should landlords be able to deny housing to people with "any kind of eviction history"?

[dead0man]

and to help you vote, the ACLU thinks the answers are A1-no and A2-yeah

**PDF** Aclu complaint to feds

In this complaint, HOPE Fair Housing Center challenges Oak Park Apartments’ no evictions policy. This policy functions as a blanket ban that deters applications from and denies housing to prospective tenants with any kind of eviction history, irrespective of the outcome of an eviction filing and whether any eviction judgment actually resulted, when an eviction filing occurred, the reason for the filing, or any subsequent changes in circumstances or other relevant information. Through this policy, Oak Park Apartments disproportionately denies and otherwise makes unavailable rental housing opportunities to Black renters, and to Black women especially.
As one of the largest landlords of multifamily rental properties in Oak Park, Illinois, Oak Park Apartments’ no-evictions policy reinforces and contributes to racial segregation in the community. These discriminatory effects cannot be justified. Categorically excluding tenants with any kind of eviction history is not necessary for Oak Park Apartments to achieve any substantial, legitimate purpose. Additionally, Oak Park Apartments has ample other available methods for screening rental applicants at least as effective in minimizing the risk of unsuccessful tenancies while having less of a discriminatory effect. HUD should therefore swiftly investigate this matter and take appropriate remedial action under 42 U.S.C. § 3610.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I think it depends. Ex-cons and recovering addicts need housing too, and so it's not unreasonable to withhold some information for purposes of housing (as well as employment). If on the other hand, their eviction history is in some way related to sexual abuse, it makes sense why landlords wouldn't want to rent to someone, especially if children live nearby. But, let's be honest: sex fiends need housing as well, and if the law has determined that someone's too dangerous to receive the same opportunities and accommodations as everyone else in society, then they should probably be incarcerated or in rehab until their time is served. Generally though, I think it should be easier to reintegrate in society once the law determines someone is ready to.

Voted 'meh' on both.

[DaleCooper]

No to the first question and probably yes to the second. Denying housing to people with "any kind of eviction history" is ridiculous. Someone who can afford the apartment should not be denied housing because they have the scarlet letter of someone filing to get them evicted decades ago.

[Sir Mohamed]

I would say No, though it seems impossible to actually enforce such a law because it's difficult to prove a denial is based on that.

[Del Tachi]

Probably not, and meh

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

meh & no.

A blanket policy against those who have been evicted is wrong, but I don't think one can expect landlords to not take it into consideration. So it doesn't make sense to me to treat it as a form of discrimination.  It's certainly not racist or sexist.
I don't know if there is a way to effectively prohibit a blanket policy while still allowing it as a consideration among other factors. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you're talking about an "eviction", then, yes, a landlord should be able to use that against granting a lease (within a reasonable span of time).

If you're talking about breaking a lease and moving out, that's another thing. 

No, this is not racist or sexist.  Many landlords are private individuals; their rental properties are their retirement plans, as they are in business for themselves.  They are not charity.  The question of affordable rent is another issue and should be discussed and remedied, but to expect that private providers of housing just give it away is not reasonable.

[Electric Circus]

People with good credit and a pro-social personal record should be able to isolate themselves from those who lack either, even if they aren't rich enough to own a home or rent in a better neighborhood.

A lot of the quality of life problems that Americans experience today emerge from this tendency to wreck the commons with extreme permissiveness and then punish anyone who tries to isolate themselves from its consequences.

If a non-profit is interested in ameliorating this situation, they should be in the business of providing housing rather than suing those who do. You'll notice that there are a lot more lawyers whose politics are simpatico with this effort then there are building managers, custodians, carpenters, and so on.

[Aurelius2]

People with good credit and a pro-social personal record should be able to isolate themselves from those who lack either, even if they aren't rich enough to own a home or rent in a better neighborhood.

A lot of the quality of life problems that Americans experience today emerge from this tendency to wreck the commons with extreme permissiveness and then punish anyone who tries to isolate themselves from its consequences.

If a non-profit is interested in ameliorating this situation, they should be in the business of providing housing rather than suing those who do. You'll notice that there are a lot more lawyers whose politics are simpatico with this effort then there are building managers, custodians, carpenters, and so on.

