All Forum Posts by: Alex Guzmán

Linking the Virginia rent relief program info for ease of access: https://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/...

The question you should ask is whether the language rises to the level or harassment/coercion/intimidation, (directed at the tenant or in such a way that creates a hostile environment), or if it is a matter of free speech. A singular incident or careless remark may not rise to that level. Repeated use might. 

Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their tenants or staff if those actions are based on a protected class (race in this case) and rise to the level of severe or pervasive harassment. 

So I believe the answer of how to respond is somewhere in between the responses to this thread. Right now, it seems it may be a matter of allowing the tenants to handle it between themselves. If it continues, creating a hostile environment for the tenant on the receiving end of the slur, then it's time to step in. 

@Bill B. it’s necessary to enforce Fair Housing laws, actually. 

Proving discrimination actually requires evidence, and that evidence is often a comparison of who received the unit vs who did not receive the unit. HUD funds organizations to conduct these sorts of undercover investigations to assist people who are alleging discrimination. That evidence is then used to file a complaint or lawsuit.

It’s like the police, but for housing discrimination.

People are free to collect their own evidence, as well, within the bounds of the law.

If they used an agent, FHA applies— no exemptions, regardless whether owners occupy the property or not. HUD would consider an office or living room as a bedroom for occupancy purposes per the Keating Memo. If all applies, allegations could include refusal to rent and misrepresenting availability on the basis of familial status. Both owner and agent potentially liable.

@Nathan Gesner It's a combination of the Federal law and the HUD guidance. There's an interesting legislative history— initial drafts were much more friendly to housing providers, but HUD threatened to withdraw its Fair Housing enforcement funds bc it would not be "substantially equivalent" to the Federal law.

@Jason Tassinari Virginia updated its Fair Housing Law a few years ago to specifically address “assistance animals.” This was in response to housing provider confusion around the responsibilities. I’ve quoted the relevant section below: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/v...

This doesn’t cover every jurisdiction, but it does cover a ton in a good visual with very specific information  about the types of crimes reported: https://communitycrimemap.com/

@Deonte Brown is right about the reasons why. I think that information was also highly generalized on those platforms in a way that could make consumers overreact to the perceived incidence of crime. Which is why I like the specificity of the community crime map. Might make different decisions based on a series of car break-ins a year ago versus a consistent pattern of shootings in a specific neighborhood. 

 Nothing in the original post and title indicate you were acting in response to a lie. They do not indicate you independently and factually verified the information she provided. It does indicate that you perceived the person to be “crazy” and wanted to cancel the tour in response to that perception.  

The facts as presented represent a significant fair housing risk, one that can be mitigated by creating a standardized application and showing process. 

Mitigate your risk. Many folks in the thread provided excellent advice for how to do that. 

@Bruce Woodruff the OP opened herself to the risk by posting discriminatory statements on this forum. There’s no mention on my post about renting to the person. It’s about applying a process that will avoid a FH complaint. The application process is supposed to be a barrier to entry— diverting from that process and calling the person “crazy,” then stating you don’t want to rent to them because they are “crazy” is an easy way to maximize your risk exposure. 

This thread is concerning for a whole host of reasons, but the first is that you characterized her as “crazy…”

Under the Fair Housing Act, a person qualifies as having a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more life activities, having a history of such an impairment, or being perceived as having such an impairment. 

By that definition and the way you characterized the interaction, you’ve likely “otherwise made housing unavailable” on the basis of their perceived disability. 

As general best practice, show the unit the same you would any other person. Run them through the same application process. The order in which you do this matters— if you ask someone to apply before showing the unit  but show the next person the unit before asking them to apply, you’re providing potentially discriminatory “terms & conditions.”

Happy to chat more specifically about your situation.