Seattle Requires Landlords To Take Bad Apples . . .

Seattle Requires Landlords To Take Bad Apples . . .

Investor · Member since 2021 · 265 posts · 305 votes
Seattle has decided you don't control your destiny or your property
1. you don't have a choice in who you can accept for your rental . . . . 
WA Supreme Court approves Seattle law requiring landlords to accept first qualified applicant

The unanimous ruling has broader implications for future property cases.

2. Feds Say Violent Mexican Cartel Is Trying to Gain Foothold in Seattle, Northwest -Video

Authorities from Homeland Security say the violent Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) is attempting to gain a stronghold in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest.

Mexican cartels are suspected of smuggling fentanyl into Washington state.

Not to mention they get paid legal services when you try to evict them

3. Washington becomes first state to guarantee lawyers for low-income tenants during evictions

April 23, 2021 at 1:01 pm Updated April 26, 2021 at 6:57 pm By Sydney Brownstone and Heidi Groover Seattle Times staff reporters

Washington is now the first state in the U.S. to ensure that its poorest tenants have access to a lawyer during eviction proceedings.

That guarantee, known as a “right to counsel” by tenant organizers and civil legal aid advocates, was signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee on Thursday as part of a larger bill aimed at preventing a flood of eviction cases once local eviction bans expire.

Several cities, including Seattle, have passed right to counsel laws, and seven other states are considering similar measures.

“A right to counsel furthers racial, economic, and social justice while helping to address the extreme imbalance of power between landlords and tenants,” John Pollock, coordinator of the advocacy group National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, said in an email. “By being the first state to enact a right to counsel, Washington State has showed the 7 states with pending legislation how to get it done, and showed the other 42 states what they need to get done.”

7Reply
105 views

Most Popular Reply

Russell BrazilBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
5y

Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

See this reply in the discussion

63 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Rental Property Investor · Member since 2020 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y

    Seattle doesn't require all landlords to accept bad apples, just those that choose to do business there.  My suggestion is invest somewhere where the local and state government doesn't hate you. They have had great appreciation which is awesome but I generally try to avoid places I'm not wanted both personally and professionally. My peace of mind, cashflow, and sense of right and wrong prohibit me from investing there, I also don't have enough money so there's also that.  

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Joplin, MO · Member since 2018 · 112 posts · 96 votes
    5y

    @Russell Brazil BOOM! Set high standards that only tenants you desire will meet.

    Is BP paying you yet? They should be.

  • Rental Property Investor · Navarre, FL · Member since 2019 · 913 posts · 640 votes
    5y

    The 'first qualified applicant', as opposed to the first applicant. It's odd they'd say that in the first place, maybe they are trying to protect the landlord from the first crappy applicant? So they're on the LL's corner? 

  • Nathan GesnerBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Cody, WY · Member since 2010 · 28k+ posts · 41k+ votes
    5y

    Accepting the first qualified applicant is a fair thing to do. If they're qualified, why would you reject them? If you have multiple applicants at the same time, then maybe you'll see one that appears more qualified than the others and you can complete their application first. But those opportunities are few and far between.

    Seattle does require you to allow roommates or family members to move in, which is extremely dangerous. Do you know how many times I've rented to someone that qualified, only to find they snuck in their drug dealing lover or sex offender brother? That is a dangerous policy.

    And in case anyone missed it, Seattle enacted a "winter eviction moratorium" months before COVID ever hit. Landlords can't evict during the winter months. Before the moratorium expires, you simply move on. The vast majority of Landlords will never pursue a judgment and collection, so you can just rinse and repeat every winter with a new private Landlord!

    The DIY Landlord Book4.7248 Reviews
  • Member since 2008 · 18 posts · 4 votes
    5y

    This law strengthens the city's ability to enforce real estate statutes against discrimination in housing. What will be interesting is the criteria for a qualified applicant. In terms of enforcement if several potential tenants apply some being Hispanic, African American, Asian or Transgender/Gay and they all have identical perfect credit or near-perfect credit because they are all working for the fair housing board and not real tenants and the landlord picks the white applicant who was not first to apply that would show clear discrimination under this law and the landlord would face sanctions. I did mystery shopping to test property management companies on their customer service. One area of concern we were asked to report on as mystery shoppers was discrimination by property management. This law will be effective if enforced with sting operations or they allow private civil rights groups to build cases and sue.

