Show of Hands

You make the decision to give them the application. If their credit is not good enough or they lied then by definition of the law that is not a qualified applicant.

Furthermore you do not deserve nor will you get any kind of explanation as to why you were turned down except "the property was rented to another party. That's all you get to know. Period. A good idea I saw below would be that I raise the rent $1000 a month and then give the person I want to rent it to a monthly $1000 credit as a bonus for signing the lease.

If I don't like your attitude you don't get to rent my property. You complain to authorities? I take it off the market for a month. No problem. Either way I DECIDE who rents MY properties NOT the government. They and their WHINEY sniveling complainers can go śhît in their hat!

I just don't understand. This is a very easy law to get around for the average landlord. You do not have to give anyone an application until after you meet them. If they were not honest then that disqualifies them on a first come first serve basis so ultimately it is always still your decision no matter what this law says about applications. I think this law was designed for a more specific purposes in Seattle that I don't know about because I haven't lived there.

You can screen interviews with questions that don't qualify as an application.
Maybe they have a problem with property mangers in Seattle who get paid $22 an hour making racist decisions for a landlord that has so many properties.

There is also no way to proctor this law besides a stamp you put on the application. This law was designed for lawyers to win cases against corporate landlords.

Seattle liberal lawmakers: YOU LOSE

The problem of discrimination definitely exists, but this is just a terrible way to approach it.

The people who rented from me a year ago were qualified financially, but as I learned, not qualified in every other area. Has to replace wood floor due to liquid damage and burns, found holes in hallway wall (big ones), and didn't know until the the numerous incidences requiring police to be called.

You should pay for that happily. The $100 you made, per month means your investment earned you nothing for the year they lived there because you spent $3,500 to fix their mess, but hey, at least the liberals are happy.

Hope you pick up my sarcasm. Stupid law.

Qualified on paper means NOTHING.

*another

I'd make it like $5k a month to rent. That way some sucker pays for a new truck. But hey it's not my place to say.

Homeless people are there because Seattle wants them there. They are almost all druggies

There's the dumbest post if the year

Of

How were you discriminated against?
How did you know?

Two criminal charges on record, misdemeanor, when I was a teen. I was told directly.

Most liberals think this is retarded. It's the regressive 14 year olds who support this

So, 14 year olds put this into law???

People with the minds of 14 year olds

So, 14 % of people across the board have a mind of a 14 yr old, but 31% of Democrats have the mind of a 14 yr old. Now I'm starting to understand this years presidential election. Thanks

Too late

Nobody would dare lie on the application to make themselves appear qualified, now would they!

LoL I've had people print up their own paycheck stubs and create a company they had their friend or relatives phone number attached to. I called information and there was no company with that name and reverse caller ID the phone number and it's someone with the same last name.

Shiggy: That's crazy!!!! But under the Seattle law, you would not be required to rent to them because they don't qualify.

What would prevent it? Immigration laws.

Leland yee. California state senator taking bribes from Chinese and arrested on corruption charges. They're already trying to take advantage of our corrupt system. Good luck passing immigration laws

Irish ... new laws aren't required, new public servants are!

Well think it looks like that is going just swell

You also contradicted yourself

Irish ... I can't imagine that you're this ignorant. The problem isn't the lack of laws, it's the lack of enforcement of the laws we already have!

The criminals who come to our country without approval of our government are called "illegal aliens" because they've BROKEN THE LAW!

What needs to happen is to sanction all sanctuary cities and deport the illegal aliens.

I'm not talking about illegals. I'm taking about Indians and Chinese coming here and starting a private business then taking advantage of an extremely tyrannical law that allows people to discriminate. It's very possible for the Chinese or Indians to get sponsored with H1B visas out of school then eventually become part of the legislative process or buy our businesses.

Sun tzu invented the coupe before it was even called coupe. I can't believe you are so ignorant to believe that the United States is the only nation that knows how to overthrow governments and take advantage of tyrannical laws.

Irish ... you're talking gibberish. What tyrannical law are you attempting to discuss?

Sounds like you're trying to push your libertarian shit on me. Im not a fan of private tyranny.
Letting private business run with no check and balances breeds tyrants and factions

Irish ... it sounds like you have difficulty explaining your position in a cogent way. You make wild assertions with no proof, only your leftist drama queen nonsense.

