Watch out for Section 8 tenants - coming soon to your apartment building! (Los Angeles: rent, buying)

[fluffythewondercat]

I expect some arrests and show trials of landlords who are not taking "their fair share" of Section 8. Actual proof they've discriminated won't be necessary.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota

That is the main reason for most landlords, but there is also a risk that if a poor tenant damages a property, they don't have any assets that a landlord could recover for damages. The other consideration is that most properties that are cheap enough for section 8 also are old and fall under rent control, making it more difficult to evict bad tenants. Landlords will adapt. A few will decide to convert to condos. Many more will do more strict screening up front- credit report, background check, application fees- to weed out those same section 8 tenants. Most smart ones will add a lot more restrictions to the lease so they can evict bad tenants. Some landlords will get burned before they learn their lesson. If you live in a neighborhood/building with high demand, I wouldn't expect many section 8 neighbors anytime soon.

What you wrote here, is my exact policy.
I am not about to change it so that section 8 people qualify.

Bob.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

I expect some arrests and show trials of landlords who are not taking "their fair share" of Section 8. Actual proof they've discriminated won't be necessary.

I think that's a bit much but I do expect civil lawsuits against some landlords that attempt to circumvent Sec8 by credit scores or stalling if they do not have a "reasonable" level of Sec8 tenants. Underhanded attempts to discriminate have been going on for as long as there have been anti-discrimination laws and it works up until the results gets noticed.

[Des-Lab]

Originally Posted by fluffythewondercat

I expect some arrests and show trials of landlords who are not taking "their fair share" of Section 8. Actual proof they've discriminated won't be necessary.

Then what would you arrest them for if there's no evidence of wrongdoing that can be proven in court?

That's akin to giving a speeding ticket to a parked Corvette on the basis that "even though he's stopped, he MIGHT be speeding when in motion".

Yeah. That'll pass the legal sniff test.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by MuscleCar

Its these kinds of policies that continue to deteriorate the quality of life in this area. It's almost like they want to encourage these types of lifestyles. When I was growing up, it was encouraged to try your best, be your best, learn as much as possible, and shoot for success. Now sloth is ok and its pathetic. People should not be rewarded when they have not earned it!

There are tons of Section 8 apartments in San Dimas, right? ...And you live in proximity to one of them?

You are a good 17 miles from the border of Los Angeles City Limits there, buddy. What are you worried about?

[kttam186290]

In the long run, I see the City having to resort to building housing projects again and policing them. There will still be the stray Section 8 tenant in a house here and there, but this model is clearly not working.

Section 8 was Richard Nixon's idea...the reasoning, at the time, was three-fold:

1. De-concentrate poverty in the urban areas by spreading the poor out to suburban areas.
2. Putting the poor in suburban areas would help the poor amalgamate middle class values.
3. The vouchers would be a way to "get government out of housing" and allow "private owners" to benefit.

Isn't it funny that Republicans always want to "get government out" and "allow private owners" ad nauseam with the same results?

It's the same refrain, over and over again.

So, 40-some odd years later can we -- maybe -- admit that the Republican idea was crap?

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

Yeah any landlord with even an ounce of common sense knows there are holes big enough to run a freight train through in order to circumvent Section 8 and not be accused of discrimination.

As others have said, establishing credit score minima is probably the easiest way to do this (even if the *real*, unstated reason is something very illegal and discriminatory). As far as I know, this is not illegal at all. So set it high. Like 720 or above. No person in the country that's eligible for Section 8 will be carrying a FICO that high. Problem solved.

Stalling with the application process because it was "incomplete" while betting a more creditworthy tenant will come along in the interim is another. In a hot, tight market such as LA, this also shouldn't be a problem for anything but the most run down buildings in the worst areas.

"Oops. Your application couldn't be processed. So it was put on hold. And awe shucks. Just your luck. Someone else came and completed one for themselves. Unit no longer available".

The 720 score has been my rule for years, and I require that perspective tenants submit a current credit report from one of the three major credit reporting agencies, complete with a credit score, along with their application.
You would be amazed at the number of low life this one requirement does away with.

When perspective tenants have to pay to get a credit report, you can damn well bet if their credit is low, they won't even be applying.
I have had this policy for the past fifteen years, and when I choose a tenant, I am confident they will be around for a long time(which they are).
They are working stable people, and never cause any problems, and respect the property.
These are the only tenants to have if you expect to have a secure rental business.

All of my tenants keep the property up, as though it were their own, and I reward them by charging below market rates, and never raise the rents , no matter how long they live in the unit.
The only reason people move from one of my units is, to buy a house.
The rents allow people to save up to buy a house.
With today's sky high rents, people can hardly afford to pay rent, let alone save to buy a house.
It has always been my policy to allow them to do both.

Show me where in this city one can rent a single detached house with yard,extremely well maintained, with off street parking, desirable northeast area,( becoming the hip place to live,) for $1000. a month.

When I do have a vacancy(which is not very often), I have more emails than I can handle. Matter of fact. I had a vacancy last month, and had over 225 emails in three days, in response to the ad I placed.
If I should have a vacancy in the future, I will remove the ad when the count reaches 25.
The 250 emails was just to many to answer.

Any way, back to the subject at hand.
I really don't concern myself with new laws regarding section 8.
There is no way ahead that the city, and the courts could handle the litigation, should they try and force property owners to rent to a certain class of people.
In essence, that could be called reverse discrimination.


Bob.

[MuscleCar]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

In the long run, I see the City having to resort to building housing projects again and policing them. There will still be the stray Section 8 tenant in a house here and there, but this model is clearly not working.

Section 8 was Richard Nixon's idea...the reasoning, at the time, was three-fold:

1. De-concentrate poverty in the urban areas by spreading the poor out to suburban areas.
2. Putting the poor in suburban areas would help the poor amalgamate middle class values.
3. The vouchers would be a way to "get government out of housing" and allow "private owners" to benefit.

Isn't it funny that Republicans always want to "get government out" and "allow private owners" ad nauseam with the same results?

It's the same refrain, over and over again.

So, 40-some odd years later can we -- maybe -- admit that the Republican idea was crap?

The projects in NYC, Chicago, and L.A. were such a dismal crime ridden failure, they stopped them. Didnt you take history class?

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by MuscleCar

The projects in NYC, Chicago, and L.A. were such a dismal crime ridden failure, they stopped them. Didnt you take history class?

Did you?????????

That's because they were ridden with drugs, filled with street gangs and there were limited resources due to racism and conservative, suburban whites (the people who spawned you, basically) not wanting to invest in things like vocational training, social outreach, family planning and medical care.

You guys all hoped they'd suffer a bullet wound, a crack overdose or get AIDS so in your mind, "problem solved".

As long as things were peachy in suburbia, you didn't give two $h;ts. You still don't give two $h;ts so long as it doesn't effect you. That's your worldview in a nutshell.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

Did you?????????

That's because they were ridden with drugs, filled with street gangs and there were limited resources due to racism and conservative, suburban whites (the people who spawned you, basically) not wanting to invest in things like vocational training, social outreach, family planning and medical care.

You guys all hoped they'd suffer a bullet wound, a crack overdose or get AIDS so in your mind, "problem solved".

As long as things were peachy in suburbia, you didn't give two $h;ts. You still don't give two $h;ts so long as it doesn't effect you. That's your worldview in a nutshell.

Since when were white subanites put in charge of the projects?? Guess they missed that email because they were killing themselves working full time trying to provide for their family and keep a roof over their head.

I know minority's in the projects are encapable of doing anything for themselves. I guess you I agree on something.