  • Drew SygitBusiness Member
    Property Manager · Royal Oak, MI · Member since 2012 · 12k+ posts · 9k+ votes
    5y

    @Eric Weldon-Schilling thanks for sharing your opinion, but have you ever dealt with a tenant that got free legal aid for their eviction? Please tell us how much you enjoyed the experience...

    @Russell Brazil how much experience do you have with Class C & D tenants? Please share...

    A possible connection between the 3 articles is that the gang could find or hire acceptable applicants to rent houses for them. Then move in their gang members right before winter (when they can't be evicted) and the landlord would be screwed when the only tenant on the lease gets a free attorney to delay the eviction even more. 

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already.

    Agreed Russ  law does not say accept FIRST applicant it says first Qualified .. you have Qualification standards I know for me for my few rentals I don't want to sift through 100s of apps  so I take the FIRST qualified app.. and sometimes I am busy and I just take the first reasonable app LOL.   I dont know what the deep dive into qualified means.. but if you say your qualifications are 700 plus fico that seems to cut the wheat from the Chaff right ?  Now I know in many of the Cash flow states this is simply not possible as 90% of folks with 700fico are going to own not rent.. but the few tenants I have all have + 700s..  When I had my rentals in MS the only reason I ran credit was to make sure there cell phones were being paid.. if they had a bunch of collections for those types of things they were going to be problems but 500 to 600 fico is norm in those states. 

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    I don’t understand why helping poor people have the same access to legal services that people who can afford to pay a lawyers huge fees are able to enjoy is such a bad thing. 
    we ensure that everyone gets a lawyer for criminal issues, why not for civil cases as well? I mean these people are at risk of losing their homes and everything and are frequently thrown out without any way to fight back. They have to face down experienced and soulless lawyers and eviction companies with no training and no one to advocate for them. That is just not right. Anyone going to any court for any reason should be able to have an attorney looking out for them. Both sides. If one side has a lawyer then they both should. 
    and why would you not accept the qualified applicant. Unless there’s a reason or something about them that you just have a problem with and your rather someone else. Someone with a different job or who is a different race or gender. The real issue is that having to accept the first qualified applicant is that makes it harder to discriminate. 
    and I really want to see what that second story about the Mexican drug cartel in Seattle has to do with anything. Was that just a throw out there some sort of anti-immigrant o racist rhetoric?

    Eric I for one like you on the BP site.. as you know this is 99% landlords or investors so there perspectives are very much skewed and self serving.  Keep in mind no one needs legal representation if they simply pay their rent and dont destroy the house and dont move in their baby daddys and ex felon boy friends..  And if you dont do the crime then who needs a criminal lawyer ?  I get it there are exceptions for sure. But I think you get the point.. There is just no way that this does not backfire on the exact people they are trying to help.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Nathan Gesner:

    Accepting the first qualified applicant is a fair thing to do. If they're qualified, why would you reject them? If you have multiple applicants at the same time, then maybe you'll see one that appears more qualified than the others and you can complete their application first. But those opportunities are few and far between.

    Seattle does require you to allow roommates or family members to move in, which is extremely dangerous. Do you know how many times I've rented to someone that qualified, only to find they snuck in their drug dealing lover or sex offender brother? That is a dangerous policy.

    And in case anyone missed it, Seattle enacted a "winter eviction moratorium" months before COVID ever hit. Landlords can't evict during the winter months. Before the moratorium expires, you simply move on. The vast majority of Landlords will never pursue a judgment and collection, so you can just rinse and repeat every winter with a new private Landlord!

    I think there might be a few other jurisdictions that have the no eviction in the winter time.  and for sure there is winter time policies not to turn off heat and water.. thereby leaving the landlord stuck with massive bills..  Been there done that !!!

