Near you. New York State Attorney General Letitia James is suing an Ithaca landlord for allegedly denying housing to low-income tenants.

Landlord Jason Fane, his company Ithaca Renting Company, and his related entities are all subject to the suit.

An investigation by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) found that Mr. Fane and his real estate agents refused to accept Section 8 vouchers at his properties, in violation of New York’s housing laws against source of income discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that agents at Ithaca Renting repeatedly told renters they do not accept government assistance vouchers. Through her lawsuit, Attorney General James is seeking to require Mr. Fane to stop denying housing to New Yorkers with Section 8 vouchers, pay civil penalties, and set aside five percent of his residential housing units exclusively for Section 8 vouchers.

“All New Yorkers deserve access to fair and decent housing, regardless of their station in life,” said Attorney General James. “Denying housing to New Yorkers based on their source of income is not only illegal, but it’s also worsening the housing crisis. We are taking action to protect vulnerable tenants, keep New Yorkers in their homes, and enforce the law.”

“Housing is a basic human right. There is clear data demonstrating that access to housing stabilizes the entire community, increases public safety, and supports the economy,” said State Assemblymember Anna Kelles. “Even landlords, especially small landlords need regulations and protections and each one is hurt by the bad actors in a community. Housing should not be exclusively a commodity market. It must be balanced with human rights and dignity. I applaud Attorney General James for investigating and holding potential bad actors accountable.”

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provides housing assistance to the lowest-income households in New York to rent or purchase decent, safe housing in the private housing market. The program also provides assistance to senior citizens and disabled persons on fixed incomes, displaced families, and homeless individuals with disabilities. New York’s executive law clearly states that it is unlawful and discriminatory to deny housing to individuals based on their source of income.

The OAG opened an investigation into Ithaca Renting and Mr. Fane after receiving complaints from individuals who were denied housing for having a Section 8 voucher. The lawsuit alleges that an individual who was already living in an apartment managed by Mr. Fane was denied housing by Mr. Fane’s agent because of her Section 8 voucher.

The lawsuit also alleges a housing advocate was assisting a homeless man, who was granted a Section 8 voucher, to find an apartment in downtown Ithaca. The housing advocate contacted two agents who worked at different properties owned by Mr. Fane and both agents told the advocate they do not accept Section 8 vouchers. The lawsuit alleges this led to the homeless man remaining homeless for at least another year.

Mr. Fane and his related entities own 18 properties with more than 500 residential units. During OAG’s investigation, several of Mr. Fane’s agents repeatedly told OAG that they “choose not to participate in the Section 8 voucher program.” These employees, some of whom worked there for years, would not answer where or who they learned this policy from or who created it.

James is seeking to require Fane to stop his illegal practice of denying housing to those with Section 8 vouchers, and to pay $300,000 in civil penalties, reform polices and trainings for agents, and set aside five percent of his residential housing units exclusively for Section 8 vouchers.

As Tony says on Real Estate Investing and Landlord News:

1. Subsidies are not income. There is no tax paid on them.

2. Housing is not a basic human right no more than food is.

It's protected here, now, too.

They want to make an example of someone.

So, my understanding is that you can still have income minimums (i.e. 3x the rent, for example) -- you just can't discriminate based on the source of that income.

Seems like these people were just being dumb and saying "No Sec8 vouchers" in a location where that is not allowed.

Here, we say "Sure, we can accept the vouchers and I will count that towards your minimum income, but you still must meet the 3x rent minimum." Pretty much eliminates most of the issue.

I say that everything is "considered." Usually people on subsidy have other anti social behavior and don't pass the pre-qual.

What would happen if a light switch cover was off a light switch during the property inspection and you refused to correct it?

Wow! Mapleleaf I would have to disagree. Food, shelter, clothing and personal security/ right to life ARE basic human needs and people have the human right to exist.

When humans are deprived of those basic rights they tend to get downright testy.

