U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2017, 01:56 PM
 
11,145 posts, read 8,555,795 times
Reputation: 28147

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyDogToday View Post
Nothing was "a bit made up". The ad stated they would not rent to anyone who was on SS, pensions, self employed, or held multiple part-time jobs. It also specifically stated that this was because wages could not be garnished.
Post a link to the ad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2017, 02:15 PM
 
2,952 posts, read 1,641,880 times
Reputation: 5292
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliza61nyc View Post
I've even made the argument that a day after you get a mortgage you can up and quit.
Oh No you can't. We had an employee try that on a refi. The day she signed she quit. I got a call from the bank asking about her employment status and told them she quit after signing the papers.

The lady thanked me for my honesty and said she would of been fired had she funded the loan. Loan does not get funded for 3 days after signing, on refi's anyway. You have a 3 day FEDERAL right of rescission.

People living on SS are living on the edge. It was never meant as your only means of support in retirement. I wouldn't rent to them either but I no longer have rental property. Other less risky and better return things to invest in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 04:27 PM
 
8,979 posts, read 8,118,034 times
Reputation: 19502
When you rent out homes and apartments, you have to determine the probability of getting a monthly rent payment on time. If the tenant has too low of an income in relation to the rent and utilities it is a guarantied waiting for missed rent and eviction, you simply do not rent to them. You simply do not rent to someone that has insufficient income.

The problem is in many areas, the rent is so high that most people on social security cannot meet the test of rent covered by 1/3rd of income. The probability of them not meeting the rent each month is much higher. In fact in some areas the rent is higher than a lot of people even get in social security each month. This is quite possible where the OP lives, and the landlords have to protect themselves, by not renting to them. It is not that he is discriminating against the elderly, he is discriminating against low income tenants.

Example Silicon Valley California, the highest rent area in the United States. A decent 1 Bedroom apartment starts about $2,000 per month. That would require an income of at least $5,000 a month to qualify due to the high cost of living in California.

This prices Social Security income residents out of the market, using he 1/3rd of income for rent formula. To save peoples time, and their own time they simply advertise who they will not rent to, and due to the income to rent inequality they put no social security incomes.

In areas of the country that Social Security recipients have income that can support renting, they are considered the gold standard of renters. They are the desired ones.

But in areas that the rents are so high it puts rentals out of their reach, it is no SS renters.

This seems unfair, but it is a fact of life.

Don't blame the landlords, blame the real problem, the high prices and cost of living that makes some areas of he country impossible to live in decent rentals for social security recipients.

As someone that spent from 1972 till I finally retired as an investment real estate broker, I handled many rentals. I was president of a very large county wide rental owners and managers association for 3 consecutive years, so I am telling you the problems from the insiders point of view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 04:32 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,879 posts, read 1,408,105 times
Reputation: 10108
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundapeanut View Post
Oh No you can't. We had an employee try that on a refi. The day she signed she quit. I got a call from the bank asking about her employment status and told them she quit after signing the papers.

The lady thanked me for my honesty and said she would of been fired had she funded the loan. Loan does not get funded for 3 days after signing, on refi's anyway. You have a 3 day FEDERAL right of rescission.

People living on SS are living on the edge. It was never meant as your only means of support in retirement. I wouldn't rent to them either but I no longer have rental property. Other less risky and better return things to invest in.
good point. but you get the point. LOL, You got that right. My brother had to evict two 25 year olds who's parents are loaded, evidently they are spoiled little rich boys. Had a party and couldn't get the Keg through the bathroom door to sit in the tub so they took a saw and sawed off half the wall.

and it was a pain to get them out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Upper Left Hand Corner
2,579 posts, read 963,793 times
Reputation: 4214
Fluffy said "This was a retired couple who were raking in $3k every month in SS payments but couldn't pay the $1200 rent."

First of all they weren't "raking" in anything. What on earth are you talking about??? They paid into that system throughout their working lives. That is their money. Second of all that rent is almost 1/2 of their total income which is much too high especially when you factor in utilities. $1000 should have been their upper limit for housing. $200 over that is a lot of money on a fixed income. It has always been recommended to pay no more than 1/3 of your income for housing, not 1/2 or close to it. That was their big mistake right there. They were in over their heads from the beginning. You should not have rented to them knowing what their income was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,221,259 times
Reputation: 6866
Federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on age except for approved senior communities. It does prohibit discrimination based on familial status, defined as a household with a child under the age of 18.

