Thanks, Obama

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Make everyone subject to the laws that are on the books. The $800 coming from one tenant's government subsidy shouldn't come with any more strings attached to it than the $800 coming from another tenant's paycheck. Either should be subject to the same eviction laws if they do stupid shit. That would be actual equality instead of the unnecessary discriminatory regulations that currently exist.

 

[PhDeac]

So how do you make sure renters don't discriminate?

 

[Strickland33]

No, because in many situations it is considered discriminatory if we don't accept them. So we are forced by one set of regulations into the inefficiencies of another set of regulations.

You don't receive any benefits for accepting voucher tenants?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You don't receive any benefits for accepting voucher tenants?

Nothing other than the subsidies themselves, which are no different than the money any other renter pays. Unless you consider not getting discrimination claims a benefit, which I don't.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

So how do you make sure renters don't discriminate?

The front-end non-discrimination laws regarding applications/admissions are fine as they are with regard to preventing discrimination. It is the back-end eviction regulations that accompany the subsidies that are non-sensical and have absolutely nothing to do with anti-discrimination (other than to create reverse discrimination). Hence why I brought them up when asked for an example of needless over regulation. The basic regulation is appropriate; the overregulation is what has a burdensome affect on business.

If someone is engaged in criminal activity, the landlord should be able to evict them as soon as possible for the safety of the property and all of the other residents, whether the offender is white, black, or purple, and whether they pay their rent in cash, subsidies, or bitcoins.

 

[Strickland33]

Nothing other than the subsidies themselves, which are no different than the money any other renter pays. Unless you consider not getting discrimination claims a benefit, which I don't.

Aren't you guaranteed a greater proportion of rent money because a proportion of the rent is subsidized? Vast majority of evictions in the US are based on nonpayment of rent.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Aren't you guaranteed a greater proportion of rent money because a proportion of the rent is subsidized? Vast majority of evictions in the US are based on nonpayment of rent.

Not really. If a non-subsidized tenant doesn't pay their rent, they are gone at the end of the month so we're out one month's rent (if they appeal they have to pay a rent bond into the Court or they can't stay while the appeal is pending). If a subsidized tenant doesn't pay their share, we're out that share for the 4 months or so it takes to get them out, which probably in the aggregate equals the one month that we're out on the non-subsidized side, plus we have to spend more to get the subsidized tenant out during that period, plus we have to deal with them during that period. It is definitely a net loss, even in the nonpayment scenario which isn't even what I was talking about, I was talking about an eviction for criminal activity.

 

[JamesSokolove]

Jaren Jackson, Jr., has an absolutely electric smile.