all of my properties are in far superior condition to any Section 8 property.) So you can have one or more properties that qualify and some that don't. Even if they qualify, you don't have to enroll all of them in the program.

But the sticky wicket is the unwritten rule that a landlord should have the same qualification standards for applications across all of his properties. However, since the variation is to the benefit of the individual for whom the standard is changed, I'm not sure there's much that can be done. No harm, no foul, no lawsuit.

I think I see where you're going with this. It would surely be an interesting sociology experiment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know how many applicants of this type you get, but it seemed to me that if you got saddeled with this asshattery that having your own slum, even if at only partial occupancy so you always had a room, might be a viable last-ditch solution for protecting your better properties. That said, in theory, you won't have different qualifications, you just review the application and have some properties you, well, don't discuss with that particular individual. Sort of your own version of "don't ask, don't tell, don't tell even if they do ask".

 

[88GT]

I don't know how many applicants of this type you get, but it seemed to me that if you got saddeled with this asshattery that having your own slum, even if at only partial occupancy so you always had a room, might be a viable last-ditch solution for protecting your better properties. That said, in theory, you won't have different qualifications, you just review the application and have some properties you, well, don't discuss with that particular individual. Sort of your own version of "don't ask, don't tell, don't tell even if they do ask".

It's not as bad as that. An applicant is applying for a particular property. Excepting one double, all of our properties are of sufficiently high rent and/or in different socioeconomic locations so that Section 8 recipients can't afford them (Section 8 only pays a portion of the rent and they decide what is the maximum allowable rent for a particular property type, i.e. 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, etc; so the applicant is usually unable to make up the difference on his income even after the credit from Section 8) or the Section 8 recipients self-select other neighborhoods.

Of my 5 properties (7 units), only one double ever generates "Do you accept Section 8?" queries. Having said that, despite not accepting Section 8, it's still a ****ty area to rent and there's about an 85% default rate from the tenants in that double. I've owned it for 10 years, had roughly 20-25 tenants through it. And I can count 4 who actually made it through an entire 12-month lease period. Honestly, I wish the meth lab next door would take care of it for me.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The meth lab next door? If something were to take care of the meth lab next door, would that be likely to improve the quality of tenants you could find?

 

[ModernGunner]

So, a landlord would be prohibited by law from renting to a drug dealer or a bank robber because the landlord 'can't refuse to rent based on source of income'? But HEY! Criminals gotta have a place to live too, right?

Here's a 'wild concept': STOP electing idiots in Marion County.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

The voters need training! (Not brainwashing!!)

 

[88GT]

The meth lab next door? If something were to take care of the meth lab next door, would that be likely to improve the quality of tenants you could find?

It's not really a meth lab as far as I know. But it is an unlicensed pharmacy.

So, a landlord would be prohibited by law from renting to a drug dealer or a bank robber because the landlord 'can't refuse to rent based on source of income'? But HEY! Criminals gotta have a place to live too, right?

Illegally obtained funds are probably exempt from the ordinance.

Then again, the criminal record is sufficient to disqualify by itself so the issue is moot.

 

[ModernGunner]

Illegally obtained funds are probably exempt from the ordinance.

Then again, the criminal record is sufficient to disqualify by itself so the issue is moot.

I didn't read the link (sorry) but in the quote posted, it says, "an applicant cannot be screened on the source of income."

How would the landlord know the funds are "illegally obtained" IF the landlord is prohibited from screening the source of the income?

Additionally, there are plenty of drug dealers, etc. that do not (yet) have a criminal record, so there would be no criminal record to 'disqualify' them.

In fact, based on that Proposal a drug dealer could inquire about the rental and tell the landlord they make their $$$ peddling drugs and the landlord would be prohibited from denying the dealer the rental, LOL.

Or, been a slow drug-peddling month, and I'm down on finances. So, I call the landlord and record the call. Landlord denies me, I just go ahead and take 'em to court because I'm now 'injured' by the landlord.

That Proposal would, in essence, prohibit the landlord from making any denial based on income. If I don't have to, in some manner, verify income, I can tell the landlord anything I want. That I make $10k a month or whatever, and just like to live frugally. Even though the landlord would believe I'm lying, they'd be prohibited from denying me the rental.

This, again in essence, puts the landlord in the position of being prohibited from denying a rental to anyone that wants the rental, and eliminates virtually any 'selection process' on the part of the landlord.

Gonna deny the first person that calls? How? On what basis? Religion, race, creed, age, sexual preference? Nope. Income? Nope. Job? Nope. 'Suspicion that they may undesirable'? Based on what grounds? None of the above, obviously. Credit? Maybe, but that encompasses "source of income" which is prohibited. Criminal history? Maybe, but don't bank on that, either.

