Based on some of the posts on this Board, we have only ourselves to blame for Fair Housing Act. If we just treated people fairly, and had a set of criteria that is applied across the board regardless of color race or creed - in other words if we policed OURSELVES better - we wouldn't need Fed Reg.

I shouldn't even know the color, religion or creed of any prospective tenant.

That is a pipe dream. If everything worked like you said it should work, they were just find something else to control. There is a political benefit to keeping people dependent.

"We have only ourselves to blame for Fair Housing Act".

I'm sure there were a lot of abuses back in the 1960s when this act was created and it was very necessary back then. However times have changed. Dumb stuff like rights for Emotional Support Animals, and a guidance trying to force LL's to rent to people with criminal backgrounds were tacked onto this act.

Like NE said it is a pipe dream to think this Act will go away if landlords change their behavior in some way. The government is never going to just give up a tool it can use to promote an agenda.

That's right J, ESA's and criminals. Just wait until it's long-term convicted felons like rapists and pedophiles!

And credit!

I think a city did do away with your ability to pull credit on a tenant. I can't remember which one it was, but I think it's one of the ones that's on fire right now. But that's for another thread.

As long as who has a right to fair housing remains subjective and liquid, we're all potentially discriminating.

Many regulations (which in an ideal society would not be needed) may have been started with good intentions. But, they have morphed into more and more ridiculousness.

One small, "good" regulation leads the way to more, "not so good" ones by people who see and thrive on the power they can exert over others.

All societies need laws for the good of the people - ever since the ten commandments. Otherwise, peoples's sinful natures would be unchecked.

Often corporations discuss self-regulation vs. government oversight. The issue is should businesses self-regulate doing the right thing before the government sets up oversight to make them do the right thing. FHA (Fair Housing Act) came into being because there was such rampant discrimination in housing coupled with little if any self-regulation.

Clearly, it would have been less burdensome for landlords if they had just done the right thing from the beginning, rather than having the government step in with regulations and oversight. Self-regulation (which includes peer regulation) is calling out and addressing problems when we see them and not waiting for government to intervene. While it is true FHA is not going to disappear in the near term, it could easily morph into additional regulations i.e. support animals, etc. That is where self-regulation comes in.

Rightly or wrongly we landlords are viewed and grouped together. So, when one/some do something wrong, we could all end up paying the cost. Just like cops, most good some bad. They all are impacted by the bad ones.

Some folks on here have posted things that are quite insulting to minorities. I have no doubt they carry that “tude” into their business life. Some of them intended to do such, but others are doing it unknowingly and unintentionally. At any rate is a reflection on all of us, and we are subject to the consequences. Example a landlord wishing a category 4 hurricane on US cities like Portland and Kenosha is a PR disaster. If a landlord does not have the ability to recognize why this is a detrimental comment, we need to self/peer regulate. We all suffer the consequences when things like that get out.

Even if you don’t care about how your actions impact others there are self-preservation reasons to care. If you choose to be insulting/discriminating/illegal and put your business in jeopardy fine. But to put your business in jeopardy because you don’t know, understand or think something is insulting/discriminating or illegal is a different ballgame. If you get called up on fair housing and your only defense is I don’t think it should be XXXX, you will lose. Successful people and business grow and evolve, especially in their understanding of issues and responses.

If you want to be a tough boy cowboy…. go for it…see how well that works with the regulators

Yeah, we should be ashamed that people can't live up to their potential!! Play the victim UMMMMMMMMM NO!!

Trouble is, once we have a federal organization it NEVER goes away, even if the issues that created it do.

Think about the EPA. When it was created, rivers were burning. Decades later, they are squabbling over owner-created "wetlands." And still didn't prevent Flint.

Triplexer 'entertained' us all the other day with a description of some prospective tenants, describing race, dress and demeanor. We all 'yelled' at them, but they (don't know their pronoun) didn't get it at all. One reason we still have the FHA.

