when whitey reply's first won't that be it racis?
Posted on 11/17/2019 4:12:50 PM PST by david1292
The Washington State Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld a Seattle law requiring landlords to accept the first qualified rental applicant, reversing a lower court ruling and delivering a win for the city’s lawmakers.
The law, known as the First in Time (FIT) law and initially approved in 2016, is believed to be the only one of its kind in the country. It dictates that landlords must review applications in the order their applications are received and accept the first qualified prospective tenant.
Tenant advocates pushed for the law as a means to eliminate landlords’ “gut check” rationale for accepting some applicants over others — and in the process theoretically reducing any implicit or explicit bias against certain groups.
Indeed, while Seattle is an outlier in mandating such a process, the court’s ruling pointed out that offering tenancy to the first qualified applicant is considered a “best practice” by real estate groups. “The procedures required by the FIT rule are consistent with industry recommended best practices,” wrote Justice Mary Yu on behalf of the court.
Opponents argued that the law will have unintended consequences that hurt both less advantaged renters and small landlords.
(Excerpt) Read more at crosscut.com ...
The liberals believe this will eliminate discrimination.
A lot of people will thus decide to exit the rental market, and convert to condos.
Freedom of association, gone.
Freedom to refuse service, gone.
Freedom of choice, gone.
Do you want to shrink the pool of available properties?
Because this is the way you shrink the pool of available properties.
Maybe someone can help me determine why this is bad. Perhaps the term “qualified?” You can certainly set parameters (number of people to be moved in, pets or no, etc.). I though federal law already stopped discrimination based on having children or being a minority.
Am I missing something?
The homeless “crisis” is entirely self-fabricated and is simply one of the avenues towards total Marxism.
How many rental properties to do you own?
When can I move in? I hate keeping my meth Lab in the trunk of my car.
I’m guessing a lot of landlords will be getting out of the business, unless this doesn’t apply to single family homes. If it does, a lot of houses will come on the market and renters will have even fewer options. DemocRATS simply don’t understand the Law of Unintended Consequences.
when whitey reply's first won't that be it racis?
Just because the government says somebody is “qualified” doesn’t mean they won’t destroy your property.
https://www.avail.co/education/articles/when-renting-goes-wrong-6-tenant-horror-stories
You seem to believe that property owners should have no say in who they rent to.
How about passing a law that you have no say in who you rent from or where?
What’s good for the goose...
What genuinely concerns me is the court ruling that the takings clause doesn’t kick in until they take ALL beneficial use of your property; if they just take 99% of the value, then the court just ruled that that’s okay and you get no compensation.
[[[The homeless “crisis” is entirely self-fabricated and is simply one of the avenues towards total Marxism.]]]
The mission is to have us 14 in an apt. while the elite continue to party.
Similar to the Soviet Union.
They should also pass state-wide rent control. This should finish off the rental market.
or keep it out of the papers and only advertise on church bulletin boards
Actually, me and Mr. Mercat have owned as many as 5 rentals at any one time over 45 years. We do FIT except our qualifications and standards are high. But, I don’t want the dad burned gubmint telling us how to do it.
I know a lot of people who rent property.
Always to people they know.
None of the people I know have vacancy signs, or advertise, or use a management company.
All of them screen renters by renting to people they know through business or other activities and get referred potential tenants by their friends and business contacts.
They still get bad renters, but fewer of them.
Obviously they aren’t going to be getting applications.
Some of them don’t even live in the area where the properties are located.
I suspect that this will happen with Seattle.
There won’t appear to be any houses or condominiums for rent inSeattle at all. But if you know this lady in Tacoma, who knows a guy in Casper Wyoming whose brother retired from Boeing...
This is a lawyer’s dream. Lawsuits will skyrocket, among all the other adverse effects.
Don’t miss this little tidbit near the end of the article:
“The court on Thursday also issued a separate ruling favorable to the city of Seattle. It related to whether landlords can consider an applicant’s background. . . .”
That’s not the way I read it
” applications in the order their applications are received and accept the first QUALIFIED prospective tenant.”
To me that’s an out
2) What constitutes a "qualified" applicant?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.