Brookline Multi-family, Housing Discrimination (Newton: apartment complex, rental, health insurance)

[proudestmonkey]

Also, if the landlord that prompted me to start this post wanted more flexibility in legally finding a tenant that fit the bill, then he didn't have to use a broker.

[miu]

Originally Posted by proudestmonkey

I don't understand why you're saying I should have deleaded my own home out of principle. I don't care if the rental unit I am living in is deleaded or not, I care that the law indirectly keeps me away from ones that are not deleaded. In theory, we should have an equal shot, but in practicality, we don't. If everybody was required to delead their homes, rental or not, then people would just have to factor that into the cost, as tribechamy did. I would have no problem with having to delead my house if that was the law.

And one of my points was that an apartment not being lead free is not the only reason families with young children are not welcomed as renters. Your happily running and shrieking children may bring you joy, but their noisy behaviour is an annoyance to the other people around you. You may be a great parent who keeps their kids in check and well behaved at all times, but a good portion of parents aren't... going by what I see of young children at restaurants and other public places.

[miu]

Originally Posted by proudestmonkey

Also, if the landlord that prompted me to start this post wanted more flexibility in legally finding a tenant that fit the bill, then he didn't have to use a broker.

I don't understand the logic in using a broker to change the rule on owner-occupied two and three family houses. It just doesn't make any sense to me, since the only purpose of using a broker is to help find tenants and show the apartments if the landlord is too busy to.

[tamajane]

Originally Posted by proudestmonkey

I said earlier that I can see it from both sides. I know not everybody wants to live with children and I don't want to force my children upon people, I want to be in a situation where they are welcome. I am not one of those people who thinks that everyone should be okay with children; some days I don't want to live with my own children That doesn't change that what landlords are doing is against the law. I am choosing not to rent out my house because I don't want to be beholden to that situation, people who are choosing to rent are choosing to abide by the law.

I don't understand why you're saying I should have deleaded my own home out of principle. I don't care if the rental unit I am living in is deleaded or not, I care that the law indirectly keeps me away from ones that are not deleaded. In theory, we should have an equal shot, but in practicality, we don't. If everybody was required to delead their homes, rental or not, then people would just have to factor that into the cost, as tribechamy did. I would have no problem with having to delead my house if that was the law.

I don't know that you do see it from both sides. You seem to want to get someone over this. You can pour through every detail of every law and regulation, but it isn't good for landlords or tenants to be so rigid. This kind of thing pushes small landlords out, and you only end up with corporate ownership of rentals. They DO go by the book so you better not have a misfortune and ask for any kind of exceptions or breaks because it's totally impersonal.

I allow plenty of leeway to my tenants and they don't complain about every little thing because it's in the "book", and if they need extra time to pay the rent they can have it without penalty. I seldom raise the rent, they get a discount for our informal arrangement. If I were forced to rent to a person I did not want to in an owner-occupied building, things would change a lot and it would not be a pleasant living experience for either party.

The rental ownership laws in states like MA are punitive and those who push for enforcement and for more laws are going to end up paying the price as well. You can say, well then don't be a landlord, but that is like telling small businesses they should just close shop because they can't afford to conform to every new punitive and unnecessary regulation. Then everyone complains that there are no local businesses anymore. And then Walmart raises the prices anyway.

You can find a rental, just keep looking. You can find a rental in a smaller building if that is what you are looking for. Forget about this one place, because the landlord used a broker, just look at the big picture and let it go.

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by miu

I don't understand the logic in using a broker to change the rule on owner-occupied two and three family houses. It just doesn't make any sense to me, since the only purpose of using a broker is to help find tenants and show the apartments if the landlord is too busy to.

I don't understand it either, but the OP thinks that by using a broker he's given up the rights he has as to a veto over children in his owner-occupied property.

[miu]

I think that the OP needs to accept that it's a very competitive rentals market out there. In fact there is a shortage of rentals in the Metro Boston area. Landlords and rental companies have to sift through a pile of applicants for their units and it's not a simple matter of first come first served. So she shouldn't be so paranoid when she misses out on apartments, everyone is in the same boat.

Hopefully, the timing of selling her house lines up with finding a place to rent.

[spiritedaway]

Fortunately, I don't rent nor do I have a rental unit, so I don't have to deal with being a renter or having to deal with tenants. Best of both worlds.

As somebody says upthread, landlords can be choosy about who they rent to, especially in a competitive market as today's, so long as it's not on the basis of race, age, and other discriminatory criteria. That said, a busy landlord could choose a tenant(s) who would be a better fit for their house or apartment, whether that means they think two roommates are better for the house than a family of 4, no pet restrictions, etc.

