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
128 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
  • Colleen F.Pro Member
    Investor · Narragansett, RI · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 4k+ votes
    5y

    @Account Closed I actually thought there was some leeway on criteria.  You can't say I want 4 x rent or I don't take x non-protected class.  You can't say I don't take people with violent felonies in a MF?  Actually too bad it works that way. I see your point about taking it off the market but are you required to do so?  

    I will say I don't like tenants that far exceed income qualification, they are almost always short-term residents but that could be different where you are.

    @Jay Hinrichs what do you do about road work with these encampments?  I hear they are down the highway in the NW and here the guys with the orange vests are taking that space over for road work in the summer.  

  • Property Manager · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2014 · 729 posts · 596 votes
    5y

    @Mike Baxter

    I already follow this in north carolina. I set my requirements and accept the first qualified applicant. The issue depends on who sets the requirements. If I can set me requirements, then I would be in compliance already. But, if the state mandated the requirements, I would sell all properties in the state.

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

    @Account Closed I actually thought there was some leeway on criteria.  You can't say I want 4 x rent or I don't take x non-protected class.  You can't say I don't take people with violent felonies in a MF?  Actually too bad it works that way. I see your point about taking it off the market but are you required to do so?  

    I will say I don't like tenants that far exceed income qualification, they are almost always short-term residents but that could be different where you are.

    @Jay Hinrichs what do you do about road work with these encampments?  I hear they are down the highway in the NW and here the guys with the orange vests are taking that space over for road work in the summer.  

    They seem to be mowing around them.. but they are on sidewalks so no work gets done on those and I saw some on over pass sidewalks to me thats really dangerous stuff goes over the edge and into your car going at freeway speeds that could kill someone.

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



    "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."

    That's a horrible way to have to live, I'm so sorry for you.

    When more time is spent worried about offending someone than just treating people fairly and honestly, seems like there are better ways to make a living or better yet to just change such an oppressive state government.  

    >When more time is spent worried about offending someone than just treating people fairly and honestly

    I do not know how it is not treating anyone fairly or honestly.  First completed application that can move in on the date the unit is ready gets processed first.  If they meet our qualifications, the unit is offered to them.  Very fair, but may not result in the best tenant out of all those that may want the unit.  it meets the minimum qualification test.

    It is also not so much that I am worried about offending someone, but I do not desire the hassle to defend any legal consequences of the appearance of discrimination against a protected class.  I am not so much worried about losing as I am the hassle of defending my actions.  I have better things to do with my time than trying to convince someone that the reason I chose a tenant, other than the 1st completed application, was not because of any protected class item.

    >seems like there are better ways to make a living or better yet to just change such an oppressive state government.

    I have made a lot of money from RE that I enjoy (I love the hunt for the right RE), so not sure about better ways to make a living.

    I am in partial agreement with the second half of this, but we change our behavior all the time due to various rules set by various jurisdictions.  It is part of living in a society.  What you and I may consider oppressive, others may not.  I do not live or rent in Seattle, but my market (San Diego county) currently has tenant rules that are likely the worse, from a LL perspective, in the nation.  In San Diego, the tenants cannot currently be evicted for any lease violation that does not have significant health and safety impacts (includes pets, smoking, number of tenants, damage to the unit, etc.) and cannot be evicted for missed payments.  You also cannot evict the tenant to move into the unit that you own or to renovate the unit that you own.  They can only be evicted if their actions present a danger.

    Voters voted these politicians into their positions.  As such the rules they set are clearly not considered oppressive by everyone.  I consider not being allowed to move into a home that I own oppressive.  The tenants may consider being forced to more out of their home, to have the owner move in, to be oppressive.  All a matter of perspective.

  • Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2017 · 523 posts · 476 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. 

     I am confused as well. Why would you turn down an applicant who meets your criteria, and let the apartment sit vacant? This legislation may be very misguided, but having trouble seeing why anyone would put a unit up for rent, then turn away an applicant who meets all their criteria. 

