U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Boston, MA
7,900 posts, read 6,832,090 times
Reputation: 6635

Advertisements

Sad thing is, this is a potentially interesting discussion. Didn't turn out that way. What a shock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,007 posts, read 13,190,552 times
Reputation: 7962
Wow, I'm shocked by the number of people on here actually advocating for landlords to use discriminatory practices and break the law. I read the post and I saw few, in any, posters saying the OP lie about having a child, just not disclose the the fact right off the bat and to wait until they've qualified under all other means. There's no reason for a landlord to know the age of a child living in their building other than to get around this lead law. Children under a certain age don't count towards occupancy rates, are almost never named on a lease or application, contribute nothing to the household, aren't named in lawsuits against tenants, and are about as relevant as a dog living there, as far as a landlord is concerned. If your credit, income, references, and job are all checked and approved and the landlord changes their mind after learning about your child, then they are breaking the law.

Heck, lying and saying your child is 8yo vs 5yo is morally questionable but NOWHERE NEAR as morally questionable as landlords breaking the law and finding excuses to justify them do so. But in cases like the OP and after reading this thread, I'd recommend people like the OP do that if they're willing to deal with the lead risk (and there are TONS of kids being born and raised in apartments that aren't deceased). I understand it's pricey and that the law is pure BS, but why become a landlord if you aren't willing to invest in your property? Better than popping down cash on granite counters and stainless steeel appliances, IMHO, something landlords seem to have no problems doing (and counters and appliances will eventually need to be replaced vs. one time lead removal). Stainless steel appliances and granite countertops are almost all about aesthetics and deleading is about function yet landlords seem to prefer the former over the latter because it's easier/cheaper in the short term.

Last edited by eevee; 07-27-2017 at 11:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:27 AM
 
16 posts, read 7,674 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by sal1181 View Post
Can't believe some of the comments on this thread! Pumpkin114 hopefully you found a place that is suitable for you and your family. Next time someone tells you no kids please report them whether they are a landlord or an agent
I think we found a pretty great place in the end. It was professionally encapsulated to cover lead paint and seems very well taken care of, so that shouldn't be an issue for us Just lucked out with what seems to be a great landlord. I know they're not all bad! I actually managed a rental property myself for my mother when she moved. I've dealt with some interesting tenants and I know myself that my family are pretty fantastic tenants to have.

If our move wasn't on such short notice and we had more time, I'd love to report the particularly jerky ones. We have no solid proof of anything though, of course. Can't record phone conversations without consent. One of the homes we put an application on we believe we were turned down in favor of some young males (would assume they were college kids) who we'd guess were maybe not as ideal applicants in some ways. I'm sure they'd just say they chose them because of amazing guarantors or something else. We don't know who they went with for sure though, can't prove anything.

And in case anyone is curious as to our race? We're unmistakebly white. Especially after this, my heart goes out even more to others who would be discriminated against because of their skin color or anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:28 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 438,832 times
Reputation: 1333
@eevee

Why become a parent if you aren't willing to pay for a de-leaded place vs a cheaper non de-leaded?
We can go back and forth here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:35 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 2,198,510 times
Reputation: 2682
So we are terrible people for saying joe shmo landlord should just fork over 20k for someone they don't know with kids who wants to live there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:43 AM
 
16 posts, read 7,674 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatsnext75 View Post
So we are terrible people for saying joe shmo landlord should just fork over 20k for someone they don't know with kids who wants to live there?
Joe Shmo landlord could just follow the law and not discriminate, then fix up his leaded property if it came to it because that's what he took on when he chose a career as a landlord. He shouldn't have become a landlord if he couldn't afford to buy a de-leaded property or can't afford to de-lead it afterwards-- the counter argument to saying people who have children and can't afford an extra $600/month for a safe property shouldn't have sex/make babies.

Doesn't make you a terrible person, no. Maybe just weirdly pro-landlord/ business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:44 AM
 
32,778 posts, read 22,726,695 times
Reputation: 29800
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkin114 View Post
Joe Shmo landlord could just follow the law and not discriminate, then fix up his leaded property if it came to it because that's what he took on when he chose a career as a landlord. He shouldn't have become a landlord if he couldn't afford to buy a de-leaded property or can't afford to de-lead it afterwards-- the counter argument to saying people who have children and can't afford an extra $600/month for a safe property shouldn't have sex/make babies.

Doesn't make you a terrible person, no. Maybe just weirdly pro-landlord/ business.


Businesses over people is the mantra of the right nowadays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Chicago
6,007 posts, read 13,190,552 times
Reputation: 7962
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeePee View Post
@eevee

Why become a parent if you aren't willing to pay for a de-leaded place vs a cheaper non de-leaded?
We can go back and forth here
GeePee,

Why become a landlord if you aren't willing to invest in your property and follow MA landlord tenant laws.


We have a word for landlords who refuse to maintain their apartments to legal standards and skirt laws: slumlords. Are YOU a slumlord??

PS: I don't have kids but would have zero issue raising a kid in an apartment with lead because I wouldn't allow my child to eat paint or live in a place with badly peeling paint. I would also have zero issue paying more in rent for a deleaded apartment since I realize that it is an investment. If a landlord was willing to delead and it cost them $20K, I would gladly pay as much as $600-800 extra per month over a long term lease. And since finding a deleaded apartment is so hard, I'd likely stay for as long as the LL would let me, reducing the LL costs since there wouldn't be multiple periods of vacancies.

I saw nothing in the OP's original post saying they were looking for a cheap, deleaded apartment and their budget was enough to find options. Not great options as far the commute may go, but they were willing to budge on that and even give away their dog to find a place, so they weren't being unreasonable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:52 AM
 
3,268 posts, read 2,198,510 times
Reputation: 2682
People still want to help people but not if it's going to cost them 20k that they don't have.

I think you are all naive to think landlords should be helping people the way you think they should be. They are mainly in it for the money. And many DO pay the deleading fees. For the ones who don't I understand why. I'm not sure why you are all taking this so personally. Just find somewhere else to live that is already releaded. It's not as personal as you're making it out to be. Landlords and facilities who didn't get rid of all lead back in 1978. It's gotten worse now because everywhere the safe lead level numbers go down more and more and people freak out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2017, 11:55 AM
 
1,097 posts, read 438,832 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by eevee View Post
GeePee,
Are YOU a slumlord??
.
I prefer SCUMBAG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts > Boston
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top