I'd move on from focusing on this (I seriously doubt it's housing discrimination -- nothing about the description strikes me as it is, maybe not equal playing field perhaps because of perceived disadvantaged level playing field for having kids). Some places cater to families; maybe this one doesn't, so maybe those would be better choices? It's like there are some really nice active adult place communities and those are restricted to 55+. Is that equal playing field? Affordable house? Is that equal playing field?
The market dictate supply and demand, and right now, the housing marking is in rising demand, so yeah, landlord probably gets tons of applications and can choose to find the best fit tenants for their homes.

I also don't understand the OP thinking that by hiring a broker, the landlord relinquished certain rights to to choose tenants.

Honestly, if I am a landlord, I (idealistically) want someone who's mostly hassle free, pay rent on time, and not someone who does everything by the book and complains about every little thing if things go wrong, as they sometimes do.

[lexi12]

Originally Posted by miu

And one of my points was that an apartment not being lead free is not the only reason families with young children are not welcomed as renters. Your happily running and shrieking children may bring you joy, but their noisy behaviour is an annoyance to the other people around you.

Discriminating against families with children is illegal, just as discriminating against sex, race and sexual orientation is illegal. Luckily for you, you're free to chose who you want because you live in the house. So enjoy!

Everyone should respect the law. A landlord that receives an income from a rental property and does not live in that property should be aware of what discrimination is and should not engage in it. There are costs that come with every choice we make, and choosing to be a landlord comes with the possibility that at some point you might have to delead your property. It's the law. One needs to know that before getting into the business. I choose to work as an independent contractor and pay insurance for my work, because it is the law to carry insurance. I knew that before I got into the business and it's just a cost of doing business. I don't know why landlords think that deleading is a favor to the renters. It's not. It's what you're supposed to do as a landlord if the circumstances dictate it.

Quote from Housing Discrimination


"it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the sale or rental of housing because of a person's membership in one of the following protected classes:

Race
Color
Religious creed
National origin
Ancestry
Sex
Marital status
Veteran status
Age
Handicap/disability
Gender Identity
Sexual orientation
Children
Public assistance
Children/Lead Paint
Public Assistance Recipient (e.g., Section 8 voucher holder or MRVP voucher holder)"

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by lexi12

Discriminating against families with children is illegal, just as discriminating against sex, race and sexual orientation is illegal. If you chose to live in Newton and rent part of your house, then you should not complain about disadvantages of being a landlord, you chose to do it. Luckily for you, you're free to discriminate all you want because you live in the house. So enjoy!

Quote from Housing Discrimination


"it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the sale or rental of housing because of a person's membership in one of the following protected classes:

Race
Color
Religious creed
National origin
Ancestry
Sex
Marital status
Veteran status
Age
Handicap/disability
Gender Identity
Sexual orientation
Children
Public assistance
Children/Lead Paint
Public Assistance Recipient (e.g., Section 8 voucher holder or MRVP voucher holder)"

Common Forms of Housing Discrimination - MassLegalHelp

I think you must have missed the half dozen posts where this was mentioned. The claim is that by offering the apartment through a broker that the landlord's right to refuse to rent to children disappears. It's not clear if that is true and no authoritative source has been provided to settle such a dispute.

[miu]

Originally Posted by lexi12

Discriminating against families with children is illegal, just as discriminating against sex, race and sexual orientation is illegal. Luckily for you, you're free to chose who you want because you live in the house. So enjoy!

Everyone should respect the law. A landlord that receives an income from a rental property and does not live in that property should be aware of what discrimination is and should not engage in it. There are costs that come with every choice we make, and choosing to be a landlord comes with the possibility that at some point you might have to delead your property. It's the law. One needs to know that before getting into the business. I choose to work as an independent contractor and pay insurance for my work, because it is the law to carry insurance. I knew that before I got into the business and it's just a cost of doing business. I don't know why landlords think that deleading is a favor to the renters. It's not. It's what you're supposed to do as a landlord if the circumstances dictate it.

Quote from Housing Discrimination


"it is illegal to discriminate against someone in the sale or rental of housing because of a person's membership in one of the following protected classes:

Race
Color
Religious creed
National origin
Ancestry
Sex
Marital status
Veteran status
Age
Handicap/disability
Gender Identity
Sexual orientation
Children
Public assistance
Children/Lead Paint
Public Assistance Recipient (e.g., Section 8 voucher holder or MRVP voucher holder)"

Interestingly enough, for us buying a two-family house in Newton was much cheaper than buying a single family or three-family house. Originally, one of my sisters and her husband lived in the second unit. But in all the years that we rented out the other unit, we didn't make any profit on it. The monthly rent was only to defray the mortgage payments, building maintenance, and high property taxes on the whole property.

Anyway, I'm so tired of so many people crying victim and protected class. For some reason, they seem in the majority these days.

I feel though that I can count myself as part of the "protected" classes for being a minority (Asian), older (55) and a female. It's not as if I am a white male.