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Mark Sanders:

    This law strengthens the city's ability to enforce real estate statutes against discrimination in housing. What will be interesting is the criteria for a qualified applicant. In terms of enforcement if several potential tenants apply some being Hispanic, African American, Asian or Transgender/Gay and they all have identical perfect credit or near-perfect credit because they are all working for the fair housing board and not real tenants and the landlord picks the white applicant who was not first to apply that would show clear discrimination under this law and the landlord would face sanctions. I did mystery shopping to test property management companies on their customer service. One area of concern we were asked to report on as mystery shoppers was discrimination by property management. This law will be effective if enforced with sting operations or they allow private civil rights groups to build cases and sue.

    unless you meet them in person first how are you going to know they are of a certain gender race etc ?

  • Theresa HarrisPro Member
    Member since 2019 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes
    5y

    As others pointed out the heading is misleading.  You do not have the accept 'bad apples'.  You do need to take the first qualified applicant.  If your screening criteria are reasonable (eg minimum income, no criminal history and good credit history), in general you should be fine.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Theresa Harris:

    As others pointed out the heading is misleading.  You do not have the accept 'bad apples'.  You do need to take the first qualified applicant.  If your screening criteria are reasonable (eg minimum income, no criminal history and good credit history), in general you should be fine.

     I think I read somewhere WA or Seattle was proposing that you could not deny for criminal ??  not sure but I thought I saw that somewhere .. 

  • Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y

    Nothing wrong in accepting the first qualified applicant. The place where it gets messy is what you are allowed to put as a "qualification". For example today in most places you can screen for prior evictions, restrict pets, have a credit score requirement etc. But slowly the state will insist that many of these are no longer valid. For example in CA you cannot reject Section 8 because source of income is not allowed as a screening tool. And "emotional support animals" are pushing the boundaries of what you can allow in terms of pets. In spite of all this I feel as a mom and pop landlord with single family properties proving anything is very difficult. So these things will apply more to apartment complexes or large corporate owners where you can statistically prove discrimination.

  • Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2018 · 86 posts · 86 votes
    5y

    This seems like another well-intentioned law that hurts small businesses and goes to further reduce the supply of rental housing stock.  I haven't read this law in depth but some questions I would pose to those of you that seem so eager to accept this policy and others like it.  

    What happens if you change your standards?

    What happens if the city doesn't approve of your standards?   

    What happens if your standards have a "disparate impact" upon certain communities?  

    What happens if you don't "document" what your standard is?  

    Why can't you have a reasonable standard that isn't "take the first qualified" applicant?  Such as, I will accept 10 applicants then choose the best 1? 

    I get it, there may be answers to all these questions written in the code or case law may shake the answers out as the city starts to sue people, the point is, you are inviting bureaucratic busy bodies into your lives with this type of policy which raises the cost of doing business and ultimately those costs are passed on to the law-abiding, quality renters. On its own, this policy may not be the killer but it certainly doesn't help things, especially if your goal is to provide rental housing to people.

  • Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2015 · 242 posts · 182 votes
    5y

    @Jay Hinrichs

    Seattle essentially doesn’t allow landlords to screen criminal records and places restrictions on screening for sex offenders. See link. But sure, force the landlord to take the first qualified applicant excepting those things. The public, elected officials, and a few on this thread care little about law-abiding, ethical, un-bigoted landlords who might get screwed out of a year’s rent, legal fees, and property damage by those bad apples who take advantage of the system.

    https://washingtonlandlordtenant.info/seattle-landlord-tenant-local-laws/

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    I don’t understand why helping poor people have the same access to legal services that people who can afford to pay a lawyers huge fees are able to enjoy is such a bad thing. 
    we ensure that everyone gets a lawyer for criminal issues, why not for civil cases as well? I mean these people are at risk of losing their homes and everything and are frequently thrown out without any way to fight back. They have to face down experienced and soulless lawyers and eviction companies with no training and no one to advocate for them. That is just not right. Anyone going to any court for any reason should be able to have an attorney looking out for them. Both sides. If one side has a lawyer then they both should. 
    and why would you not accept the qualified applicant. Unless there’s a reason or something about them that you just have a problem with and your rather someone else. Someone with a different job or who is a different race or gender. The real issue is that having to accept the first qualified applicant is that makes it harder to discriminate. 
    and I really want to see what that second story about the Mexican drug cartel in Seattle has to do with anything. Was that just a throw out there some sort of anti-immigrant o racist rhetoric?