Landlords would do themselves a huge favor in protesting and fighting this at every opportunity, by every legitimate method.

 

[88GT]

I didn't read the link (sorry) but in the quote posted, it says, "an applicant cannot be screened on the source of income."

How would the landlord know the funds are "illegally obtained" IF the landlord is prohibited from screening the source of the income?

"Screening" in this case means qualifying. Not the actual act of identifying and verifying the source. It means once I have identified and verified the source, I may not disqualify a candidate based on the fact that the identified and verified source is one of new protected classes.

Additionally, there are plenty of drug dealers, etc. that do not (yet) have a criminal record, so there would be no criminal record to 'disqualify' them.

They probably aren't yet old enough to be party to a legal contract then. And experience tells me that drug criminals don't limit their criminal activity to drugs. Chances are they will have a criminal history of some sort.

In fact, based on that Proposal, I could inquire about the rental and tell the landlord I make my $$$ peddling drugs and the landlord would be prohibited from denying me the rental, LOL.

Self-reported criminal activity is a perfectly acceptable disqualifier. You're over-thinking this, methinks.

Or, been a slow drug-peddling month, and I'm down on finances. So, I call the landlord and record the call. Landlord denies me, I just go ahead and take 'em to court because I'm now 'injured' by the landlord.

Landlord denies based on what? I don't make formal approval or denials without a signed and completed application. I can say, generically, that "X" is a disqualifying factor, but unless the applicant actually puts in an application, I haven't denied him, even if he admits to having a disqualifying factor on his record. His refusal to put in an application based on the foreknowledge that he will likely be disqualified due to "X" is not a denial.

That Proposal would, in essence, prohibit the landlord from making any denial based on income. If I don't have to, in some manner, verify income, I can tell the landlord anything I want. That I make $10k a month or whatever, and just like to live frugally. Even though the landlord would believe I'm lying, they'd be prohibited from denying me the rental.

This, again in essence, puts the landlord in the position of being able to deny renting to anyone that wants the apartment, and eliminates virtually any 'selection process' on the part of the landlord.

It doesn't mean I can't verify the income. I can still provide proof of income. I can also require minimum income. It simply means I can't deny an application tenancy based on the fact that the verified income is from one of the source categories.

Gonna deny the first person that calls? How? On what basis? Religion, race, creed, age, sexual preference? Nope. Income? Nope. Job? Nope. Criminal history? 'Suspicion that they may undesirable'? Based on what grounds? None of the above, obviously. Criminal history? Credit? Maybe, but that encompasses "source of income" which is prohibited. Maybe, but don't bank on that, either.

Now I know you're over-thinking this. As I said before, I don't approve or deny based on a phone call. So none of your hypotheticals centered on a phone call mean much. But for the sake of argument, let's assume the individual put in a bona fide application. I can't deny based solely on the traditional seven protected classes. I can deny based on non-verified or insufficient income. I can deny based on criminal history. I can deny based on the fact that I think they will be a terrible tenant and I just don't like them. (Though this is a risky one as it is much easier to defend a denial based on concrete data compared to objective standards.) Credit is far more than income and quite honestly, I treat them separately. Lots of people have sufficient income profiles but will be disqualified on credit report issues.

Landlords would do themselves a huge favor in protesting and fighting this at every opportunity, by every legitimate method.

On this, I agree 100%.

 

[Denny347]

For the time being.

There are two issues. The first I mentioned, government protection for its minions. But there's the second issue of the very real threat that this makes acceptance of Section 8 subsidies mandatory. As it stands now, if I get a call asking if I accept Section 8, I answer in the negative and the caller moves on. But I can see how someone with more time on his hands than brain cells figures that a negative answer is discrimination based on income. The case law that comes from the law suit will make the voluntary Section 8 program will now become mandatory. If a Section 8 voucher-holder wants to live in my unit, I will not be able to deny him based on that alone.

When I first started landlording, I didn't require a minimum gross monthly income. I figured people were generally smart about what they could afford. I have just recently altered that requirement. Applicants must now have a minimum gross monthly income of at least 3x the monthly rent (2x for the units where utilities are included in rent). There isn't a government paycheck in the world that meets that requirement all by itself. And if it does, the individual probably has higher standards and wouldn't want to live there. So I won't really have to worry about this (except for the mandatory Section 8 participation risk). But it's just irritating the way Marion County keeps trying to make us Detroit Part Deux.

Now that's smart.

 

[PistolBob]

We used to have rental property, had four homes at one time and sold them all about 10 years ago. It got so the law restricted us from being very selective in who we rented to, and now it looks like it's about to become even worse. Discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing. I wish I still had the property but I'm glad we don't have the renter headaches.