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 can't imagine rural areas on the outskirts of Cincinnati ever getting that expensive. I used to drive through there a lot on my to Indiana. Those rural counties in eastern IN don't have a lot. Neither do the counties in KY other than Boone/Kenton. There are a lot of places through there where the pace of life is slow and I doubt that will change much in the foreseeable future.
I said "suburbs" not way out in the country which begins an hour east of here. I rented a house out there for $500 from 06 to 2012, but now those rents are going up too. I might get lucky and find a mobile home or apartment out there for those prices now, but as the prices rise in here they also rise out there.
I have pretty good knowledge of the areas that you mentioned and across the board the rents are rising as people try to live further out and commute into jobs in the more populated areas.
You question someone who has lived here 30 years and say you know more than I do because you drove through here? That is too funny. I think you were a toddler when I moved here all those years ago. More funny.
These crazy conditions for renting have been in place for years in many of the more desirable communities out west that may have vacany rates of less than 5%. It's interesting that the midwest has similar requirements. I plan to move to Oregon and rent a small house or townhome for a year before buying. Besides the property management company application fees, high rents with an extra month or two payment required, security deposit, and requirements for a high credit score, references, and renter's insurance, many places will not take pets, especially cats. And if you have a small dog that is allowed, they may require references for the dog and of course an extra deposit and/or rent. I was very worried about the pet part until my last cat died a year ago at age 13, a little earlier than I had expected.
The most disturbing part of the OP's post is that SS is not considered as part of income. Wonder if they accept a pension or investment income? Definitely sounds like discrimination against seniors.
The most disturbing part of the OP's post is that SS is not considered as part of income. Wonder if they accept a pension or investment income? Definitely sounds like discrimination against seniors.
I can't figure that part either. You'd think the most "guaranteed" of incomes would be SS. More so than a pension that comes from a fund that may be subject to as-yet-undiscovered mismanagement or fraud. And of course it's possible that a senior might cash out his/her entire own IRA or 401K and blow it on a big weekend in Vegas or a red Corvette, so if I were a landlord I probably would be leery of that source. Investment income would be something I would also consider too chancy/volatile to count (Madoff, anyone?)
But money from a government source (SS and/or state) should be the safest of bets as far as continuance. Very odd.
This idea that SS not being considered a "real" income is ridiculous.
I wonder if this was taken to an attorney, or even a government office, might solve the discrimination?
It really does not sound at all legal to me.
But I do not know a lot about this kind of thing. But I know if I encountered this attitude, I'd be fighting it like crazy.
Those people are using scare tactics. They count on older people to not challenge them.
If I were facing this, I would find an attorney and/or seek governmental help.
We can't roll over and let them get away with this.
I have done nothing but rent either a house or an apartment all my life. I am currently on my 7th lease where I am presently and really like where I am, but was curious about another complex for next year. I had always liked their setting and location so decided to stop by their office to learn more about price, etc.
What I learned was very different than what I expected. Maybe even subtle discrimination against retirees.
The rent for a one bedroom was the same as where I am but the deposits and application process were unreasonable, in my opinion.
They had a 2 pet limit (typical) and wanted $250 non-refundable deposit per pet, plus $30 per pet per month.
They wanted 3 times the monthly rent up front plus a $600 security deposit! They wanted a year's worth of pay stubs. They would not take a Social Security statement, bank statements, or tax returns as income proof. Plus credit checks, of course.
I am on SS plus self employed with a regular monthly income but their rules left me out in the cold plus the security and pet deposits being what they were.
It would cost almost $3800 in deposits just to get in a $750 a month apartment. That is insane plus the subtle implication the SS wasn't "real" income.
I am not unfamiliar with some of the stringent demands on renting now, but this was ridiculous. Thinking of moving? Get all your info first. It is not as easy as it was 10 years ago.
Guess I will stay where I am at for a very long time.
It's become an obstacle course to rent for quite awhile now . I think the last easy or fairly easy rental I had was in 2009 . Now days I have to pay $600 dep for 2 old neuters that never make a mistake with $50 a month pet rent . A house is out because of that triple amount to move in. it's ridiculous . Sorry to all who think it's not , but it is .
It would cut into my down payment I have saved up for a house.
I am 56 and one office manager ( of a corporate owned complex) kept trying to pry into our religious/political persuasions about 6 months ago when we were looking for a new place . The one we have now, looks in my trash and would send notes about it , my husband finally went to the office and asked if we needed to leave or what were they looking for in our trash ? Then they ordered us to park in a neighborhood or be towed while they resurfaced the P-lot and my soft top was machete-d to death while in that 'hood and they ended up having to pay for it .