  • Handyman · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    5y

    @Account Closed. In a rare twist, this can obviously hurt the big guys more than the little guys. 

    I don't understand why they can't make the law so that the LL gets her/his pick of the first three qualified applicants. That would really cut down on the issues.

  • Rental Property Investor · East Wenatchee, WA · Member since 2014 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes
    5y

    I thought first come, first serve was shot down / repealed by the state supreme court.  It's akin to telling employers they must take the first minimally qualified applicant over another better qualified person interviewed later or even next. 

    Either way, when it first came out a few years ago in WA  I just made sure the only one that came was the one I wanted.  Pre-screening and extensive questions in a for rent and tight written criteria helps solve this, along with no phone number or address.  I haven't held an open house in 14 years.  The first round of first come, first serve taught me this. 

  • Investor · Los Angeles, CA · Member since 2017 · 523 posts · 476 votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:
    Originally posted by @Shiva Bhaskar:
    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. 

     I am confused as well. Why would you turn down an applicant who meets your criteria, and let the apartment sit vacant? This legislation may be very misguided, but having trouble seeing why anyone would put a unit up for rent, then turn away an applicant who meets all their criteria. 

    I guess you didn't see the explanation provided in the 2nd post on this page. The city now requires you to accept any friend or relative they invite to move in with them, no credit check or back ground check allowed. 

    You're right, I didn't see that. Thank you for clarifying for me. Now I get it. 

  • Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y

    I think landlord tenant laws were more landlord friendly in CHAZ!

    Hilarious can’t even run your own properties in Seattle.  Why would you think you could decide who was going to live in your home in America?

    Wait until Seattle starts telling people where they have to live.  “Hey dude you applied to live here but we need to diversify this area with whatever category it is we have you listed as.”  


  • Real Estate Agent · Sisters, OR · Member since 2014 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    5y

    @Account Closed

    Do you believe they are creating these laws because they think landlords aren’t woke enough? or do you think Seattle knows this is silly however it will piss off landords and make their life more difficult possibly lawsuits etc. so let’s do this to harm them?

  • Member since 2008 · 18 posts · 4 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. 

    A lot of property managers were trained and advised to follow the best overall candidate model. On the federal level, issues related to housing and small business have been very politicized. Since the 1980s  enforcement has swung in both directions. One party in power funds equal protection and begins to enforce it, and then when the other party comes into power they gut the programs and defund it. 

    A lot of the hard lines and accepted practices of the past are being called into question, not just with housing but all the things that flow from housing such as community-level education and policing.

    The current political thinking is to question the concept of Single Family Residential zoning as a social good. Cities with lots of SFR, such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis, are now seen as tools of racial and class exclusion by historic design. Many cities are doing away with SFR zoning in part because it is considered discriminatory. Single Family Residential communities were once considered a sacred ideal. With SFR being deconstructed, there is no way any type of bias or room for potential bias will be tolerated in other areas affecting real estate

    It seems the new standard or obligation is for landlords to operate apartments on a model more aligned to what the hotel industry has been made to follow since the end of legal segregation where people have a right to accommodation as long as they meet certain basic standards and have the ability to pay.  

  • Rental Property Investor · TN · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Jay Hinrichs:
    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 .. 

    Come on Jay!  You don't want all the very wealthy drug dealing gang bangers homeless do you?  After all they do not want to deal in their own homes--the cops come and kick the doors in!  That is what rentals are for!  Absolutely the first qualified criminal meth cooking gangbanger, must be rented to!

  • Rental Property Investor · TN · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Shiva Bhaskar:
    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. 

     I am confused as well. Why would you turn down an applicant who meets your criteria, and let the apartment sit vacant? This legislation may be very misguided, but having trouble seeing why anyone would put a unit up for rent, then turn away an applicant who meets all their criteria. 