As humans, we need housing and food, but it is not a right to have it. Big difference.

Same situation in Philly. Complete BS. Sec 8 is not simply a source of income; it is a program that requires participation in. That participation requires dealing with a bureaucracy that never answers the phones and whose voicemail is always full. It requires inspections to meet Sec 8 standards that exceed the housing code.

Astute landlords can easily work around it because the vast majority of Sec 8 tenants will not meet other basic standards; they are gonna "catch" the casual ll with a couple of properties who says on the phone "Oh, no, I do not take Sec 8."

1) In my country, you need to get certified to take section 8. This requires attending a few hour class. Simply don't get certified if you don't want section 8.

DD, The emphasis in BLUE states is LANDLORD "training." Whereas the focus should be on TENANT training IMHO.

For ALL tenants regardless of status:

1. DO pay your rent in full and on time

2. DO follow the clauses in the rental agreement/lease

3. DO take pride in your residence

4. DO take care to minimize wear and tear/damages

If we declare housing a human right, then I demand a 5 bedroom house on Waikiki Beach.... *grins

That's why housing can't be a human right. Housing is a limited resource and human needs and wants are endless. It also leaves us with the same problem we have today: how do we decide who gets to live where?

LTD made a call out about 5th Avenue, but if housing is a human right, then don't I get a right to live where I want? Section 8 is essentially a program that allows people to live in markets that they can't afford: so logically we should extend that to 5th Avenue if you're going to extend it to NYC in general. Section 8 increases demand artificially, which drives up prices for everyone, including market tenants who must pay their own way.

Housing is a need, not a right. We must learn to distinguish the two or we'll make a terrible mistake that not only won't solve our current problems, but also will create many more.

People who demand to live in expensive markets get subsidies which encourages them to move in and/or stay long after the time they should have moved elsewhere and allowed Supply/Demand to naturally regulate prices.

Let's look at one common sense reason why LLs should be able to refuse Sec 8. Sec 8 won't pay for damages. If Sec 8 would include a policy of $5,000 that would cover the cost of eviction, late fees, unpaid tenant portion of rent, and damages to the property, then it would truly be closer to parity with market rate tenants. But they don't, so I consider them a much higher risk. Ergo, I have to screen them much harder and it all depends on credit, criminal background and land lord references. 99 out of 100 do not qualify.

Another common sense reason: Sec 8 moves slowly. My application asks if the tenant can pay deposit and full first rent payment right away if approved. They must answer Yes or I don't even process the application. I'm not going to wait around for 3-4 weeks while Sec 8 schedules their inspection and takes their time pushing papers. Market rate tenants are ready to go now. It is unwise business to lose a month's rent to vacancy and utility costs waiting for the Govt to move.

This LL wasn't too clever, which is odd considering he had 500 units. It's sad, but maybe he was old skool and didn't learn to adapt with the times. He shouldn't have had to learn, but here we are today...staying two steps ahead of the Govt that is trying to trample property owner's rights, which actually do exist and have for hundreds of years.

Now I'm going to go check on Sec 8 rates for Hawaii. Maybe I can swing my human right to housing to include a beach house after all... on the taxpayer's dime!

re: needs vs rights, that's one of the things that came up for discussion when discussing whether health care was a human right. If it's a human right, then the doctors have an obligation to provide it, as though they're suddenly machines. If housing is a human right, then landlords are obligated to provide it.

If there are govt programs that allow people to live in houses, or receive healthcare, that they couldn't ordinarily afford themselves, then that's a social safety net. Generally, it's in a stable society's best interests for there not to be a discontented underclass with nothing-to-lose. If there are individuals who assist those who are less fortunate through private channels, that's a moral/ethical thing and an act of charity. It's good for the giver as well as the recipient.

If I didn't work with S8 in the hood I'ld be BROKE. Having said that, when I didn't want S8 I just set the advertised price ABOVE the S8 rate.

