Is rejecting 3 tenants a discrimination in SF?

General Landlording & Rental Properties
6yFollow

Is rejecting 3 tenants a discrimination in SF?

Diane G.
CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes

I have a situation that i would love some inputs for....

I have a 2/1 in SF and I have an application from 3 youngish late 20 professionals...I dont really want to rent to them because I prefer 2 occupants... But my PM told me if I reject them, it is going to be a discrimination...

Is it?

Thank you..

1Reply
313 views

Most Popular Reply

Joseph CacciapagliaBusiness Member
Lender · San Antonio, TX · Member since 2020 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
6y
Originally posted by @Diane G.:

Thank you to ALL of you for care to spend the time to share your thoughts...

I was not trying argue with anyone, just simply trying to get educated...

How are 3 people going to share 1 bathroom?  Seriously?

 Are you joking with the bathroom comment, or can you really not imagine 3 people sharing 1 bathroom? I grew up in a family of 6 in a 3 bed 1 bath home. I'm certainly not alone in this either. There are tons of 3/1 homes that are rented to families of 4+. We have several 4/1's here in San Antonio, and some very large families rent them. You have to realize that a lot of tenants can't afford to live they way that you might be able to.

[email protected]979-218-2286
Joseph Cacciapaglia powered by Morty
WebsiteView Page
29Reply
See this reply in the discussion

108 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Michael Deering
    Rental Property Investor · Lehigh Valley, PA · Member since 2017 · 200 posts · 191 votes
    6y

    If all have income streams it might be a good idea to play the odds to ensure rent is covered.  I know SF is an insulated market but my finance people are telling me there is hurt coming to the lower level professional class.  

    0Reply
  • Joe SplitrockPro Member
    Moderator
    Rental Property Investor · Sioux Falls, SD · Member since 2015 · 9k+ posts · 18k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Will Dixon:

    @Joe Splitrock

    While 37.10 does not explicitly state number of occupants I would be shocked if a court did not find this to be discrimination. Does “I have a two bedroom apartment and I will not allow more than two occupants in it,” sound like discrimination to you? Play out some different scenarios of what would be considered OK in OP’s eyes and then the holes start to appear.

    Neither you nor I are attorneys, but if OP wants the facts it would probably be advisable to call one.

     She is not saying "no more than two occupants", she is saying "no more than two unrelated occupants" also known as roommates. Your wording is viewed as discrimination because it could target families with children. I only allow two unrelated roommates in 4 bedroom houses. I spoke with a federal fair housing representative at training and he told me allowing only two unrelated adults is legal as long as it applies to all applicants.  My city actually has an ordinance that no more than three unrelated adults can live in ANY house. Even if the house has 6 bedrooms. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with wear and tear, parking, traffic, water / sewer and quality of community. Families have protections 

    I don't see how 37.10 could be applied by a court in this situation. Courts can't make up code or laws. If SF wanted roommates to be a protected class, they would have added it to the list. There is probably a legal reason they have not and instead put this in the subletting and eviction sections. 

    As far as an attorney, they don't speak as a matter of fact. They give legal opinions. Two attorneys enter a court positive they are correct and one leaves being told they didn't prove their case. Don't think just because you talk to an attorney that you have absolute truth. It is a fact that the ordinances do not specify non-related roommates as a protected class. In fact, they refer to married, domestic couples, relatives and children as all protected. The only category they leave out is roommates, so you could argue that group was specifically excluded from protection. Legal precedence has proven if a group is not included as a protected class, it is excluded. 

    As I mentioned, I personally think she should just accept the three roommates. My only reason is because it is San Francisco. The city has a reputation for liberal judges legislating from the bench and free legal offices ready to fight evil landlords. Even if she won a legal fight, it is not worth the effort over something as small as having 3 people in a 2 bedroom apartment. All I am saying is the code doesn't say it is discrimination to reject them. That was her question.

    3Reply
  • Aisha Duff
    Savannah, GA · Member since 2019 · 53 posts · 22 votes
    6y

    @Diane G.

    As long as they know that it is only 1 bathroom then that is a matter of their preference in making that work. I have a 3/1 and all roommates have been sharing their bathroom just fine. I am not there to regulate who takes turns in the bathroom.

    1Reply
  • Jared Espindola
    Rental Property Investor · Boston, MA · Member since 2019 · 8 posts · 3 votes
    6y

    @Diane G.

    Hi Diane, I grew up in a family of 6 with 2 bathrooms in our house and have rented a place with 1 bathroom &2 roommates (3 of us total). Maybe it's rare in your market, but I can definitely vouch for the possibility of living with 3 people per bathroom.

    1Reply
  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    6y

    Familial status can cut both ways.  Would you rent it to a family of 3, but not rent to 3 individuals who are unrelated? Then you may be discriminating because the 3 individuals are not married.  in 3 of the 4 states Im licensed in, you would likely be open to a fair housing complaint on this, and 1 of the 4 you would be in the clear. Im guessing California, would align itself with the 3 earlier ones Im licensed in (MA, MD, DC)

    [email protected]301-893-4635Podcast Guest on Show #192
    District Invest Group545 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    3Reply
  • Tisha BanksPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Houston, TX · Member since 2020 · 10 posts · 4 votes
    6y

    in college i shared a 2 bed 1 bath just fine with 2 roommates. it wasnt a problem at all. and at the same sq footage you have. don't get caught up in their comfort, you just worry more about getting the rent.  trust they are grown enough to decide for themselves. 