     I just did this this week.  I had an applicant that is qualified.  But I also had an applicant that applied a few hours later that is also qualified.  The second applicant is disabled retired military after 14 years.  Income includes significant military disability.  He also works and earns money in a job that is transferable to where the rental property is.  They have a disabled child and want to move closer to family to get help.  Family lives in this small rural area--where he grew up.

    First one is ok, landlord gave excellent 'she pays, keeps things clean' reference, but also 'she is picky, and wants perfect'.  I already have one of those tenants and would prefer to avoid another.  

    So, is it wrong to go with the person who I think is qualified and deserving because his application was a few hours later?  I always give a disabled vet a preference.

  • Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    Seattle has a department of "shoppers" who go to rentals and "apply" for the rental. Isn't that a bit of a Soviet style tactic? When a landlord accepts the "shopper" as a renter and all of the paperwork has been completed, if the landlord conformed to every dot and tittle of the law, he is "released" from the rental and has to remarket the property.

    The landlord winds up having taken the rental out of the "market" for a time, assumed he had a renter, prepared his life accordingly, and wasting a bunch of time. But, if he makes a mistake, he gets a letter to come visit some unfriendly people downtown.

    Kinda makes you long for the Soviet Union circa 1984

    Sorry, this makes no sense at all. I never take a property off the market until I have one months deposit in hand. So any fake renters would have no impact. If someone qualifies and applies, I take the application fee and run the application. If they pass I give them 24 hours to put a non refundable deposit. If the state wishes to pay me one months rent for the pleasure of cat fishing me then what do I care? Meanwhile I continue to show the property and if another real qualified renter puts down the deposit first, its theirs. I really think this analogy to Soviet Union is not useful and is just hyperbole.

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

    A lot of property managers were trained and advised to follow the best overall candidate model. On the federal level, issues related to housing and small business have been very politicized. Since the 1980s  enforcement has swung in both directions. One party in power funds equal protection and begins to enforce it, and then when the other party comes into power they gut the programs and defund it. 

    A lot of the hard lines and accepted practices of the past are being called into question, not just with housing but all the things that flow from housing such as community-level education and policing.

    The current political thinking is to question the concept of Single Family Residential zoning as a social good. Cities with lots of SFR, such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis, are now seen as tools of racial and class exclusion by historic design. Many cities are doing away with SFR zoning in part because it is considered discriminatory. Single Family Residential communities were once considered a sacred ideal. With SFR being deconstructed, there is no way any type of bias or room for potential bias will be tolerated in other areas affecting real estate

    It seems the new standard or obligation is for landlords to operate apartments on a model more aligned to what the hotel industry has been made to follow since the end of legal segregation where people have a right to accommodation as long as they meet certain basic standards and have the ability to pay.  

    Interesting:

    There is a county in Mississippi ( Madison) which is just north of the state Capital and largest city Jackson . And the entire counties zoning code excludes ANY MF the only thing you can build there is SFR and light commercial and office. Then further more when you get into many of the more exclusive subdivisions the CCR's prevent you from renting the house all together. So ONLY owner occuppied.. I looked at that as a very important consideration. IN down times you may want to rent your home but in those developments if you dont live there it must be vacant. The development were I lived had 2 homes in it that were owned by the development and were allowed to be rented.. I moved there during the GFC and they rented it to me even though I was not buying a lot and having a home built which was the intention of the developer owning that house it was for his clients that were in between homes while their new one was being built. I considered myself very lucky to be able to rent that for the year I was posted in the Jackson MS market.

  • Member since 2018 · 41 posts · 41 votes
    5y

    I wouldn’t have any interest in owning investment property in Washington to begin with. Idaho is relatively landlord friendly. 

    I have no real problem with taking the first qualified tenant as I tend to screen thoroughly. I would just hate to invest my capital in a place where I know I’m hated and unappreciated. One thing for sure is all the hatred towards landlords isn’t going to have the intended effects. It’s going to drive mom and pop operators out, reducing the number of available dwellings. Those who remain are going to want to be well compensated for the abuse. Corporate operations are going to jam rents right through the roof. Ought to be interesting. 