Some states prohibit discrimination based on source of income. California is one of them.
Many local governments prohibit discrimination based on source of income.

For those who are concerned about potential impact upon retirement, run a google search using the term "source of income".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,253 posts, read 8,548,360 times
Reputation: 35684
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtrader View Post
When you rent out homes and apartments, you have to determine the probability of getting a monthly rent payment on time. If the tenant has too low of an income in relation to the rent and utilities it is a guarantied waiting for missed rent and eviction, you simply do not rent to them. You simply do not rent to someone that has insufficient income.

The problem is in many areas, the rent is so high that most people on social security cannot meet the test of rent covered by 1/3rd of income. The probability of them not meeting the rent each month is much higher. In fact in some areas the rent is higher than a lot of people even get in social security each month. This is quite possible where the OP lives, and the landlords have to protect themselves, by not renting to them. It is not that he is discriminating against the elderly, he is discriminating against low income tenants.

Example Silicon Valley California, the highest rent area in the United States. A decent 1 Bedroom apartment starts about $2,000 per month. That would require an income of at least $5,000 a month to qualify due to the high cost of living in California.

This prices Social Security income residents out of the market, using he 1/3rd of income for rent formula. To save peoples time, and their own time they simply advertise who they will not rent to, and due to the income to rent inequality they put no social security incomes.

In areas of the country that Social Security recipients have income that can support renting, they are considered the gold standard of renters. They are the desired ones.

But in areas that the rents are so high it puts rentals out of their reach, it is no SS renters.

This seems unfair, but it is a fact of life.

Don't blame the landlords, blame the real problem, the high prices and cost of living that makes some areas of he country impossible to live in decent rentals for social security recipients.

As someone that spent from 1972 till I finally retired as an investment real estate broker, I handled many rentals. I was president of a very large county wide rental owners and managers association for 3 consecutive years, so I am telling you the problems from the insiders point of view.
This is where (informal definition) discrimination comes into play. By all means Mr. Landlord - save time by saying you'll only rent to non-senior citizens. No, if the primary considerations are a high enough income, and a steady income then THOSE are the requirements. It is discriminatory to shortcut the process and leap ahead to say NO people on SS. What if their income IS high enough? Maybe the landlord should just say $x,000 a month proof of income?

As if places like Silicon Valley are even 10% of the markets in the U.S. - pure hooey to apply such an argument in a general way. And sure, it doesn't meet the legal definition of discrimination? Of course not - everything is worded oh so carefully - forget the spirit - only the letter of the law counts. It's not fair but by the time you're on SS you should have learned that lesson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 07:00 PM
 
9,210 posts, read 9,283,907 times
Reputation: 28879
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesserSeneca View Post
So rent in other areas that practice unfair rental discrimination. You know the ones, where only people over 55 are able to rent in?
Thank you for raising the issue of "senior only" housing. In past decisions in this forum, I have stated my views that "55 and over communities" should not be allowed. Landlords should be required to rent to everyone period.

No group is unworthy of a place to live. In tight rental markets discrimination based on age or any other criteria may keep human beings in need of housing living on the street. That isn't right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Upper Left Hand Corner
2,579 posts, read 963,793 times
Reputation: 4214
Now all of this is exactly why the waiting lists for senior apartments, especially the low income apartments, are astronomically long. Some here in Raleigh NC are as long as 5yrs. Most others are 1-2yrs. The one in Englewood, Co that I eventually got into took 2 1/2 yrs. But I ended up marrying the wrong person, and now am back to square one.

There are many of us, especially older women, who worked very hard their whole lives struggling to make ends meet, and doing the best we could sometimes as a single mom. But hourly wages were extremely low back in the 60's, and 70's, $2+ to $3+ an hour which is where my SS was mostly drawn from back then. But there is no way I can live on my own now getting only $729 a month from SS after they take out for Medicare. I have to try to get into a subsidized senior apartment again @ 30% of my total income, and get food stamps along with it. It's the only way I can survive. Staying with family is not the answer for everyone. Aging ain't for sissies, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 09:18 PM
Status: "Disagreeing is not the same thing as trolling." (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Texas
9,589 posts, read 3,676,728 times
Reputation: 19732
You need to find out if age discrimination is legal where you are. I know it's illegal to refuse to rent to someone based on skin color or gender.
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:

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 > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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