You're the one that brought illegals up out of no where and started crying about them. Your difficulty is subjective.
If you want to give all the power to the private business then you're giving a lot of that power to Chinese business owners and they own a lot of apartment complexes in sanctuary cities. The Chinese would love to discriminate and expand china town

It's in the sanctuary cities first generation Chinese business owners could easily discriminate against a full blooded American.

Irish ... I just can't have a discussion with someone who is unarmed. I wish you well in your bias against the Chinese. I suggest to you that they don't own everything, and if you rlly can't stand them, then MOVE!

The issue with immigration is that our laws aren't being enforced. The laws need to be enforced. Period.

You have nothing to say obviously. Go think

You should be more worried about the foreigners coming here with H1B visas, attending our universities who are very intelligent and have no plan to assimilate or integrate.

Irish ... and yet, curiously I'm not worried about H1B Visas. I've employed dozens of sharp foreign individuals on H1B's.

The problem isn't the visas, it is the lack of enforcement of visa overstays. You see, no matter how you slice it, the problem is the same ... the lack of enforcement.

You can easily get that H1B transferred into a green card as long as the company sponsors them. I don't know what enforcement you're talking about. You're starting to sound like a dem.

I've hired illegals that have paid all their taxes and not received any government benefits, grants or subsidies. Theyve been run out of their country by corporate America and they come here and pretty much donate part of their paycheck to the U.S. I've also hired refugees who would rather live in North Korea than the U.S.

Irish ... I'm sorry that you have such a difficult time with relatively simple concepts.

Think.. I think you're a closet democrat

Hypothetical situation - what prevents the racist Chinese landlord from giving the application out after an interview?

Because you would be discriminating against someone based on they are (i.e. their religion, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc). Not only is that a crime but it violates the Fair Housing Act under the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Determining whether an applicant is qualified is based on their income and creditworthiness. Just because one owns a private business doesn't mean they get to do whatever they want.

But why shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want? The more selective ones market is the less they will make and ultimately will fail. I don't think the government should force ethics upon someone, if they want to be a sack of shit, why not let them? I do understand that it is illegal to blatantly discriminate against someone but it is also illegal to force someone to provide a service unwillingly.

The government isn't forcing ethics on anyone, rather it's telling businesses what they cannot do. Just because it's a private business doesn't mean it gets to trample on other people's rights. Also, the business isn't being forced to provide a service unwillingly since it's already in the business of providing that service. Remember, the landlord gets to determine who is qualified based on the applicant's economic means. They don't get to determine who's qualified based on the applicant's race, religion, gender, etc.

... what those businesses cannot do as defined by *their* ethics & social agenda enforced by the power of the Government.

No one bothers to read the history or founding documents of this country, have any grasp on the principles upon which it is founded & seems utterly content to accept the version & interpretation of these things by ppl who don't even attempt to hide their utter contempt for both the country & its principles.

In its place we are expected to accept ever-contradicting edicts of behavior, social re-engineering, irrational logic & oppositional laws, without question.

Goodbye sweet America.

But you have to prove that they are unqualified.

Proof without judgment? Easy, I do that every day. I'm an underwriter, haha

It would be the same as when you fire someone, you would have to cite a reason.

Not here in Georgia. We have at-will employment, so anyone can really be fired for no reason at all legally.

That's Georgia, it has no bearing whatsoever on reality.

The ass backwards state I live in! Murika

This user is currently being ignored

Yeah, every state except Montana, I believe, is at-will. Although many employers have to follow legal protections for race, sex, religion, etc. so it may be in their best interest to document reasons for a firing in case someone attempts to sue for illegal discrimination later.

Hey at least your state HAD jobs to be fired from. We were doing horribly until last year.

But to address the original comment- yes, I suppose this law is slightly less frustrating the more flexibility the landlord has to set and add qualifications and quickly eliminate unqualified candidates, but completely prohibiting judgement calls is inherently problematic. To keep the employment analogy, it's just like hiring people. Someone might meet all the quantitative requirements and still be a bad fit, or someone might be slightly below the stated qualifications but have additional skills that make up for it.

From an underwriting standpoint, all I would think I'd needed from a landlord is ability and willingness to repay

Exactly, why should an oppressive nanny state allow ANYONE to make their own decisions?

It's anti-liberal at its core

This user is currently being ignored

That's not why Detroit failed but whatever

Tol ... why did Detroit fail?

The automotive industry had a hiccup Detroits main industry is automotives

Tol ... what a hoot! The biggest "hiccup" the auto industry had was the fascist unions!

Right okay you're clearly irrational

Tol ... I'm sorry that you're incapable of rational discussion.