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

    I wouldn’t have any interest in owning investment property in Washington to begin with. Idaho is relatively landlord friendly. 

    I have no real problem with taking the first qualified tenant as I tend to screen thoroughly. I would just hate to invest my capital in a place where I know I’m hated and unappreciated. One thing for sure is all the hatred towards landlords isn’t going to have the intended effects. It’s going to drive mom and pop operators out, reducing the number of available dwellings. Those who remain are going to want to be well compensated for the abuse. Corporate operations are going to jam rents right through the roof. Ought to be interesting. 

    Keep in mind ( and I am not saying this will change) but Oregon was very landlord friendly up until about 5 to 6 years ago.. I got tenants out in 60 days no sweat here.  laws change.. thats the issue right now.  YOu can buy in a Landlord friendly city then boom.

    And keep in mind its not all landlord tenant laws.. there are cities back east.. Parts of Cleveland specific were the city and building department will cost you as much money as a bad tenant your fighting both of those.. and the city is worse you cant win.

  • Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    @Account Closed,

    If "the first qualified applicant" is a "bad apple", you need to adjust your qualifications within the limits of what the law allows.

    My $0.02 ...

  • Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y

    Sure, but it's the city that sets the qualifications. Did you overlook the second and third posts on the previous page that explains the problem?

    Technically it's Equal Housing Opportunity, etc. that sets the BASIC criteria. The landlord still has some say beyond those limits (credit, income, references, etc.).

    If the city is sending in people to attempt to "entrap" non-compliant landlords, the problem is the landlords, not the City.

    As for your example, you're going to get that anywhere. You set occupancy limits in the lease (based on the local ordinances, of course) and when those are broken, you act on that basis. (COVID issues not withstanding.)

  • Handyman · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2018 · 5k+ posts · 13k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Lynnette E.:
    Originally posted by @Shiva Bhaskar:
    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. 

     I am confused as well. Why would you turn down an applicant who meets your criteria, and let the apartment sit vacant? This legislation may be very misguided, but having trouble seeing why anyone would put a unit up for rent, then turn away an applicant who meets all their criteria. 

     I just did this this week.  I had an applicant that is qualified.  But I also had an applicant that applied a few hours later that is also qualified.  The second applicant is disabled retired military after 14 years.  Income includes significant military disability.  He also works and earns money in a job that is transferable to where the rental property is.  They have a disabled child and want to move closer to family to get help.  Family lives in this small rural area--where he grew up.

    First one is ok, landlord gave excellent 'she pays, keeps things clean' reference, but also 'she is picky, and wants perfect'.  I already have one of those tenants and would prefer to avoid another.  

    So, is it wrong to go with the person who I think is qualified and deserving because his application was a few hours later?  I always give a disabled vet a preference.

    LOL. The disabled vet with an honorable dischange always gets the house, white, brown, black, yellow, purple, whatever. One thing I love about Western PA. You never even have to listen to fools argue about that here. They're all like, "Got a problem with it? Eff off to Philly."

  • Rental Property Investor · TN · Member since 2018 · 2k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Jim K.:
    Originally posted by @Lynnette E.:
    Originally posted by @Shiva Bhaskar:
    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. 

     I am confused as well. Why would you turn down an applicant who meets your criteria, and let the apartment sit vacant? This legislation may be very misguided, but having trouble seeing why anyone would put a unit up for rent, then turn away an applicant who meets all their criteria. 

     I just did this this week.  I had an applicant that is qualified.  But I also had an applicant that applied a few hours later that is also qualified.  The second applicant is disabled retired military after 14 years.  Income includes significant military disability.  He also works and earns money in a job that is transferable to where the rental property is.  They have a disabled child and want to move closer to family to get help.  Family lives in this small rural area--where he grew up.