    Eric I for one like you on the BP site.. as you know this is 99% landlords or investors so there perspectives are very much skewed and self serving.  Keep in mind no one needs legal representation if they simply pay their rent and dont destroy the house and dont move in their baby daddys and ex felon boy friends..  And if you dont do the crime then who needs a criminal lawyer ?  I get it there are exceptions for sure. But I think you get the point.. There is just no way that this does not backfire on the exact people they are trying to help.

     Thank you. The two main reasons I am here are to get an idea of the mindset and opinions of investors and landlords and to provide the viewpoint of the other side or the issue Which I think far too often get sort of swept under the rug if not flat out ignored. 

    I agree nobody would ever need a lawyer if people would just do what they’re supposed to or not break laws. Unfortunately, it’s just not the way things go. And whether someone has done something wrong or failed to live up to their contract, they deserve fair treatment. None of this should be one-sided.  Both side should have access to an attorney. If this landlord has one of the tenant doesn’t the tenant should be provided one if the tenant has one with the landlord doesn’t have one the landlord should be provided one  
    directions are very very horrible thing. Yes there are a lot of people who are doing things that deserve to get them kicked out but a lot of people  just follow on temporary hard times that become permanent crises whenever they are saddled with cascading late fees refusal by the landlords to except any payments except the entire amount that they have because they don’t want it to be more difficult to kick them out, and eventually  evection which ruins their chances of finding anywhere else to live. Evection should be the absolute last resort can only in cases of danger to neighbors or staff. Late and non-payment issues should be resolved with payment plans and attempts to work things out including accepting partial payments. A winter evictionl van south perfectly reasonable. That’s only for three months and avoid spreading people out to the streets where they will freeze to death. 

    Here's were it gets tough I am a softie..  I get a call from my PM on a Indy property he is managing.. Young couple just had a baby super cold winter cant afford heat and rent.. Would i defer 3 months then pay the balance pro rata for the rest of the year.. ME sure NP.

    they stay the 3 months and just leave with no notice  no intention of paying or anything else..  So you do a good thing and get bit this is what gets landlords jaded  it might work if the tenants had the ability to honor payment plans but most don't.. most simply do not have the money..  I know its reality though.  For me its OH well  not biggee but for many of the folks on this site they are just starting out and to lose 2k in rent is a big deal for them  VERY big deal.. so that's the issue.. It would be one thing if ALL landlords had massive reserves and could just let this stuff ride but that's simply not the case.

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

    here is an example with everything else being equal: You set minimum income as 3X rent.  One applicant makes 3x rent another applicant makes 4x the rent.  I think most LL would prefer the 4x.  Here is another example again everything else is the same, you set minimum credit score at 675 and one applicant has 675 and the other has 750.  I think most LL would prefer the 750.  I can do the same with number of residences in the previous 5 years or the number of tenants that will be residing in the unit.  Even past LL checks have range of responses.

    I have to admit that while I am not required to take the first qualified applicant I do, with the only exception being move-in time.  This is not because I believe the first qualified applicant is the most qualified but I do not want any appearance of favoritism/discrimination.  So we process the applicants as they are completed (note completed, not submitted), with the one exception that I already indicated.  We process only one application at a time unless something holds up that application.  

    If there was no fear of accusation of favoritism/discrimination, I would process every application and take the tenant that appears to be the best tenant and not necessarily the first that met our minimum qualifications.

  • Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2015 · 242 posts · 182 votes
    5y

    @Eric Weldon-Schilling

    Q: Why would a landlord evict a good tenant, who respects the neighbors, the property, and the property manager....who communicates, informs the property manager when unable to pay on time, makes best efforts to make payments, honors payment plans to catch up, follows rules as specified in the lease contract, and in general operates in good faith as a partner with the propery manager?

    A: They wouldn’t

  • Rental Property Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2017 · 2k+ posts · 5k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

    First qualified means that they have met your absolute bare minimum requirements for consideration. Not the best for your situation. Not the safest for your business. They just met the very minimum requirements for you to consider them.

