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.
Disagree most strongly regarding credit history/scores.
A credit history is just that, a record of how one handles one's financial affairs. Rent payments and use of credit are related.
The City even acknowledges this fact when they lowered the credit score to 580; that is they *want* persons who borrow from Peter to pay Paul each month to become tenants. In other words households where total monthly debts exceed income. So things get moved around each month and paid when either money comes in (late), and or are living so close to the window's edge that it only takes one setback to push them out. They miss one or two paychecks and or there is an unexpected financial hit the rent will be late.
Once again the City is showing why property owners don't like getting involved with rental housing; just as with RS the goal posts for this "affordable housing" scheme keep moving. Rent Stabilization was meant to address a shortage of housing and some of the worse abuses of landlords. It now has become a tool to promote "affordable housing", whatever that means.
The 80/20 program was supposed to provide affordable housing for a set period, then it became permanent, now it is becoming a social welfare/equality housing push.
The only reason why the 80/20 program was adopted by developers and property owners is was it is a tax credit that allows developers to get tax credits for building luxury housing, but in exchange for basically getting help from the government they must house some poor people. The reason why the rules became a lot looser is because it is poor people who could benefit from "affordable" housing. The high credit scores would maybe benefit recent college graduates who started out good in their careers, but don't earn much money.
Also segregation is an issue, and that's part of the reason why the city had to revise it's standards. You can't have exclusive housing being supported by taxpayer dollars, and these developers were all too eager to take taxpayer dollars.
Disagree most strongly regarding credit history/scores.
A credit history is just that, a record of how one handles one's financial affairs. Rent payments and use of credit are related.
The City even acknowledges this fact when they lowered the credit score to 580; that is they *want* persons who borrow from Peter to pay Paul each month to become tenants. In other words households where total monthly debts exceed income. So things get moved around each month and paid when either money comes in (late), and or are living so close to the window's edge that it only takes one setback to push them out. They miss one or two paychecks and or there is an unexpected financial hit the rent will be late.
Once again the City is showing why property owners don't like getting involved with rental housing; just as with RS the goal posts for this "affordable housing" scheme keep moving. Rent Stabilization was meant to address a shortage of housing and some of the worse abuses of landlords. It now has become a tool to promote "affordable housing", whatever that means.
The 80/20 program was supposed to provide affordable housing for a set period, then it became permanent, now it is becoming a social welfare/equality housing push.
I agree with you the credit law should have never been changed.
Lesson of the day from this story.......................DON'T RENT TO PROGRAM TENANTS! Avoid the headaches, the hassle and inconvenience by simply renting to regular working folks with stable incomes.
The only time I would recommend a LL to rent to program tenants is if their property is in a very undesirable war zone, ghetto area where you couldn't pay regular working folks to live there.
But if the LL's property is in a good to decent area, there should be no reason why they would have to resort to renting to program tenants. Stick to renting to regular working folks and don't change the dynamics of the area.
People here are discussing the "new" credit score guideline, but actually it has been in effect since October 1, 2015.
I wonder whether it has affected tenant selection for the worse in the past year.
I know about this update because I came across it by happenstance a few months ago. I posted it for someone on this forum who was living in a shelter and was wondering if his financials would disqualify him. As you can see if you open the link, homeless shelter referrals have different criteria.
Lesson of the day from this story.......................DON'T RENT TO PROGRAM TENANTS! Avoid the headaches, the hassle and inconvenience by simply renting to regular working folks with stable incomes.
The only time I would recommend a LL to rent to program tenants is if their property is in a very undesirable war zone, ghetto area where you couldn't pay regular working folks to live there.
But if the LL's property is in a good to decent area, there should be no reason why they would have to resort to renting to program tenants. Stick to renting to regular working folks and don't change the dynamics of the area.
This story is not about renting to program tenants. They changed the qualifications of what it takes to get into the 80/20 program.
And you think wealthy people who pay market rents don't hoard, or have any number of disgusting habits?
Of course that's why I was saying it's atrocious that home visits are only conducted on the poor moving into affordable housing. I was saying that there is good reason to conduct home visits on all income brackets. Signaling out the poor is class warfare
Lesson of the day from this story.......................DON'T RENT TO PROGRAM TENANTS! Avoid the headaches, the hassle and inconvenience by simply renting to regular working folks with stable incomes.
The only time I would recommend a LL to rent to program tenants is if their property is in a very undesirable war zone, ghetto area where you couldn't pay regular working folks to live there.
But if the LL's property is in a good to decent area, there should be no reason why they would have to resort to renting to program tenants. Stick to renting to regular working folks and don't change the dynamics of the area.
Guess what? I work 40 hours a week at a hospital, and still rely on a program to pay rent. Working families benefit from housing programs. Don't demonize people who get housing assistance because many of us work hard.
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.
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.