    First one is ok, landlord gave excellent 'she pays, keeps things clean' reference, but also 'she is picky, and wants perfect'.  I already have one of those tenants and would prefer to avoid another.  

    So, is it wrong to go with the person who I think is qualified and deserving because his application was a few hours later?  I always give a disabled vet a preference.

    LOL. The disabled vet with an honorable dischange always gets the house, white, brown, black, yellow, purple, whatever. One thing I love about Western PA. You never even have to listen to fools argue about that here. They're all like, "Got a problem with it? Eff off to Philly."

    I'm signing the lease Monday.  I have no idea on the white, brown, back, yellow, purple part.  That really does not matter.   I'll find out when I meet him--maybe.  (I have adopted kids whose race is guessed wrong all the time.  They are Maya.  So I don't assume I know someone's race by looking at them.)

  • Charleston, SC · Member since 2014 · 52 posts · 14 votes
    5y

    Its unfortunate that we have politicians across the country have made it so important where you live and invest. Those of us here in the free states (south east and perhaps some of the midwest?) where are politicians don't despise us, have it very easy. I feel for those who live in those states like CA, OR, NY, etc. where it may have once been a great place to live and invest. They however have a choice everyday to continue to live and invest in a state whose outright goal is seemingly to punish investors or they can make the changes necessary to invest in markets where politicians aren't out to get you. Yes, those are hard and costly choices, but they are choices nonetheless.

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

    Seattle has a department of "shoppers" who go to rentals and "apply" for the rental. Isn't that a bit of a Soviet style tactic? When a landlord accepts the "shopper" as a renter and all of the paperwork has been completed, if the landlord conformed to every dot and tittle of the law, he is "released" from the rental and has to remarket the property.

    The landlord winds up having taken the rental out of the "market" for a time, assumed he had a renter, prepared his life accordingly, and wasting a bunch of time. But, if he makes a mistake, he gets a letter to come visit some unfriendly people downtown.

    Kinda makes you long for the Soviet Union circa 1984

    Sorry, this makes no sense at all. I never take a property off the market until I have one months deposit in hand. So any fake renters would have no impact. If someone qualifies and applies, I take the application fee and run the application. If they pass I give them 24 hours to put a non refundable deposit. If the state wishes to pay me one months rent for the pleasure of cat fishing me then what do I care? Meanwhile I continue to show the property and if another real qualified renter puts down the deposit first, its theirs. I really think this analogy to Soviet Union is not useful and is just hyperbole. 

    You are in Singapore and you lecture me about my experiences n Seattle?  Unbelievable. Are you being paid by the Seattle Visitors bureau? Get some perspective. I don't care about your experiences in other places, start your own post. This is about what happens in Seattle. 

    Mike ,, Anish is a very experienced Bay Area investor  not that he needs me to vouch for him.. so he does have some perspective on over the top landlord laws with his Rentals he has spoken about there in the East Bay..  

  • Investor · Singapore · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

    You are in Singapore and you lecture me about my experiences n Seattle?  Unbelievable. Are you being paid by the Seattle Visitors bureau? Get some perspective. I don't care about your experiences in other places, start your own post. This is about what happens in Seattle. 

    Where I live now says nothing about my investing experience. I am from the US, own a bunch of properties there and understand well how properties are listed and rented. And what you say makes no sense at all. I dont own in Seattle but I do own in the Bay Area which is not known to be landlord friendly by any means. Your personal attack rather than reasoned response tells me all about how much your "experiences" and opinions are worth since you cant actually back them up with logical rebuttals to my points.

  • Rental Property Investor · Rockford, IL · Member since 2014 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    5y
    Originally posted by @Account Closed:

     Your comment: "you're going to get that anywhere"

    That's funny, I don't get that in any of my AZ or TX properties.

     Just because you haven't (yet) doesn't mean you won't. Luck is a haughty goddess.

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