Same to you

Your both funny

I think both sides just don't like to think rationally about everything without resorting to name calling and slander first

And they failed to bring in new business once it was clear the auto industry couldn't sustain the needs of their population.

And they failed to bring in new business once it was clear the auto industry couldn't sustain the needs of their population.

What a ridiculous way to look at this

Tol ... to leftists, facts seem ridiculous.

Nope

Yep!

Nope but to humor you what facts do you think leftists think are ridiculous I do hope you actually use facts

Tol ... as a former landlord in Mn, I know first hand of the bias against landlords there!

Okay well I'm sorry how so? This is in sesttle though not Minnesota

Tol ... should the government be allowed to dictate what you eat, where you live or with whom you associate?

No and they aren't with this law. Did they do something like it in Minnesota

Tol ... it's really difficult for you to answer a question, isn't it!

What are you saying I answered unless you don't know what no means

Tol ... I'm sorry for your delusion.

I'm sorry for your illiteracy I guess

To be fair, he did answer no 😐

It is worth noting that Tolstoy chose to take his/her/it's marbles and ran home to mommy, as they blocked me. Let's hope they're in a safe space now as grown up discussions are too difficult for them.

SoHJ ... no, Tolstoy did NOT answer the question ... they said that this law doesn't do that. That's simply not true.

"should the government be allowed to dictate what you eat, where you live or with whom you associate?"

"No, and they aren't with this law"

He answered your question.

Cropper ... that doesn't answer the question, now does it!

The "no" part was his answer to the question.

SoHJ ... so what was Tolstoy attempting to say, because it is not clear. He/she/it said "no", but then went on to say that the government is not trying to force people to associate.

They don't get to have it both ways. Like far too many on the left, Tolstoy attempted to say half of their position while attempting to be coy with the rest. It's dishonest.

I'm guessing he wasn't fully considering the association part of it.

SoHJ ... you think?

Do you actually think a drug dealer would be qualified

It's totally possible that a drug dealer could be qualified.

If they also have a job (maybe to recruit customers or employees for themselves), if they are smart enough to have not gotten caught, if they are successful dealing enough that they have enough money to never get bad credit marks, if they are successful enough to have a cash deposit ready, why wouldn't they be qualified?

The law sees a upstanding, working, law-abiding, credit-worthy citizen who has the cash for the deposit in hand. You knowing they are a drug dealer doesn't change the fact that the law doesn't know it.

SoHJ ... as a landlord, I do NOT want or need the government telling me which potential tenant is qualified and which one is not.

I assume by your comments that you're a millennial, which suggests that you're in the stage of life of attempting to choose a mate. Would you want the government to tell you that you must date an individual because they are "qualified"?

You misunderstood me. I'm on your side on this one.

Also, I'm no millennial.

SoHJ ... it was impossible to deduce that from your comment!

So, you agree that the government should NOT be telling anyone who is and who is not an appropriate mate or tenant, right?

I agree.

Liberalism is western culture

Classical liberalism. Not today's liberalism. Nice try though.

There is no difference between liberalism and classical liberalism talk about neo liberalism

Coggy you are exactly right. Liberalism is a mental disorder

Your location is a falsehood

You are wrong

So helping the poor, being a pacifist, forgiving criminals, and being fervently anti rich is conservative to you?

I have had this debate many times, I have proved how Jesus is conservative. Liberals dont help the poor, they make the poor dependent so that the poor will vote Democrat so that Democrats are in power. Liberals dont care about the poor. Jesus said for you to help the poor, not create government programs that steal from other people to do it. Conservatives believe that you should help the poor but also not make them dependent. It's not the government's job. So what Jesus taught was actually conservative. Not liberal.

Great job trying to refute one of my points but I never said Jesus was liberal so bringing up liberals doesn't do anything. Also giving to charity doesn't mean helping the poor what helps the poor is indeed being an activist for public housing and welfare programs because these create a situation where the poor don't have to spend years trying to get enough money to get off the streets and feed themselves

Activism for public housing does nothing to help the poor. It only helps the entitled.

Maybe you need to do some more thinking about this. You just said helping the poor doesn't include making sure they have a roof over their head which just couldn't be more incorrect

Tol ... wrestle with the parable of the talents in your attempt to assert that Jesus didn't believe in personal accountability. It'll also cause you to slip a cig in the notion of equal outcomes.

Tol ... you might want to reread rather than attempt to rewrite my connect!