Yep. Anarcho-tyranny is pernicious.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

and to help you vote, the ACLU thinks the answers are A1-no and A2-yeah

**PDF** Aclu complaint to feds

In this complaint, HOPE Fair Housing Center challenges Oak Park Apartments’ no evictions policy. This policy functions as a blanket ban that deters applications from and denies housing to prospective tenants with any kind of eviction history, irrespective of the outcome of an eviction filing and whether any eviction judgment actually resulted, when an eviction filing occurred, the reason for the filing, or any subsequent changes in circumstances or other relevant information. Through this policy, Oak Park Apartments disproportionately denies and otherwise makes unavailable rental housing opportunities to Black renters, and to Black women especially.
As one of the largest landlords of multifamily rental properties in Oak Park, Illinois, Oak Park Apartments’ no-evictions policy reinforces and contributes to racial segregation in the community. These discriminatory effects cannot be justified. Categorically excluding tenants with any kind of eviction history is not necessary for Oak Park Apartments to achieve any substantial, legitimate purpose. Additionally, Oak Park Apartments has ample other available methods for screening rental applicants at least as effective in minimizing the risk of unsuccessful tenancies while having less of a discriminatory effect. HUD should therefore swiftly investigate this matter and take appropriate remedial action under 42 U.S.C. § 3610.

Uh yes, absolutely this should be not be allowed. Going with no/no.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

People with good credit and a pro-social personal record should be able to isolate themselves from those who lack either, even if they aren't rich enough to own a home or rent in a better neighborhood.

A lot of the quality of life problems that Americans experience today emerge from this tendency to wreck the commons with extreme permissiveness and then punish anyone who tries to isolate themselves from its consequences.

If a non-profit is interested in ameliorating this situation, they should be in the business of providing housing rather than suing those who do. You'll notice that there are a lot more lawyers whose politics are simpatico with this effort then there are building managers, custodians, carpenters, and so on.

I can kind of understand wanting to let "prosocial" people live with other "prosocial" people (I find the idea quite unsettling and wrong in a way that's hard to pinpoint FTR) but thinking people with good credit have a right to avoid those with bad scores is bizarre. How does a low credit score make someone so bad to live with that it becomes sensible to isolate oneself from them. At worst, having a low credit rating is caused by someone being bad at managing their own money. It often means facing a serious medical emergency and getting stuck with 6 digit medical debt due to not having/being bailed on by health insurance, or just not having the income required to pay for everything.

[Electric Circus]

I can kind of understand wanting to let "prosocial" people live with other "prosocial" people (I find the idea quite unsettling and wrong in a way that's hard to pinpoint FTR) but thinking people with good credit have a right to avoid those with bad scores is bizarre. How does a low credit score make someone so bad to live with that it becomes sensible to isolate oneself from them. At worst, having a low credit rating is caused by someone being bad at managing their own money. It often means facing a serious medical emergency and getting stuck with 6 digit medical debt due to not having/being bailed on by health insurance, or just not having the income required to pay for everything.

And that's not fair. I'm not sure that I understand the details of your example, but - of course - a poor credit score is not an indication that someone is a bad person. Sometimes it indicates nothing more than a run of bad luck.

However, with much of our country giving up on quality of life policing and traffic enforcement in recent years, Americans have few protections from antisocial behavior. The best that most of us can do is to seek out environments in which we are insulated from its consequences. We live in a violent country, so this is not a luxury. It's a matter of survival, especially for anyone who is personally ill-equipped to deal with predators.

A good credit score is a direct indicator of one form of pro-social behavior (paying one's debts), and a proxy for others. So I don't support denying landlords the ability to screen tenants on that basis. I also think it's in the interest of a lot of tenants - especially those of moderate means, who can't just move into a more expensive apartment. For many people, maintaining a strong credit score is much more achievable than increasing their income.

None of this matters to the non-profits filing the disparate impact lawsuit. They will declare victory and move on. If that means that fewer affordable apartments exist in the future, it's nothing to them. They won't even notice. If that means that affordable apartments become less pleasant places to live, they won't notice that either.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I can kind of understand wanting to let "prosocial" people live with other "prosocial" people (I find the idea quite unsettling and wrong in a way that's hard to pinpoint FTR) but thinking people with good credit have a right to avoid those with bad scores is bizarre. How does a low credit score make someone so bad to live with that it becomes sensible to isolate oneself from them. At worst, having a low credit rating is caused by someone being bad at managing their own money. It often means facing a serious medical emergency and getting stuck with 6 digit medical debt due to not having/being bailed on by health insurance, or just not having the income required to pay for everything.

And that's not fair. I'm not sure that I understand the details of your example, but - of course - a poor credit score is not an indication that someone is a bad person. Sometimes it indicates nothing more than a run of bad luck.