    If you wanted a pizza, would you get one from the place that serves just barely passable pizza or the place that serves wonderful pizza? Both meet your bare minimum requirement, but if given the choice, wouldn't you pick the better of the two?

    I'd much rather rent to the person who tells me they plan on staying for several years, than the one that tells me they're going to move after a year. I'd rather rent to the one that makes 5X income than 3X income. I'd rather rent to the doctor than the guy who makes money trading cryptocurrencies. 

    Landlords should be able to choose the best overall candidate, not just the minimum candidate. 

  • Colleen F.Pro Member
    Investor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    5y

    @Account Closed    I prefer to take best qualified but I think first qualified can also work but I am not in Seattle.  I think Seattle will run into problems that hurt renters more based on other laws they have.  

    The law not excluding certain criminal backgrounds except if there is a legitimate business reason may run into trouble if  challenges start to be posed on what is a legitimate business reason.  In the end what legislatures sometimes lose sight of is the fact that better screening can also  be better for the neighborhood.   

    Personally what they say beyond a year I don't care because people don't always do what they say but you could make your criteria > 1 year plan. 

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Greg M.:
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

    First qualified means that they have met your absolute bare minimum requirements for consideration. Not the best for your situation. Not the safest for your business. They just met the very minimum requirements for you to consider them.

    If you wanted a pizza, would you get one from the place that serves just barely passable pizza or the place that serves wonderful pizza? Both meet your bare minimum requirement, but if given the choice, wouldn't you pick the better of the two?

    I'd much rather rent to the person who tells me they plan on staying for several years, than the one that tells me they're going to move after a year. I'd rather rent to the one that makes 5X income than 3X income. I'd rather rent to the doctor than the guy who makes money trading cryptocurrencies. 

    Landlords should be able to choose the best overall candidate, not just the minimum candidate. 

    Then raise your qualifications to the standards you actually want to accept. Simple enough. Not accepting people who meet your qualifications is exactly how housing discrimination happens.

  • Member since 2008 · 18 posts · 4 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
    Originally posted by @Mark Sanders:

    This law strengthens the city's ability to enforce real estate statutes against discrimination in housing. What will be interesting is the criteria for a qualified applicant. In terms of enforcement if several potential tenants apply some being Hispanic, African American, Asian or Transgender/Gay and they all have identical perfect credit or near-perfect credit because they are all working for the fair housing board and not real tenants and the landlord picks the white applicant who was not first to apply that would show clear discrimination under this law and the landlord would face sanctions. I did mystery shopping to test property management companies on their customer service. One area of concern we were asked to report on as mystery shoppers was discrimination by property management. This law will be effective if enforced with sting operations or they allow private civil rights groups to build cases and sue.

    unless you meet them in person first how are you going to know they are of a certain gender race etc ?

    Institutional management companies are more likely to select a tenant without meeting the tenant in person. Smaller management companies and individual property owners that are being discriminatory will require tenants to pick up applications in person, withhold information while sscreening aplicants over the phone etc. 

    I had a friend who was from Spain with a Spanish accent and name, and could not find an apartment in her area of choice  after searching for several months. She had to call the lanndlords to get information to apply. Finally I told her that the landlords were not returning her phone calls because they thought she was Mexican and didnt want a Mexican or brown tenant in their building. I told her to leave a message saying "My name is __________ and I'm a teacher from Spain" so the landlords  knew she was a white european and of a certain class. She followed my advice and leased an apartment the following week. This friend was comfortable with discrimination and justified it on the grounds of her experience in Spain living next to Gypsies who brought a donkey into their flat. She was surprised to find out she was being discriminated against but it was a misunderstanding.

  • Jay HinrichsBusiness Member
    Real Estate Consultant · Summerlin, NV · Member since 2014 · 45k+ posts · 66k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Mark Sanders:
    Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
    Originally posted by @Mark Sanders:

    This law strengthens the city's ability to enforce real estate statutes against discrimination in housing. What will be interesting is the criteria for a qualified applicant. In terms of enforcement if several potential tenants apply some being Hispanic, African American, Asian or Transgender/Gay and they all have identical perfect credit or near-perfect credit because they are all working for the fair housing board and not real tenants and the landlord picks the white applicant who was not first to apply that would show clear discrimination under this law and the landlord would face sanctions. I did mystery shopping to test property management companies on their customer service. One area of concern we were asked to report on as mystery shoppers was discrimination by property management. This law will be effective if enforced with sting operations or they allow private civil rights groups to build cases and sue.

    unless you meet them in person first how are you going to know they are of a certain gender race etc ?