I understand housing those that can't work: the disabled, the infirm, the mentally challenged. However, when someone continually makes bad choices that hinder their chance of finding descent housing then they need to suffer the consequences. Taking away consequences does not force changed behavior for the better.

The state of NY has other options. They could do their own project housing, they could raise the S8 rates to make it desirable to take it to creating demand, they could reduce the onerous burden of dealing with the bureaucracy of the current system to remove barriers. Nope! Their solution is to take away constitutionally granted freedom from the producers to give it to the non-producers. Not a way to encourage healthy growth in the state.

As mentioned above, there are legal ways to bypass S-8 without actually saying "I don't accept S-8". It's not so easy with apartments, but with my SFHs, I just tell them that the house won't pass the inspection. It's the truth. Never had any pushback.

I took section 8 once and the tenant moved in her boyfriend who I would have never accepted. I reported her to section 8 and terminated her lease. I have to admit that the section 8 office was pretty good and inspections went quickly (they had an outside firm that handled them). They also came down like a ton of bricks on the tenant once I reported the boyfriend. Based on my experience with that HA, I would not rule out taking another section 8 tenant, but screening heavily is an absolute must including a home visit. Even though I can legally refuse section 8, I don't put "no section 8" in my ads.

If a landlord doesn't want to do Section 8, then why do business with Section 8 clients?

Going into the landlord business should have involved some planning: where to buy property, what kind of tenants do you want, what kind of property to buy, how will you control tenant pool, how to manage tenants, ...

All of these things were under the would-be-landlord's control when he decided to enter this business. If they didn't work out as he expected, then he made a bad business decision and will have to either live with it or fail.

To be clear, I'm fine with Sec 8 and fine with LLs who want to accept it. But it should not be forced participation for the reasons I outlined above, as well as other reasons different folks have outlined.

The efficacy of Sec 8 as a solution to affordable housing is somewhat debatable. I oppose it because as above mentioned it creates artificial demand in markets that are too expensive for many low income folks already, so rather than working on the correct solution of decreasing costs, Section 8 increases money supply which is inflationary. That should be obvious to anyone who has lived through these past 2 years of Govt money printing.

The free market, for all it's flaws, remains the best option: allow individuals to determine prices they will charge and pay, and then people will generally make the choice that's in their own best interest. Flaws in this method? Yep. People are flawed; ergo, any method they use will also be flawed. But as a formally trained student of history (Bachelors Degree) as well as an avid reader and student I haven't found a better one. Communism is a nightmare. Socialism is a recipe for tepid growth and must be sustained through enormous subsidies and curtailment of personal freedoms. Both methods have far fewer positives and many more negatives than Capitalism.

As a wise founder once said, "The Constitution is written for the governance of a religious, moral people; it cannot govern any other." Just so with economics. Without a moral guiding principle, any economic system will be exploited. But overall, Capitalism gives individual the best chance to avoid being exploited, because they are not being coerced by the guns of Govt.

Moshe: "where to buy property, what kind of tenants do you want, what kind of property to buy, how will you control tenant pool, how to manage tenants..."

Those WERE under a landlord's control when they decided to enter the business.

I agree that they messed up by stating "no section 8". What was wrong with something along the lines of "need proof of stable rental history for xx months/years." I'm guessing homeless probably can't come up with that.

On the other issue in this thread:

The issue of the "right" to housing (food, health care, education for children, and more) is really merely a misunderstood name. What it really means is that we in the world have progressed to using the opulence that humans have created for themselves to better the world and create a better standard of living for everyone. The "right", like all other "rights" is laws passed by legislatures to require treatment to citizens. Its a valid concept.