Tol, you are so wrong. I have thought about this a lot and studied it thoroughly. I know Jesus. And I know conservatism. Liberalism does not help the poor at all. Conservatism is what helps the poor. Jesus is conservative

You're still only talking about one of my points and I'm still not a liberal again I don't see conservatives, republicans, trying to help poor people

Jesus as described in the bible definitely didn't care about making people accountable for their poverty

Tol ... respond to the parable of the talents! Of course Jesus taught accountability to the poor! What was the fate of the servant with one talent?

Tol, you clearly don't know Jesus. You also clearly don't know conservatives. Conservatives help the poor more than liberals do. And what Think said was absolutely right

So you're saying the poor are just lazy, and this wasn't even Jesus but a moral by Matthew

The poor people that Jesus was talking about during his time are way different than poor people today. Back then, those poor people weren't lazy at all. They actually deserved help. Now a days a lot of poor people just want to be dependent on government

How by calling them lazy because they're born into poverty and the education they get if any is crap as it's poorly fine yeah real compassionate and Jesus like. What a joke

Tol ... what was the fate of the servant with one talent?

Sorry but you are delusional. Now a days people can not be poor if they try. They can get themselves out of poverty through hard work, even if they are born into it. They should get help just as long as they are not dependent. Yeah so what Jesus taught is conservative

Cast into what I interpret as a pit of carnivores

Tol ... it's clear that you choose not to have an honest discussion.

No they really can't the funding to create wealth is not there in most poor areas yes some people are lazy but these people are in every economical class

Tol, you clearly don't understand at all

Yes I don't understand your position at all

You don't understand facts or logic

Tol ... what was the fate of the servant that had received one talent?

I don't understand your logic but I don't see how the facts are actually in your favor as when 5000 hungry people met with only enough food for a few people Jesus made enough for everyone this is not the act of someone for accountability

I told you already

You are wrong, tol.

Jesus was no God, and he's been dead for almost 2000 years. Who gives a shit if he's liberal or conservative? What a stupid argument to even have.

Sven ... so would you rather have a discussion about dead men like Karl Marx or Charles Darwin?

Tol ... you can attempt to block honest discussion, but you can't hide. You lied when you said that you responded to the question about the Parable of the Talents. You cowardly avoided the question of what happened to the servant with one talent because you know it invalidates your position.

You show that you are yet another dishonest leftist incapable of a valid discussion.

You implied that despite the fact that I never even slightly indicated it.

Sven ... I get that you don't want to have an honest discussion.

So you think a criminal would be found qualified for renting a house

I'm not talking about criminals. I'm talking about behaviors. Most landlords require references of previous rental history.

I don't think that being addicted to alcohol or gambling would disqualify you because those aren't criminal acts and those are destructive behaviors as well as reasons you wouldn't be able to pay rent. Sorry but I would never rent out any land to them.

Noone can explain why this meddling has ANYTHING to do with the government. The totalitarian overreach is absolutely unconstitutional. There is NO difference between this, and authorizing the government to tell the owner of a car that they must lend their car to anyone who appears to be a qualified driver. This is idiocy at it's finest.

Can't wait*

dylan It's not clear to me how you define freedom of enterprise as a main tenet of the Constitution; I find no mention of this in my copy. Would you kindly let us know which article or amendment describes such a freedom?

Freedom of religion is appart of the first ammendment and it gives the person freedom too discriminate sorry I don't like it either but the constitution is the constitution

dylan I was asking about freedom of enterprise, as per your original assertion. Would you please point me to that in the Constitution?

The core of the constitution is free enterprise you can't just violate the constitution just because you don't like appart of it has held our country together for a long time now.

If the constitution has any core it's that all people have inalienable rights life, liberty, and happiness. This includes the person trying to rent the house not just the person owning the house. In this law as is stated is that the renter is qualified meaning they've passed any economical qualifications the owner determines the law can says that they can't be refused based on arbitrary qualifications only necessary ones like their ability to pay rent. Your free enterprise argument is not a valid one in this situation

People have the right too sell too who they please it is appart of the constitution. What you are saying only applies too government itself that you can't discriminate in the government

Nope it's indeed illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion race or sex because of the constitution

Yes the government it is illegal too do that not a bussiness

Nope both do you not know about the civil rights era

The civil rights act is irrelevant we are taking about the constitution

The civil rights act is held up by the constitution it's completely relevant

Tol ... like most fascist leftists, you want rights only for those who agree with you.