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.
Remember, there is nothing either illegal or immoral about discriminating against young people just starting out, the unemployed, and those relocating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
And why is that? I can't think of any reason why that would be okay if race discrimination is not.
For one thing, because a person's race has nothing to do with their ability to pay for something, their job situation (whatever it may be), or the likelihood that people in a certain age group may be more likely to behave in a certain way. And also because of the history of racial discrimination (e.g., redlining) in real estate transactions in the past. It was rampant in the 1950s and 1960s especially, and was grossly unfair.
Property owners have a right to set conditions that they feel will best protect their investment (the property.) If they feel -- and often with good cause -- that certain types of tenants are more likely to either damage their property or be more of a risk of defaulting on paying their rent, it would be unfair for the government to tell them "You must rent to everybody, with no preconditions, and just take your chances." That would not be fair either.
Setting rental boundaries and conditions isn't the same as discrimination based on characteristics that tenants cannot change (i.e., their race, their gender, their physical disabilities, etc.)
Count me as another landlord who would never rent to Nov3 but he brings up a good point. We landlords rightfully want the info on prospective renters but the renters go in blindly and can get burned.
When I am running a craigslist ad at below market rent I make a point of stating that I'll be happy to bring along a tax bill with my name on it, heck I'd even show my ID. But no one has asked. Perhaps they did their due diligence by looking me up on the tax assesors' site.
Of course I wouldn't show my tax returns, but I could direct a prospective renter to a banker who can assure them I am not about to go under. There was a problem during the housing bubble burst of people renting homes that went into forclosure. So it wouldn't hurt my feelings.
Long thread which I honestly haven’t read all but it brings to mind our experience when we tried to help our son get his first apartment in his own. He was fresh out of Law school, did not have a job yet but had an internship lined up and knew he needed us to co-sign. We were NOT paying for it. He did have significant savings and knew what he could afford, very basic. He found a place with a large apartment complex. I was a little leery as it was big complex and made a comment hoping it wasn’t a “slum lord”. Didn’t look like it but he said oh no, they had more complexes in the area which made me thing they probably were. We went with him for the appointment and bottom line, we didn’t make enough to be qualified to co-sign! Like others said, no income, we were living on my two pensions and savings but that didn’t count. DH asked what if we pulled out a checkbook and paid for one year in advance, and they said no.
Bottom line, it all worked out. DS walked from that, then found a private landlord who managed his own condos and had a son also getting out of college. No problem with us being a co-sign there and it was a great deal for all. In fact two years later when DS wanted to move nearer work his landlord was buying another condo in that area and he ended up renting it to him. Turns out our son is one of his most prompt payers on his rent. We never paid a dime, but have learned that getting credit wasn’t so easy without the normal paystubs, no matter how much is in the bank or pensions.
This whole rental discussion is largely based on your immediate local area.
My guess is that there are far more markets that are tenant-favored instead of landlord-favored. However, jobs don't tend to exist in the cheaper rental areas, and fewer people live in those areas.
Case in point. I live in one of the most desirable areas in my metro - an urban area walkable to the revitalized downtown of a city of 65,000, with a college of roughly 15,000. Over the last five years or so, several dozen businesses have popped up in the downtown that was nearly dead as of 2010.
The rental market, with the college and lack of new complexes since 2010 or so, is tight in this town. Property values have risen even further than rents. In many cases, it is a cheaper to rent than to buy.
Drive half an hour over to Kingsport. Four apartment complexes have been completed or are under construction since 2016. Kingsport is essentially stagnant - a mill town. Many of these units are vacant. Rents have fallen. Property values are less. Both renting and owning are less than in Johnson City.
This whole rental discussion is largely based on your immediate local area.
My guess is that there are far more markets that are tenant-favored instead of landlord-favored. However, jobs don't tend to exist in the cheaper rental areas, and fewer people live in those areas.
Case in point. I live in one of the most desirable areas in my metro - an urban area walkable to the revitalized downtown of a city of 65,000, with a college of roughly 15,000. Over the last five years or so, several dozen businesses have popped up in the downtown that was nearly dead as of 2010.
The rental market, with the college and lack of new complexes since 2010 or so, is tight in this town. Property values have risen even further than rents. In many cases, it is a cheaper to rent than to buy.
Drive half an hour over to Kingsport. Four apartment complexes have been completed or are under construction since 2016. Kingsport is essentially stagnant - a mill town. Many of these units are vacant. Rents have fallen. Property values are less. Both renting and owning are less than in Johnson City.
Of course it's all about supply and demand in local areas. If you live in an area with more units or homes for rent than the general population needs, you won't have too hard a time getting into a rental and you'll be paying less in fees with less stringent demands.
I appreciate your business ethics. I've yet to allow an attitude to determine the "business" goal of renting . It's a business transaction not a miss congeniality contest.
No where in my years of renting does the contract say..you must be nice,pleasant and cower to a landlord.
I believe the OP in essences ..is questiong the new ways landlords are being funded upfront . Most consumers like to know where their money is going towards before plopping down 3k. I'm 9 years at my current condo. .each year the contract is reviewed. Sometimes the contracts tweeked to clarify. I would certainly not grace you with my funds.nothing personal mind you...it's just savvy business sense
Got it. You talk big but haven't tested your demanding attitude on prospective landlords.
Never - I like my own space. And you get some renter in your home and they rob you, trash your house, or just don't pay ret and you can't get rid of them.
Hey, I watch Judge Judy I know (j/k)....
Can't blame you in the slightest, I had a guy I've been friends with for fifty years stiff me on a $2000 loan this year. And, this is the same guy who has been hinting around for me to let him live in my basement because he's "down on his luck". While that's true, one has a large part in creating their own luck, he thought (and said) that I was an idiot for going to work instead of the bar for years and years. Guess what the odds are that I'd ever let this guy move into my house at this point? If someone will stiff you for two grand, they'll stiff you for two hundred grand, and that's not in my future.
To the post, I have a friend that owns a trailer park in central Illinois. Houses are cheap down there, so who rents an older mobile home in a park with few amenities? Those with lousy credit and a history of telling landlords to "stuff it", that's who - there are a cross-section of people out there who play the game of paying their rent for two months, and then suddenly "fall on hard times", except they can still afford three packs of cigs a day, beer, the Boat, etc.. And in Illinois, the law definitely sides with the renter, not the landlord. I would not own residential rental property if it were the last investment on earth. Now, commercial rental property? Maybe - if a renter decides not to pay you for a storage locker, for instance, he loses what's in it until the back rent is paid. And, there's no three-month eviction process, I believe you can put your own lock on it and deny access after the first month. But people? Never. If I could just rent to the dogs themselves and not the owners, that would be preferable.
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.