Perhaps so many members here have forgotten (or never knew) how life has progressed from the past. People starved, didn't provide for their children, died of disease, ... in the old days. But that was before the world became so wealthy. Think of the days of the Great Worldwide Depression. How far have we come as a society? We provide free schools for children, free health care, especially for seniors, food banks, welfare, unemployment subsidies, even subsidies for communities who have lost industrial base. Society has come a long way toward making people's lives better, both disadvantaged people and advantaged people. And the whole world is better off, as a result.

Who here would discourage the American G.I. bill to provide free educations to former soldiers, most of whom would never have exercised themselves to achieve that on their own. Think of the GREAT effect that has had on American life, including the accumulation of wealth that American society has achieved since then.

I am always (not exactly) amused by those on this site who always assert (without any knowledge of what they are talking about) how Socialism doesn't work. They are totally ignorant of what Socialism has accomplished, as well as the limitation on what it CAN accomplish including the restrictions of economic phases that sometime require Socialism and sometimes Capitalism.

The issue here is that sharing of resources is necessary and desirable in today's world and selfish people who insist on only their own benefit will prevent the great possibility of future wealth accumulation that we could all have.

But who says landlords are greedy?

WMH: "In some states, those issues are now under the control of the state. That's what folks are complaining about! "

So the landlord didn't plan ahead. So the rental environment changed in his sector. So, isn't that what he was paid for (so to speak) in his reward for business acumen? He CHOSE to engage in low-cost housing, he chose to ignore the law, he failed to develop techniques to deal with the past, present and future developments, and he is failing to adapt. But isn't that what a businessman is all about? Reward for successfully managing the situation and higher rewards for those that do? The world is not only about exploiting opportunities, stop complaining about limitations. The landlord wasn't good at planning.

The landlord is bought into low cost housing also bought into low class housing. If he doesn't like the class (only the cost) why go into such a business?

I planned ahead. I bought into an opportunity, but with knowledge that a strong and morally desirable community would support my goals, including strong rental potential and cooperative tenant pool.

I don't like the restrictions on my freedom that the government has imposed, but its the cost of progress and I simply adapt. The complainers chose to enter a different market and are now complaining paying the cost of change.

Moshe you are missing the point in your zealous desire to push socialism.

Healthcare - Doctors aren't being forced to take Medicare, they have a choice unlike landlords.

Food banks - Grocery stores aren't being required to provide free food unlike landlords.

Unemployment - is actually a form of insurance that is required as part of employment. Employers aren't required to continue to pay those laid off like landlords are required to accept S8.

GI Bill - that's a benefit for serving your country rewarding good behavior. Private schools aren't required to accept it unlike landlords.

What New York is doing is not similar, it is discrimination against one group of individuals requiring them to participate in a program without choice.

More to your point, there are many, many, many examples of countries adopting socialism where gross domestic product declined substantially because it eliminated the incentive to work and be productive. Socialism is not the silver bullet the radical left is pushing.

AMEN MikeA!!

The UK recently had to deny their wonderful universal health system to immigrants via limiting immigration altogether.

Sid: Its been a long time since I have engaged with you. These are a few reactions that I had to your post.

1. "Section 8 increases money supply which is inflationary. That should be obvious to anyone who has lived through these past 2 years of Govt money printing."

The money supply has already been increased when it was raised by taxation. Its not just sitting in the basement of the Treasury, it is sent to banks who invest it into (mostly) the American economy. Govt money printing has been around since Nixon took us off the gold standard. Actually, in terms of what is obvious, is to look at what has happened to the American economy since then. Am I correct to say that it has skyrocketed? Have YOU benefited? A good part of that success has been the knowledge of the benefit of controlling the money supply, and the government does that without the benefit of Section 8.

2. "The free market, for all it's flaws, remains the best option"

I dispute that. You are looking at the problem in the very narrow sense that the only choices are Socialism or Capitalism, instead of seeing the total picture of choosing the most effective solution to a particular problem. And, keep in mind that great problems, which govts really face, are not simple ones, but very complex ones that involve many, many issues.

"the best option: allow individuals to determine prices they will charge and pay, and then people will generally make the choice that's in their own best interest."

