section 8 housing

[dogs4thewin]

I could not decide whether to put this here or in ethics, but how do you feel about the fact that in many places a landlord may (legally) refuse to rent to those who rely on section 8 housing? This is so long as section 8 is the only reason they cannot use section 8 among with a protected class, but they may have a blanket policy to not rent to anyone who relies on a section 8 voucher for rent.

 

[Arcangl86]

I think the discrimination should be outlawed on a federal level. As long as the landlord is getting the market value of the rent, they shouldn't be able to say that they will only accept certain types of payment. It stigmatizes the poor more then they already are.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I think the discrimination should be outlawed on a federal level. As long as the landlord is getting the market value of the rent, they shouldn't be able to say that they will only accept certain types of payment. It stigmatizes the poor more then they already are.

being poor is not a protected class and therefore it is not considered discrimination.
Many landlords do it because A there is a LOT of red tape with section 8 and/or B section 8 renters whether correctly or not have a rep for not taking care of the property leaving it in a mess ect. It also tends to be harder to evict section 8 renters.

 

[Arcangl86]

being poor is not a protected class and therefore it is not considered discrimination.

I didn't say it was illegal discrimination and in fact I was explicit that I think it should be. But it is still discriminatory.

Many landlords do it because A there is a LOT of red tape with section 8

That I can understand and maybe allow a small administrative fee to deal with that headache.

and/or B section 8 renters whether correctly or not have a rep for not taking care of the property leaving it in a mess ect.

They have to take that risk with any tenent though.

It also tends to be harder to evict section 8 renters.

Really? I haven't heard that, though again, evictions are never easy to begin with and that's a risk you are always going to have to take. Even if the bar is higher to evict section 8 users, do they have a higher risk of needing to be evicted in the first place?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I didn't say it was illegal discrimination and in fact I was explicit that I think it should be. But it is still discriminatory.

That I can understand and maybe allow a small administrative fee to deal with that headache.

They have to take that risk with any tenent though.

Really? I haven't heard that, though again, evictions are never easy to begin with and that's a risk you are always going to have to take. Even if the bar is higher to evict section 8 users, do they have a higher risk of needing to be evicted in the first place?

I am unsure what the numbers are on that whether they have a higher risk of needing to be evicted .

As to taking that risk with anyone maybe so, but the people who are paying the full rent have more of a motivation to keep it clean and not destroy the property because they are paying the full rent.

 

[Arcangl86]

I am unsure what the numbers are on that whether they have a higher risk of needing to be evicted .

Thank you. I'll probably look round later to see if I can find numbers.

As to taking that risk with anyone maybe so, but the people who are paying the full rent have more of a motivation to keep it clean and not destroy the property because they are paying the full rent.

I'm not sure that follows. All destroying the property does is make sure you don't get back the security deposit, which landlords are notorious for not paying in general. Not to mention that Section 8 doesn't cover security deposits.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Thank you. I'll probably look round later to see if I can find numbers.

I'm not sure that follows. All destroying the property does is make sure you don't get back the security deposit, which landlords are notorious for not paying in general. Not to mention that Section 8 doesn't cover security deposits.

I looked that up and saw that they did in fact have to pay the security despite I did not know if that was the case which to me makes little sense seeing as how if they cannot pay their monthly rent how are they expected to pay the month's worth of rent that is the security despite

 

[Arcangl86]

I looked that up and saw that they did in fact have to pay the security despite I did not know if that was the case which to me makes little sense seeing as how if they cannot pay their monthly rent how are they expected to pay the month's worth of rent that is the security despite

The same way most people do, they save up for it. There's a big difference between a single big expense and that expense occurring every month.

 

[Richard T]

I could not decide whether to put this here or in ethics, but how do you feel about the fact that in many places a landlord may (legally) refuse to rent to those who rely on section 8 housing? This is so long as section 8 is the only reason they cannot use section 8 among with a protected class, but they may have a blanket policy to not rent to anyone who relies on a section 8 voucher for rent.

If you earn too much you can be turned down from renting in many section 8 complexes, even if you are willing to pay the full amount. This is because the government subsidized the building of these units and they have to go to lower income people. Likewise there are many that would never want to rent to section 8 because HUD inspects the homes and has rules that landlords may not agree with. If you wanted to force the landlords you would have to remove the regulations, including how to handle a Hud eviction.