Should apartments/condos be allowed to refuse to rent to families because they have young kids?
Eggelton ... I recognize that you live in the bubble of NYC, and that has obviously warped your perspective.
Outside of NYC, I suspect that the majority of Americans would disagree with your view that a car is discretionary.
In the law buisness, you've learned to obfuscate. Housing isn't a right.
If a bunch of whites blacks Jews Muslims Christians Latino gays vegans saten worshipers maried single kids no kids what ever floats there boat. Why should they not be able to move to a place with like minded people. And the bigger question why do you want to move there and poo on there party.
Where do you get the right to put a gun to someone's head and tell them who they must allow to live in there property.
There are other places to move this is a large country. your supply and demand is not correct to the issue. There are what is known as kid friendly community that have amenities for children. There are 55 and older retirement comm. Why must people move where they are not wanted.
In certain areas, yes. Like the 55+ communities they have. Young kids don't belong in certain areas.
Every choice could be considered discrimination. I discriminated against every other person in the world when I married my wife, against every other place on Earth the last time I moved, against every other employer when I took my current job.
It's a grey area, there are loopholes in the system for everything.
Family member of mine is a 25 yr property manager. The Owners of apartments can refuse to rent to whoever but, the property manager should not know why you don't want to rent to that certain person. But property managers have to disclose they do not discriminate. It's the owners decision. I do agree
I'd so love to have the option of no kids around. Heck, I think my neighbors and I should get a stripper to perform non-stop in the courtyard or something so that people with kids don't want to live here.
No one seems to consider that some people, like me, would pay a lot more for housing without children. Just like I pay more to go to the 21 and over show times at the theater... for PG movies! Charge me more! I have money because I don't have kids! I'd be happy to pay for quiet Saturday afternoons!
Shouldn't I be allowed to do with my property as I see fit?
Or is it, in practice, all the governments property and I'm simply forced to pay taxes on it and maintain it?
Wow, some people don't understand private property rights.
Your rights don't trump mine you bleeding heart fools. It's my property and you don't get to hire men with guns to force me to do it YOUR way.
They can rent to whoever they want to!
I am all for HOA's. they tend to keep everyone on the same page.
It is. That's exactly why it's been against the law (with a couple of exceptions) since the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, which was an extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
It's their property they can do what they want with it.
Evicting people with children for damage/disturbing the peace/not paying rent is almost impossible in Massachusetts. Tenants with children have to have another place to go. If they never bother to look for one, owner has to suck it up and deal.
Perhaps we are thinking of different ages here or something...i just dont know -_-
That's what I thought and voted yes.
No I don't, while yes, at that age, boys and girls, can call each other names, such as cootie magnets, stinky, or fat, at the end of the day none of it sticks. The malevolent senseless hatred that fuels the bigotry of those who are bigots, is not yet present in children. It is not the same.
No. As annoying as young children can be, I'm thinking this could easily be considered a form of discrimination.
But as for 'borrowing' and 'terms of contract', yes, you're right, they're sort of parallel. And it's illegal for that contract for a car lease to prohibit things like black people, Jews, seniors, and child passengers, EVEN THOUGH cars are discretionary rather than survival necessities.
And, no, housing is not like cars. You can CHOOSE to live without a car and still do fine. You cannot CHOOSE to live without housing (well, you can, but in many places, you will be arrested for that choice, so it's ostensibly illegal). Rent is not discretionary spending. Purchasing a car is.
Think - I don't know about you, but I've worked at the largest NYC lawfirm that specializes in landlord/tenant issues, and I'm saying it operates on different laws because government recognizes that allowing discrimination in housing markets is very harmful socially and economically.
nuwriter - Sort of. Yes, it can reduce the price of apartments that don't allow children, but also raises the price of apartments that do, which is my original point. But those 'no kids' units can be marketed with 'added quality', which can also raise price. Will the two cancel each other? Not sure.
Eggelton ... come on, you and I both know that a car and home re absolutely parallel. If you can afford one, you buy it. If you can't afford it, you need to borrow it from someone who is willing to lend it to you. And if you are a borrower, you need to subject yourself got the terms of the lender
Think - unlike cars, there are no alternatives to housing. If you can't afford a car, you can take public transit, ride a bike, walk, etc. No such alternatives exist in housing. As I said, housing is not a luxury good, it's a necessity. Should grocers be permitted to refuse to sell food to families?
Living around young kids sucks, especially when shoddy parenting is present.
I didn't denounce or promote. I simply stated a story for thought, not judgement
It's the regulatory state that is preventing economic growth - not a lack of regulation.
Want a young, strong America to survive and thrive? Then cut regulation, cut damaging government programs, privatize, privatize, privatize!
Are you seriously trying to make the argument that Europe is underregulated?
Except that it really doesn't. Markets self-regulate on things like this. There is not an unlimited supply of renters out there, and landlords must compete for them. Eliminating any group of potential customers is bad for business.
Eggelton, you seem to miss how markets work. Refusing to rent to families without children would have a market penalty. The porential pool of renters for these units would be reduced. This would tend to lower the price that landlords could get for this type of unit.
I'm gonna apologize ahead of time for that one.
Know who didn't want to rent apartments to the Jews?
Wow...you never seen a boy pick on a girl just for being a girl i guess...
...i comend your attempt at painting children as better than adults but come on, you REALLY think kids dont discriminate???
Fat kids are fat, girls have cooties...yadayada yada...comon, you dont count this as discrimination
But kids do not hold grudges, kids do not harbor hatred, kids do not discriminate, they have not yet learned how to be intolerant. They are naturally curious, they do not take pride in ignorance. But yes, by the time they reach middle school, they begin to imitate adults.
Kelly ... you flatter yourself with double speak. What's the difference between housing and access to housing? Does having "access" keep you warm at night, protect you from the rain? Give me a break. You just want it both ways. Grow up, you alone are responsible for your own housing.
You didn't denounce it.
I said yes...however....if it outwardly says "adult only" or "active adult" aka almost a senior community, the no kids policy is absolutely acceptable
Just restrict them to the first floor....damn stomping feet!
Eggelton ... Like a car, homes come in all shapes and sizes. You are not entitled to a particular home any more than you're entitled to a new care every year. If you want one, then suck it up and pay for it. Landlords don't owe you anything. You want it, you buy i!
Look "hidden welfare state" up in Wikipedia... Welcome to socialism; only, that kind of socialism you seem to like, as it benefits you ;-)
It is assistance to a particular class of citizens, designed to encourage access to property. Tenants don't get to deduct rent, do they? It is the way the US govt chose to sustain the American dream. Very few nations in the world practice that sort of deduction.
Are you in my thread? Then sure
Remember, housing isn't a luxury good. It's a life essential like water. But it still follows supply and demand laws, so reducing the supply of apartments available to families increases the price. Should water companies be permitted to charge a higher rate per cubic yard to families with children?
I didn't want to say yes but I feel that way. And I feel guilty about it.
Imagine a market with 1000 housing units. Imagine, now, that landlords can choose to reject tenants based on children. So, units available to families reduces to, whatever, say 700. Lower supply, higher price. Do you think somebody's going to build 300 extra units ONLY available to families?
Im just about the same age, its an odd age isnt it? Not quite old, not quite young...