Yes, in theory. But so many people don't have the variety of choices that you and I do, and so, for them, the market isn't "free". So what's in "their" own interest isn't necessarily what is in society's best interest.

As a formally trained student of history (Bachelors Degree) as well as an avid reader and student you haven't found a better one.

Look around more. Maybe you are relying on your faculty's choice of your reading and your own preferences to limit your education (past, present & future).

Have you ever seen Communism? Socialism? I grew up in a Socialist country. I have seen the potential for growth as well as the "limitations" on freedom. Perhaps you are assuming that "Communism" and "Socialism" necessarily mean a despotic, tyrannical and dictatorial country, but your education ought to qualify you to think more deeply. You ought to get out more. Communism and Socialism are economic terms, not only political terms, and a well educated A.B. ought to motivate you to read more widely.

"Socialism is a recipe for tepid growth and must be sustained through enormous subsidies and curtailment of personal freedoms. "

Is that true? Do you think that those claims can be substantiated? Yes, it takes money, but all business ventures take money. (Think of government as business, albeit hampered by size, bureaucracy and politics). Do these subsidies pay themselves back? As an educated man, you surely have considered these questions in making those assertions.

The bottom line is that, maybe you are looking to your own narrow interest in making these general statements. Perhaps you simply don't like being told that you MUST act a certain way, because it inconveniences you. I don't mean to be rude, but maybe you haven't thought enough about these problems.

Wonder what Moshe would say if HUD decreed that his/her nicer homes had to accept multiple Section 8 families splitting the rent so that underprivileged Class C kids would be able to attend Class A schools? That would certainly improve us as a society and make it more equal, increase their potential, etc.

I have a sfh in a very attractive neighborhood with modestly sized houses in an excellent school system. But it has a secondary staircase to the finished attic that, while approved by the zoning officer for the locality, is not acceptable to the section 8 program. When people call about vouchers, I can honestly answer, "Oh, I'm sorry. This house is not approved for section 8. They don't like the stairs to the attic, even though the local building inspector signed off on them."

(The attic stairs are accessed through a bedroom over the garage and there is no door, as the opening is oddly shaped. The stairs are alternating tread, like a ship's ladder - it was the only type of staircase that would work in the situation, and gives one a lot of storage space in the attic room.)

Moshe, I have to disagree that "government is a business."

Its main source of income is our tax dollars, and what it does with those tax dollars is not constrained by the normal business goals of profit and growth and cost controls.

Growth yes, but only by SPENDING - not by conserving, retooling, rethinking and committing to PROFIT or SAVINGS

I know a lot of government project managers who, at retirement, wanted to go into the public sector. Many succeed, yes, but many, after years of following the rules of spending every last dime in the budget so that they can increase the budget next year (NOT getting an increase is considered a DECREASE in government speak...) did NOT succeed at managing dollars in private companies.

My husband and I used to sell IT to the government. Q3 was always our blow-out quarter, as every agency struggled to spend their allotted budget on ANYTHING so that they would get an increase next year.

Oh, Sid. Your education is showing.

A university education, even on the A.B. level, is supposed to teach about reasoning, careful consideration of ideas including opposing ideas, and last of all, actionable advice.

The type of education that you're suggesting (actionable advice) often goes by the name of read-and-memorize education.

I didn't get that kind of education.

I still think that you ought to get out more. Read a wider variety of ideas to keep up with current thinking in the world of 2022 (soon to be 2023), instead of trying to validate centuries-old ideas that have passed their relevancy, without appropriate rationality.

I'm not a socialist myself, I practice Capitalism, even some of my standard-of-living is attributable to Capitalism. I like freedom of choice too, just like anyone else, but I have enough freedom-of-choice in my life to satisfy myself. Evidently, you don't. I have more money that I ever dreamed possible earlier in my lifetime, but I am a highly moral man and grateful for whatever success I have had, and I have enough room in my fortune and my life to spare a little compassion for less fortunate people. More importantly, I am able to recognize that our society has serious problems and that some of these problems can be resolved by expenditures of minor privileges.