We have FHA and most other agencies, federal, state and local because there is a never ending line of people that just want to tell others what to do and how to live their lives. They want control over others and demand others obey. If you fail to obey them, there are penalties.

These people are easily manipulated by the many people that simply want/demand things that they don't want to pay for or work to get.(I exist so you owe me!)

It's not enough to just shop at a different business if you don't like that business or to rent a different place if you don't like the landlord. The business owner or landlord must be FORCED, under heavy penalties, to deal with people they don't like or want to do business with at all.

The first group, by setting up agencies to make/force others to comply, ensure their own jobs and power as well as their relatives and friends since the second group is glad to vote them in as long as they enjoy the free things/benefits they get for their votes.

Used to be,the first group just forced their opinions/will on the rest of us, but they found it too messy with revolts and so on, so they found an easier way ---- give enough people free stuff and those people will keep allowing you to give them more free stuff.

Just take stuff from the producers, give it to the takers. Call it taxes, etc. Make rules and penalties for the producers. Not for the takers.

The problem is there will never be enough Federal "Department of (insert name)" to fix everything wrong that anyone could possibly do to anyone else. It takes a firmly grounded, society-wide belief in what is right and wrong. It won't ever be perfect, but for all the "progress" we've made in the last 40 years, I wonder if the price we paid was civility and thoughtfulness, and if that is the case, was that price too high?

A quote from one of our founding fathers, John Adams.

"While our Country remains untainted with the Principles and manners, which are now producing desolation in so many Parts of the World: while she continues Sincere and incapable of insidious and impious Policy: We shall have the Strongest Reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned Us by Providence. But should the People of America, once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another and towards foreign nations, which assumes the Language of Justice and moderation while it is practicing Iniquity and Extravagance; and displays in the most captivating manner the charming Pictures of Candour frankness & sincerity while it is rioting in rapine and Insolence: this Country will be the most miserable Habitation in the World. Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The last sentence is the most well-known, but if you read the entire paragraph he builds his case firmly. The last three sentences ring painfully true today.

Personally I think landlords should have the right to discriminate however they want to. They are turning over an expensive asset to someone they do not know for a small fraction of cost and taking big risks all along the way. They should not be forced to take anyone for any reason. Not until they are truly allowed to be made whole after following fair housing laws. Meaning if/when they incur losses of any kind that person is actually made to pay or the government pays on their behalf. In-other-words, the landlord’s risk is mitigated by knowing they will be paid for their losses/damages.

Lisa, if you are a small landlord you can discriminate against anyone for any reason. Under 4 units? No one cares. Live on the property? You can refuse anyone.

"Trouble is, once we have a federal organization it NEVER goes away, even if the issues that created it do.

Think about the EPA. When it was created, rivers were burning. Decades later, they are squabbling over owner-created "wetlands." And still didn't prevent Flint.

Triplexer 'entertained' us all the other day with a description of some prospective tenants, describing race, dress and demeanor. We all 'yelled' at them, but they (don't know their pronoun) didn't get it at all.

One reason we still have the FHA. And just as we are getting them to listen on the ESA issues, the President comes up with his "They are coming to invade your suburbs!" rhetoric and is just adding fuel to the fire. The FHA is going to end up with MORE teeth."

-----------------------------------------------

Where did I say I didn't like controversy? Did I say that? Well then I lied.

Oh now I understand. Well when I said you learn through controversial discussions, I mean exactly that. You learn about people and their opinions and their ideas through discussion about controversial subjects, not about how much one likes toast.

And sometimes you learn you don't like that person's ideas and opinions on topics that are important to you, so you choose to distance yourself from that person rather than beat your head against the wall.

We have came a long way - but we have a long way to go.

I think back to a time when Sam my Davis Jr did the unthinkable (then) to Arch ie Bunker on TV.

Now we still might be Meat heads but at least we are headed forward.

I wonder what life in 2050 will be like?