Is this statement used to turn down Section 8 really legal?

[Robert Jackson]

HI everyone, 

So I have noticed a trend among some of my fellow property owners here in Los Angeles, California. 

As you may know, it is illegal to deny someone the opportunity to apply for a unit simply because they have section 8 as income. However, I noticed allot of property owners here using this phrase if someone asks if section 8 is accepted: 

"The building is not certified for section 8." 

Is this really a legally tested and legitimate way to deny section 8 voucher holders an opportunity to apply for a unit without breaking the law? To be clear, this tactic, while not saying flat out section 8 is not accepted, has the same outcome: to deny the opportunity to apply. 

By the way, I would never engage in discrimination, but I find it interesting that so many property owners are using this sort of line in an attempt to skirt the law.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Originally posted by @Brent Coombs:

Seems to me that many Landlords just don't want "Section 8" Tenants (not because their properties aren't up to scratch).  On the other hand, my mate had a property in Youngstown that he wanted to rent out to Section 8, but his Property Manager disallowed such.

I'm posing this question for that mate: Just what is it that scares many Landlords/Property Managers from allowing Section 8 Applications (seeing as there is supposed to be a heavy burden upon those Tenants to keep the property in very good condition, while rent income is as-good-as assured)?...

reality there is no heavy burden on the tenant to keep them in great shape.. the opposite happens you need annual inspections and more times than not the tenant or their kiddos have done damage that the inspector will make the owner repair.