What should we expect from the government forbidding participation in Section 8?

Well, by (as you point out) what about splitting the rent so that underprivileged Class C kids would be able to attend Class A schools? Well, would, with enough time and talent, there no longer be or be less of, Class C problems? Being specific, what about behavior problems, but these are kids and they are molded by their environment and they will disappear as behavior problems with enough time and environmental changes (even generations). Will American society benefit? Yes, if the program can be carried out effectively, including contribution of these children to GDP and taxes, community activity, prevention of crime, public health improvement, and good workers for business. Will it pay for itself? Well, need to do some calculations, but past experience shows that it does and in spades.

Ken says, "how dare you compare our soldiers who risked there (sic) lives for our freedoms receiving a GI bill to some lazy slug sitting aroung collecting govt benefits."

Well, did I do that? One of the exercises that even a high school student endures, is to get the facts right before expounding on the ideas.

The truth is that, there is more to the story of soldiers who risked their lives for our freedom. The GI bill was initiated as a "socialist" idea, to provide benefits to the country. Acceptance of this idea was made possible by the fact that the recipients had risked their lives for our freedom, that the recipients were almost universally young and would have long working lifetimes after the education, and mostly men who would provide (needed, in those days) support to families. And sure enough, what a difference it made to American society: Addition of a whole instant pool of professional, engineering and managerial workers, trained in vocational plus university techniques to our society which enabled America to move us into a whole new century of progress. Did that program pay off (in money)? You bet it did, and so do other "socialist" programs.

Are landlords who insist (with very specious logic) that they should not have ANY privileges taken away from themself, thinking only of themselves, not thinking that, by their giving up some small favor that they never actually earned, are passing up some real (and pecuniary) benefit to both society and themselves? How do we build a society that develops, grows, prospers and brings in money, especially in a world where America is losing its dominance? Or, are they simply greedy, short-sighted and thinking only of small, immediate profits instead of letting what they imagine as taking away of freedom, to be understood as very good business?

I heartily agree with Mike A & ken who said it so well.

Moshe: You call me selfish and greedy because I do't want government to take my hard-earned money and give it away to those who refuse to work & earn their own. Most of the governmental policies do not align with my beliefs.

I think one of the big issues here -- is that so many landlords only see two sides: those who make money and those who refuse to work, so they are poor. That is an extreme example and it is unfair to lump everyone who is poor into a group of "lazy slug" that is "sitting around collecting benefits."

You see it only as "capitalism vs socialism" and want to label anyone getting any assistance as some lazy chump who refuses to work and buys a 65" HDTV instead. Have we all seen some of those people? Absolutely. But that isn't everyone by a long shot -- but you continue to group them all together.

Until you start to realize that there are lots of people who need assistance sometimes who are not "lazy slugs", you'll never really understand both sides of this.

I can see Sid's side. I can see Moshe's side. Where things should be is probably somewhere in the middle. But we'll never be there if you only see anyone getting help as "lazy slugs" who "refuse to work." That simply isn't reality for many, many people.

Moshe,

A GI Bill Home loan is earned - a HUD voucher is a mere gift.

"Your education is showing."

"I didn't get that kind of education."

"One of the exercises that even a high school student endures...."

So Moshe's point boils down to "You are dumb."

"Until you start to realize...."

"...you'll never really understand..."

So John's point boils down to "You are dumb."

John: Certainly there are those in society that truly need help.

The systems set in place by the government are generally very bloated, inefficient and costly - ad do not address the underlying problem(in my opinion). And they are so big, distant & poorly managed that they are easily and frequently abused and given to those who are NOT truly in need. We've all heard it. I've seen it plenty, and heard people brag about how they were able to twist things & lie to get different benefits.