    0Reply
  • Daniel SmythPro Member
    Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2019 · 471 posts · 342 votes
    6y

    It is called discrimination when you choose one thing over another!
    Now you have half the answer.

    There are rules in the act of discrimination, but the act of discrimination is why we are not all dead! We drove our vehicles today in a way based on discrimination, unless you only have one vehicle that drives it's self. But then, the computer would be the method of discrimination that decided it was best not to go to the Apple Orchards of Wisconsin before taking you to your destination. There are choices, and that is discrimination!

    Now is it against legal regulations to discriminate on the basis of how many will use the property? I would think not. The common rule today is that one person per bed, per bedroom. You cannot adopt a child if that child must bunk with someone else, and they must have their own bedroom. So, there is legal precedence to show that a 2br home might better be for two people, especially since there is only one bath.

    The house across the street from one of my rentals is a 2/1 SFH. It has a full attic and basement. In the past, there have been many people living here. The current landlord decided that he would only rent it out to no more than 2 adults and one child. He told me that to ask for more people in the same house for the same rent, is a problem he has dealt with before. 10 years, and his vacancies are less than a week, each time someone needs to move.

    I follow the same ideas. I know that my rentals CAN accommodate more people if someone sleeps on the sofa(s), the floor, in the basement, and in a large closet someone could use as a bedroom, but I reserve my rights to ask who will be living in the home. I also reserve my rights to have no subletting, as well as the right to consider the house abandoned if it is left empty for more than 30 days. No matter IF the rent is paid! Failure to agree to the contract is as good as not paying rent at all. Default is when the tenant fails to follow the agreement.

    I don't have enough properties to use a PM. However, every PM company I have worked with, makes sure the properties are well maintained and filled. My concern would be that  3 adults will cause more wear and tear on a 2/1 house than 2 adults. They should BUY a house and House-Hack that way!

    Because the discrimination term is being used, I would just hold firm with what you like. Had this been 3 nice adults you trusted, an increase in rent, deposits or other fees might help sweeten the deal.

    I am personally insulted when someone thinks they can force me in a direction because of discrimination. I have attorneys, and I have a record of sound renting practices. I am not easily moved because I may have to prove myself innocent.

    It's your property. It's your property! Just don't SAY anything stupid that can be used to make it SEEM as you have illegal intentions. I would rather board up a house than rent it to someone because I was afraid they might bring me to court. if they use it against you once, they will use it against you again.

    Perhaps it's time to look for another PM?

    [email protected]
    1Reply
  • Ruth Lyons
    Investor · Colorado Springs · Member since 2016 · 234 posts · 150 votes
    6y

    Three young adult men sharing one bathroom is much easier than 3 young adult women would be! LOL. I can't help but be struck by how comfortable we've become with the perceived need for convenience in our lives. It wasn't that many years ago that a single family home was a small rancher and one bathroom was common and very doable. There were 7 in family and we only ever had one bathroom. You take turns.

    0Reply
  • Justin Simoes
    New to Real Estate · Long Island, NY · Member since 2014 · 3 posts · 1 vote
    6y

    @Diane G. I dont have an answer I’m new to this but if you own a property and you can’t decide how many people live in it without dealing with legal ramifications. Thats SCARY and all hope is lost Good luck lol

    0Reply
  • James Wise
    Real Estate Broker · Cleveland Dayton Cincinnati Toledo Columbus & Akron, OH · Member since 2013 · 31k+ posts · 20k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Diane G.:

    I have a situation that i would love some inputs for....

    I have a 2/1 in SF and I have an application from 3 youngish late 20 professionals...I dont really want to rent to them because I prefer 2 occupants... But my PM told me if I reject them, it is going to be a discrimination...

    Is it?

    Thank you..

     Well...........................It is San Francisco.......So there's that ; (

    1Reply
  • Jennifer S.
    Investor · Wakefield, MA · Member since 2019 · 31 posts · 73 votes
    6y

    Why do you think three people sharing a bathroom is too many? Lots of apartments where I live have only 1 bathroom - two sets of my tenants are three adults to one bathroom. Have not had any issues.

    I myself had two roommates with one bathroom before getting engaged. No issues.

    0Reply
  • Diane G.
    OP
    CA · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    6y

    @Justin Simoes - Lol.. Well, until you are ready to migrate to Cuba or Russian or North Korea, suck it up..... 

    0Reply
  • Elliot Blanford
    San Diego, CA · Member since 2017 · 4 posts · 4 votes
    6y

    @Diane G.

    How to tell if something is discrimination: replace “3 young professionals” with “immigrants” or “Jewish people” or whatever group you want and see how that question sounds.

    The answer is yes, it is discrimination because you are assuming, without knowing much about the people, that they are going to be bad tenants. Regardless of whether it turns out to be true, what you are proposing is discrimination. What if they are all traveling salespeople and they want to share the apartment because they are only home 4 days a month?