    Institutional management companies are more likely to select a tenant without meeting the tenant in person. Smaller management companies and individual property owners that are being discriminatory will require tenants to pick up applications in person, withhold information while sscreening aplicants over the phone etc. 

    I had a friend who was from Spain with a Spanish accent and name, and could not find an apartment in her area of choice  after searching for several months. She had to call the lanndlords to get information to apply. Finally I told her that the landlords were not returning her phone calls because they thought she was Mexican and didnt want a Mexican or brown tenant in their building. I told her to leave a message saying "My name is __________ and I'm a teacher from Spain" so the landlords  knew she was a white european and of a certain class. She followed my advice and leased an apartment the following week. This friend was comfortable with discrimination and justified it on the grounds of her experience in Spain living next to Gypsies who brought a donkey into their flat. She was surprised to find out she was being discriminated against but it was a misunderstanding.

    I was in Paris a few years ago and when you mention Gypsy I harkened back on a day trip we took to Champagne and you think we have a homeless tent city problem. the Gypsy's or whatever is coming to France from the middle east and Africa  was pretty wild.

    along both sides of the freeway for at least 10 miles was tent after tent.. Now to be fair to those folks they were more like permenant tents with wood stoves in them ( you could see the smoke) and not as much filth and garbage like our homeless in the NW like to throw out their front door of their tents. 

  • Dan H.Pro Member
    Investor · Poway, CA · Member since 2015 · 7k+ posts · 8k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:
    Originally posted by @Greg M.:
    Originally posted by @Russell Brazil:

    Why would you turn down the first qualified applicant?

    Seems like an inability to think logically about the situation to be honest. You define your criteria. Person applies, if they meet your criteria you accept them. If they dont, you deny them. This is how you should be doing things already. 

    First qualified means that they have met your absolute bare minimum requirements for consideration. Not the best for your situation. Not the safest for your business. They just met the very minimum requirements for you to consider them.

    If you wanted a pizza, would you get one from the place that serves just barely passable pizza or the place that serves wonderful pizza? Both meet your bare minimum requirement, but if given the choice, wouldn't you pick the better of the two?

    I'd much rather rent to the person who tells me they plan on staying for several years, than the one that tells me they're going to move after a year. I'd rather rent to the one that makes 5X income than 3X income. I'd rather rent to the doctor than the guy who makes money trading cryptocurrencies. 

    Landlords should be able to choose the best overall candidate, not just the minimum candidate. 

    Then raise your qualifications to the standards you actually want to accept. Simple enough. Not accepting people who meet your qualifications is exactly how housing discrimination happens.

    >Then raise your qualifications to the standards you actually want to accept.

    No matter where you place the qualifications, you can get the applicant that barely meets those qualifications and those that far exceeds those qualifications. 


    >Not accepting people who meet your qualifications is exactly how housing discrimination happens.

    There is discrimination due to protected class (race, religion, gender, etc.) and discrimination based on non-protected items (credit score, income, etc.).  There could be non-protected reasons for choosing one tenant over another (example credit score).  However, not accepting tenants that meet your qualifications leaves open the perception that a potential tenant was not chosen as a result of discrimination due to one of the protected class items.

    It is why we process the earliest start to pay for the unit first and then by order of completed applications.  It does not leave room for any appearance of discrimination of a protected class.   I would hope our tenant base would speak for most instances of us not discriminating.  We have more Latino tenants than Caucasian. we have LGBTQ tenants. we have family tenants and workers who share the unit tenants.  Even with this well diversified tenant base, I do not want to try to defend against a claim of discrimination of a protected class.  Therefore, if tenants are willing to pay for the unit the first day that it is ready to rent, we process the applications in the order completed.

    I have no illusion that a subsequent application may be a better applicant, but we do not want even a remote perception that we are discriminating against a protected class.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.