I understand poor. I grew up on food stamp food. I also wore hand-me downs, got a job young, had a big vegetable garden, and wore layers of clothes in the winter - inside. Because I was taught to DO all you CAN with the means available to you. I also went to church and learned about loving your neighbor and caring for widows & orphans - and that he who refuses to work will not eat.

When someone is truly in need, their family should help them. If all those resources are spent, or they have no family, the church/charities help. There "should" be (ideally) hardly anyone left who needs and WANTS help from the government. Yes, there are those who do NOT want it.

Congratulations to Moshe for being filthy rich with no needs, however he got there.

I haven't achieved that, & never will. I live modestly off my income.

PS: Isn't it great that we are allowed / able to express different views without being arrested? And without being cut off (yet : )?

Thank you, Jeffrey for allowing some sharing that really gets off the topic of Landlording - but is still useful / insightful in general. Let's all be sure to always keep it civil, so it will continue to be allowed.

Small and Ken... that post most likely is from a municipal housing property... It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was anyway... they can do whatever they want.

If you run a business, one of your main jobs is to stay on top of laws and regulations that affect that business. It sounds as if the owners/managers of that business mentioned in the OP did NOT stay on top of NYS's changing rental laws and did NOT pass down the changes to their employees.

The sad thing is, it has been true for a long, long time that putting possibly discriminatory requirements in an AD is verboten - even Craigslist tells you this when you post.

So even if I really DON'T take people who drive blue cars or wear green shirts or work for a particular profession - I can't put that in my ad. Even if I am not signed up for Section 8, I can't put that I don't take it in my written ads. And I would never say that I "don't" take Section 8 to a prospective tenant either.

Side note: Moshe, the lording of a higher *education* status over someone else is kind of - no, it's really seriously obnoxious. Especially since higher education - particularly graduate degrees - in America is very much financially driven rather than based on ability.

What I pointed out to Sid is not his degrees or even how far he progressed in his education. What I pointed out is his weakness in dealing with ideas as opposed to "specific, actionable advice". Sid possesses a read & memorize education, which is inimical to the idea of a university. Its wonderful that he is a reader; but what he reads is missing the concept of the inquiring mind.

But I'm not really talking about Sid. I'm talking to all of you.

WMH: The issues of education on this site are not questions of how many degrees you have; They are questions of if your mind was trained to think (or not). Sid has an A.B., he reads and he participates in discussions. He is well able to discuss specific, actionable advice, but he is unable to discuss ideas, especially ideas which he doesn't like, indeed ideas which he may find personally abhorrent. But he lives in a world where such ideas are extant, even popular if not dominant, and he is unable to even discuss them. Its not anything against Sid, but the inadequacy of his education is apparent.

But education is a temporal detail. A man's (womam's) education continues long after school and Sid is a reader and thats great. In addition to my research, I also taught, and as a teacher I am trying to steer Sid (and all of you) to read more and more widely. Good schools in this country read about Socialism and Marxism and they have a wider perspective about the world than less good schools. They are not read and memorize perspectives, they are able to discuss and honestly and accurately evaluate what's good and whats bad about socialism, free enterprise, democracy, theocracy, centrally planned economies and local control. My grandaughter went to such a school, in Washington, DC (public school). Anyone can continue their education by reading and THINKING about the ideas contained, rather than memorizing them.

DJ suffers from the same problem: assuming that "Communism" and "Socialism" necessarily mean a despotic, tyrannical and dictatorial country. Its not so, you know.

Is this (really) off the topic of landlording? What it is really about is denying small landlord perks in order to better the rental environment for all of us. Dumb posters take ONLY the position that it MUST not be permitted, that taking away their perk is UnAmerican, Socialist, sub-optimal, Communist and fattening. Uneducated posters are unable to discuss the political environment as ideas, because they are afraid of losing their perks, and were never trained in serious discussions, anyway. You don't need a college degree to do serious discussions of ideas (although it should help), all you need is a serious head on your shoulders. Reading helps.