    I think your actual question is are they a protected class and can I legally discriminate against them.

    4Reply
  • Rob Malda
    Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2017 · 43 posts · 33 votes
    6y

    Fair Housing says you cannot discriminate against a protected class. The number of applicants is not a protected class. No Fair Housing issue with rejecting them.

    1Reply
  • Account Closed
    Lexington, KY · Member since 2018 · 169 posts · 77 votes
    6y

    Why is everyone offended because they grew up with 3 people sharing a bathroom? Grow up people if she wants 2 people per bathroom that's her choice go wait in line for your bathroom and get off BP!

    1Reply
  • Demetria Sanchez
    Specialist · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2017 · 40 posts · 17 votes
    6y

    @Diane G.

    I could understand the “wear and tear”

    Issue but at the same time that can happen with any tenant.

    It seems as if that’s the real issue (the wear and tear) and not the bathroom scenario, which in that case it could be seen as discrimination.

    What makes you feel like the possibility of wear and tear would be likely? Is it due to their age? See where I’m going with this.

    If they are qualified to rent , I would just roll with it. After all 3 incomes are better than 2!

    0Reply
  • Rob Malda
    Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2017 · 43 posts · 33 votes
    6y

    I think she was clear that the issue is the number of people, not their age. Since the number of people is not a protected class there is no discrimination. You can decide to not rent to people with green eyes, people over 6ft tall, people under 130lbs, or people who's first name starts with 'A'. None of that is discrimination since none of those are protected classes.

    0Reply
  • Will Dixon
    Accountant · Corte Madera, CA · Member since 2018 · 73 posts · 88 votes
    6y

    @Rob Malda

    That’s false. Look up arbitrary discrimination. Basically the catch all for protected classes.

    0Reply
  • Colleen F.Pro Member
    Investor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    6y

    It really centers on if being roommates and thus a non-family would they be protected under fair housing I don't know about California. You can always set income limits to discourage this in the future. 

     @Russell Brazil you want to come use that logic with the town of Narragansett and all the other college towns that have passed unrelated person ordinances?  I agree with you but the fact is that not being a "family" essentially allows this kind of restriction. I can't say for California but in general. 

    0Reply
  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Colleen F.:

    It really centers on if being roommates and thus a non-family would they be protected under fair housing I don't know about California. You can always set income limits to discourage this in the future. 

     @Russell Brazil you want to come use that logic with the town of Narragansett and all the other college towns that have passed unrelated person ordinances?  I agree with you but the fact is that not being a "family" essentially allows this kind of restriction. I can't say for California but in general. 

     Nearly every where has unrelated occupancy limits. 5 unrelated is a very typical one. If you are under the legal occupancy limit, that is where the fair housing claim would come into play. 

    [email protected]301-893-4635Podcast Guest on Show #192
    District Invest Group545 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    1Reply
  • Will Dixon
    Accountant · Corte Madera, CA · Member since 2018 · 73 posts · 88 votes
    6y

    @Joe Splitrock

    “I do not want to rent to them because they are a group of 3...I only want 2 people in that condo” were OPs words.

    We can go in circles on this, but at the end of the day we are in agreement that it would be ill advised to deny based on the legal environment of SF. You did a better job of addressing OPs question of where in the law does it outline that as discrimination. As far as any of us can tell, it is not explicitly stated. There is a type of discrimination known as arbitrary discrimination which I think could apply under these circumstances.

    @Anthony Wick

    If there is no discrimination at play, I think the ultimate test would be to deny the applicants and provide the reasoning that they are 3 unrelated persons. No reason to hide behind “screening criteria” since this is an above the board move.

    0Reply
  • Isaac S.
    Member since 2018 · 563 posts · 562 votes
    6y

    You guys are funny....there's a freakin pandemic....there is no fair housing agents/lawyers trying get discrimination cases started on an issue like this! But, it was funny to see you guys get all aggro towards each other.

    Oh, and by the way...in SF:

    3 people share a tent

    3 people share a needle

    3 people share a partner

    0Reply
  • Account Closed
    San Jose, CA · Member since 2015 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6y
    Originally posted by @Diane G.:

    I have a situation that i would love some inputs for....

    I have a 2/1 in SF and I have an application from 3 youngish late 20 professionals...I dont really want to rent to them because I prefer 2 occupants... But my PM told me if I reject them, it is going to be a discrimination...

    Is it?

    Thank you..

     Why are you involved if you have a PM?

    4Reply
  • Demetria Sanchez
    Specialist · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2017 · 40 posts · 17 votes
    6y

    @Will Dixon my point.

    Thanks.

    1Reply
  • Demetria Sanchez
    Specialist · Atlanta, GA · Member since 2017 · 40 posts · 17 votes
    6y

    @Rob Malda

    Reading throughout the forum she did state that was a concern of hers in regards to wear and tear, but what are those assumptions based on? Age? The amount of people living in the unit ?

    Also arbitrary discrimination is something she should also consider. Not saying it will happen but under these conditions there’s a possibility this could be viewed as one of those scenarios.

    1Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free