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.
I totally agree with this. The kids where I live are heathens, and the parents don't supervise them. They're out late at night, riding their bikes and playing in front of my door. I had to call the police on the teenagers due to the noise ordinance, and the smaller kids know that if they don't stop by 10pm, I'll do the same.
I'm planning to move in the spring, and if I could find a place that's child free, I'd be ecstatic. But the only ones that I know of are senior buildings, and they have their own set of problems.
At the last place I lived, there would be kids between the ages of 5 and 10 running down the halls until 2am on a school night. Where are the parents?
Unless you live in a rental city like LA, NYC, or Chicago, most kids living in apartments will be from lower income. Generally lower income parents are terrible and let their kids do whatever.
At my current place, my neighbors told me that kids used to live in my apartments and would be constantly running and playing with stuff at all hours of the day. I felt so sorry for the other residents. In most cases, the police and landlord won't do anything about noisy kids because "they are just kids".
Yes, all true. And, unfortunately, bad/cold weather doesn't stop them. There is an overhang in front of my apartment and the one next door, plus a 7'x30" concrete strip, and it's like living in a playground.
There are some low income parents that supervise their kids, but they're few and far between. I have a friend that lives in a senior/disabled building, and she has a drunk below her that bangs on the ceiling with a broom.
There again CPS says Boys need a room & Girls Need their own rooms by 2 yrs old. Parents need a room. So why would it be Creepy?
I highly doubt CPS would come knocking on the door because a 3 year old boy is in the same room as his 4 year old sister. I just find it weird that a LL would try to tell people what is or isn't appropriate for their own children. Why would it be wrong for two siblings to share a room? And we're talking about 2 or 3 children, not overcrowding the bedroom with more people then are legally allowed in a rental.
Here's another thing to consider. Would you reject the application if 5 adults were moving into a 2br unit? I would imagine so. Why should adults and children be treated any differently when it comes to bedrooms?
Landlords are not allowed to explicitly or indirectly turn you away based on your family status or your age.
Discrimination Against Families
While some landlords don’t like renting to tenants with children, fearing the noise and wear and tear that kids might cause, the federal Fair Housing Acts prohibit discriminating on this basis. A landlord may not legally turn away or evict a tenant because he or she has children or because an applicant or tenant is pregnant. Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won’t be safe in the building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis or to make other discriminatory moves such as steering families to certain parts of the property (usually the back).
Some landlords try to get around the laws prohibiting discrimination against families by setting unreasonably low occupancy limits, such as only two people for a two-bedroom unit. This too is illegal, as it has the effect of excluding families. Federal law (in this case, an opinion letter written by the Department of Housing and Urban Development) has established minimum occupancy standards that regulate how low an occupancy can go and still be legal. In general, landlords must allow at least two persons per bedroom. Landlords can be more restrictive only in rare instances, when they can show that legitimate business reasons justify a more restrictive standard. For example, a policy of only three persons in a two-bedroom unit might pass muster if the landlord can prove it is truly based on the limitations of the plumbing system or some other aspect of the building’s infrastructure.
Even if the landlord has a worthy motive, such as believing that children won’t be safe in the building or the neighborhood, it is illegal to deny the tenancy on that basis...........
This makes it almost impossible for the landlord. There can be something in the neighborhood that can seriously injure children and the landlord can't refuse the child. Then the child gets hurt or killed and the landlord gets sued.
I had a little cottage in the back of a farm. There were three stock ponds right near the cottage. Still, a mother of an out-of-control three year old insisted that she wanted to rent it. When drowning danger was pointed out, she said it wouldn't be a problem because she always watched her child.
Stock ponds can't be fenced off because they are for the cattle to drink out of. What child isn't fascinated by a nice body of water? It just makes you wonder what some parents are thinking. Fortunately, she didn't have enough income, so I could reject her.
Maybe she was hoping her child would drown and she'd be free at last? Some people don't have any common sense.
I think it would be better for everyone if we could do away with the Fair Housing Act and just let landlords pick who they are renting their private property to. It's their property, they should be able to pick who lives there. I'm sure the Fair Housing Act dates back to the civil rights movement, and isn't really relevant anymore.
If someone is renting an apartment on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, the landlord should be able to say "sorry, no kids".
This makes it almost impossible for the landlord. There can be something in the neighborhood that can seriously injure children and the landlord can't refuse the child. Then the child gets hurt or killed and the landlord gets sued.
I had a little cottage in the back of a farm. There were three stock ponds right near the cottage. Still, a mother of an out-of-control three year old insisted that she wanted to rent it. When drowning danger was pointed out, she said it wouldn't be a problem because she always watched her child.
Stock ponds can't be fenced off because they are for the cattle to drink out of. What child isn't fascinated by a nice body of water? It just makes you wonder what some parents are thinking. Fortunately, she didn't have enough income, so I could reject her.
Maybe she was hoping her child would drown and she'd be free at last? Some people don't have any common sense.
We had a case just like this... an older SF building with a vacancy on the third floor... stairs on the outside of building... no elevator... owners limited children to the first floor citing concern for safety... owners lost a discrimination case for turning away a family with a 2 year old for the top floor.
I completely agree that 2 adults and 3 children is too many people for a small 2 bedroom unit. My other concern would be their finances - why can't they afford a place to live with an appropriate number of bedrooms? Might not be a good predictor of ability to pay rent on time.
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.