Paulio: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say or even suggest that anyone was dumb. I simply made a point that seeing it only as "capitalism vs socialism" and "earned money vs refuses to work" is ignoring reality. And that we can't really have a reasonable discussion about that until people recognize that.

That doesn't mean anyone is dumb. It's just something to give thought to. Now, if you refuse to give thought to it and just stick to your ways without any consideration that not everyone fits into the same "lazy slug" group, then, yes, I guess I'd think you were dumb.

But, again, I didn't call you or anyone else dumb here.

Well, there we have it. I am not a deep thinker. I am incapable of discussing ideas I don't like. Zinger after zinger landing home.

Still, this undereducated, non-sophisticated bumpkin knows the following:

1) Don't to insult your audience. This is Composition 101.

2) The way to use "its" correctly in a sentence.

"Its wonderful that he is a reader;" should be "It's wonderful..."

"Its not anything against Sid," should be "It's not anything..."

3) The way to avoid comma splices.

"Sid has an A.B., he reads" should be "Sid has an A.B. He reads..."

"You don't need a college degree to do serious discussions of ideas (although it should help), all you need is a serious head on your shoulders" should be "You don't need a college degree to do serious discussions of ideas (although it should help). All you need is a serious head on your shoulders."

An alternative method would be to use a semi-colon to link two closely related ideas, as follows:

"You don't need a college degree to do serious discussions of ideas (although it should help); all you need is a serious head on your shoulders. "

4) How to avoid unsubstantiated assumptions.

"but he is unable to discuss ideas, especially ideas which he doesn't like"

5) The correct spelling of basic words. Even the spell checker caught this one!

"A man's (womam's)"

That's all for now. My rule as an English teacher was after 5 basic errors, the draft goes back to the writer for revision. Saved on the red ink pen budget.

As a side note for online posts: are my posts grammatically perfect with no spelling errors? No, certainly not. I'm not especially good at proofing my own stuff, especially online where typing is not optimal. But neither do I lecture others about my superior education and the insufficiency of theirs while making over a dozen high school freshman level grammar and spelling errors.

Have grace; give grace. But when you act like you're superior, then expect to be held to a higher standard.

Have a good evening, All. This post has been informative and entertaining, to say the least.

Thinking vs. memorizing.

I never said my education was superior. You can draw your own conclusions.

I used to have a secretary type my papers.

Someday, we can talk about American schools and their read-and-memorize products. I don't think that spelling and grammar are substitutes for thinking.

You're obviously sore about the fact of possibly losing your exclusive control over your landlord activities. I am not happy about them either, but I adapt because I understand how the world has changed and I understand that these changes are not without benefit. Government programs have always been around and been progressive and, for the most part, the world is better off for them.

Much of the above postings consist only of nonsense. A good discussion requires an understanding of the issues (as if the question of the post was Capitalism vs Socialism; its not) or what is the benefit of a government program; (sometimes good, sometimes bad, often hampered by size, bureaucracy, and politics, but its government programs that have brought the US to its greatest achievements).

As English teacher, what would you do with a student who wrote a brilliant essay with more than 5 spelling and grammar errors? Discourage her by rejecting her paper? Something similar happened to my daughter: arrogant, disdainful of her teachers, wouldn't follow instructions because they were stupid, then when Academic Decathlon time came, she won three medals (only medals on her school's team) and the principal paid her back by refusing to list her on team news announcement, and instructing her teachers to give "C"s in all her final semester courses, and refusing recommendation to the college she was applying to (good college on East Coast). I told her to write to the college and explain, and the Dean wrote back that her admission was not conditional on her High School graduation.

So what's important? spelling & grammar, or encouragement of a precocious student? So much as to good ideas trumping spelling & grammar. Memorizing vs. thinking.