However, with much of our country giving up on quality of life policing and traffic enforcement in recent years, Americans have few protections from antisocial behavior. The best that most of us can do is to seek out environments in which we are insulated from its consequences. We live in a violent country, so this is not a luxury. It's a matter of survival, especially for anyone who is personally ill-equipped to deal with predators.

A good credit score is a direct indicator of one form of pro-social behavior (paying one's debts), and a proxy for others. So I don't support denying landlords the ability to screen tenants on that basis. I also think it's in the interest of a lot of tenants - especially those of moderate means, who can't just move into a more expensive apartment. For many people, maintaining a strong credit score is much more achievable than increasing their income.

None of this matters to the non-profits filing the disparate impact lawsuit. They will declare victory and move on. If that means that fewer affordable apartments exist in the future, it's nothing to them. They won't even notice. If that means that affordable apartments become less pleasant places to live, they won't notice that either.

What kind of anti-social behavior are you seeing so much that justifies screwing the massive amount of people who are too poor to get good credit? And I don't want sensationalist news articles about horrific crimes, or anecdotes. I want statistics, facts, something quantifiable. Because I take two way trips on the Tucson bus 4 days a week as a woman who looks the part to others, and I rarely have problems despite the fact that I often end up on nearly empty buses which are generally less safe than average.

Like, from what I've seen you say about homeless people, you are paranoid to an unhealthy degree, and its spilling out in ugly ways.

[Electric Circus]

What kind of anti-social behavior are you seeing so much that justifies screwing the massive amount of people who are too poor to get good credit? And I don't want sensationalist news articles about horrific crimes, or anecdotes. I want statistics, facts, something quantifiable. Because I take two way trips on the Tucson bus 4 days a week as a woman who looks the part to others, and I rarely have problems despite the fact that I often end up on nearly empty buses which are generally less safe than average.

Like, from what I've seen you say about homeless people, you are paranoid to an unhealthy degree, and its spilling out in ugly ways.

I'm not paranoid. I'm an American.

Traffic fatalities, drug overdose fatalities, and homicides are the three most important data series. All are tracked by federal agencies and contextualized in federal reports, and you can pull the data yourself from CDC's WONDER database.

Drug overdoses are worse than they've ever been. It's the international comparison in which homicide rates and traffic fatality rates are bad, rather than the time series - although recent years are trending poorly for those as well.

These are just indicators. The map is not the territory. But if you're looking for hard data, mortality numbers are about as reliable as it gets, and a good starting point for understanding social conditions.

Deaths are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of social harm, of course, but everything below the waterline is more difficult to measure.

[BigZuck08]

A1: Yes, of course
A2: nah

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

What kind of anti-social behavior are you seeing so much that justifies screwing the massive amount of people who are too poor to get good credit? And I don't want sensationalist news articles about horrific crimes, or anecdotes. I want statistics, facts, something quantifiable. Because I take two way trips on the Tucson bus 4 days a week as a woman who looks the part to others, and I rarely have problems despite the fact that I often end up on nearly empty buses which are generally less safe than average.

Like, from what I've seen you say about homeless people, you are paranoid to an unhealthy degree, and its spilling out in ugly ways.

I'm not paranoid. I'm an American.

Traffic fatalities, drug overdose fatalities, and homicides are the three most important data series. All are tracked by federal agencies and contextualized in federal reports, and you can pull the data yourself from CDC's WONDER database.

Drug overdoses are worse than they've ever been. It's the international comparison in which homicide rates and traffic fatality rates are bad, rather than the time series - although recent years are trending poorly for those as well.

These are just indicators. The map is not the territory. But if you're looking for hard data, mortality numbers are about as reliable as it gets, and a good starting point for understanding social conditions.

Deaths are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of social harm, of course, but everything below the waterline is more difficult to measure.

I don't see how letting landlords reject potential tenants because of an eviction filing(which wasn't necessarily allowed to go through, and may very well have been the landlord trying to screw over tenants who weren't doing anything wrong) for the sake of keeping the "pro-social" people seperate from the "anti-social" people is going to help with all these problems.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that this country is sick, but its not a kind of sickness that makes existing in society dangerous without extreme paranoia, to the point of not even looking at homeless people because you see think they'll attack or something. What do you consider "pro-social" and "anti-social", by the way? It would probably clarify things.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What do you consider "pro-social" and "anti-social", by the way? It would probably clarify things.

Speaking only for myself, the former includes but isn’t limited to demonstrating a consistent baseline of personal responsibility (and willingness to take responsibility for one’s actions), conscientiousness, honesty, integrity, and respect of others. I don’t think it’s too hard to imagine how this works in practice in situations like a tenant-landlord or tenant-fellow tenant relationship.