They are now doing an inspection of my unit sometime today between now and 4pm PST . Today is the end of this . I have to stay here 6 +/- more months for our last child to graduate HS. Other than school , this place is just not right for us .
I know someone here remembers that lady in her 90's that kept calling the landlord and police on me because I was parked in my PAID space the office gave me not telling me it was really her PAID space but she was using mine because it was closer to her handicapped ramp . I didn't care if she needed mine for her ramp, but she wanted BOTH paid covered parking spaces and tried to bribe me with $15 to use it . The spaces cost $65. Not cool .
I will play Devils Advocate for a moment and say that if the SS income exclusion was taken to court, the outcome would probably be that because it's indirect discrimination, it doesn't violate existing law. The landlords have a legal right to set their own conditions for housing applicants as long as those aren't based directly on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, presence of children (unless it's an over-55-only complex), or physical disability. There's no law against specifying any other requirements, such as type or minimum amount of income considered.
I agree that by disallowing SS (or SSI) across the board as a form of income, it discriminates against people over 60 because in almost all cases that's who receives it. I'd assume that a landlord who disallows it would be requested to provide valid reasons why not, which would probably be a tough argument to make.
If I were a landlord looking to discriminate against seniors (for whatever reason) I'd probably have better luck by allowing SS income BUT also setting a high minimum threshold... for example, say, $2100/month. The current max is $2788 and so a $2100 floor would be 75% of that. Then also disallow income from alimony, investment, and pension/IRA/401K sources because those are subject to possible fluctuation or discontinuance, and you've probably eliminated all but the most well-heeled of seniors.
Honestly I don't think the up-front costs are discriminatory in and of themselves. IMHO it's the complete disallowance of SS income across the board that gets into that category, albeit in a back-door fashion, because that applies to a specific segment of the population. A clever landlord would simply set a high minimum SS benefit threshold instead.
The only thing I find odd is the non-acceptance of the SS check. When I was looking for an apartment in the Cleveland area I had no problem with this. The rest was normal for the more upscale apartments especially.
I actually got a car loan in September based on my SS plus self employment.
I researched before that and found info to indicate that SS income was considered risky by lenders because a judgment can't garnish it or put a lien on a bank account where SS is deposited as source of income. Maybe that is why.
Anyway, screw 'em!
There one other 55+ community I want to check into. Will see what their requirements are and report back.
I have done nothing but rent either a house or an apartment all my life. I am currently on my 7th lease where I am presently and really like where I am, but was curious about another complex for next year. I had always liked their setting and location so decided to stop by their office to learn more about price, etc.
What I learned was very different than what I expected. Maybe even subtle discrimination against retirees.
The rent for a one bedroom was the same as where I am but the deposits and application process were unreasonable, in my opinion.
They had a 2 pet limit (typical) and wanted $250 non-refundable deposit per pet, plus $30 per pet per month.
They wanted 3 times the monthly rent up front plus a $600 security deposit! They wanted a year's worth of pay stubs. They would not take a Social Security statement, bank statements, or tax returns as income proof. Plus credit checks, of course.
I am on SS plus self employed with a regular monthly income but their rules left me out in the cold plus the security and pet deposits being what they were.
It would cost almost $3800 in deposits just to get in a $750 a month apartment. That is insane plus the subtle implication the SS wasn't "real" income.
I am not unfamiliar with some of the stringent demands on renting now, but this was ridiculous. Thinkiing of moving? Get all your info first. It is not as easy as it was 10 years ago.
Guess I will stay where I am at for a very long time.
I can share what I've experienced, something that will affect anyone, not just retirees.
States like my home state, NC, limit move-in costs to your first month and a deposit equal to no more than a month's rent. No "last month's rent" is allowed to be charged, because what prevents this is a law that states landlords/property management cannot require rent to be paid before it is due.
States like CA, which I've also rented in, it is not just possible, but COMMON, for people to require first, last, AND deposit equal to one month. With higher rents in big cities, this can sometimes be $9,000 in move-in costs.
In Boston, actually in addition to the 4 months payment in advance (commission+first+last+deposit), the landlord can charge the new tenant a "key fee" by law. The landlord is supposed to replace your door lock.
But my kid who got charged $100 was still having an old lock and given an old key.
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.
You'd think the most "guaranteed" of incomes would be SS. More so than a pension that comes from a fund that may be subject to as-yet-undiscovered mismanagement or fraud. And of course it's possible that a senior might cash out his/her entire own IRA or 401K and blow it on a big weekend in Vegas or a red Corvette, so if I were a landlord I probably would be leery of that source. Investment income would be something I would also consider too chancy/volatile to count (Madoff, anyone?) 
