If the choice to not to rent to someone only based on the fact that they are unrelated to each other it is discrimination.
A well known California case covered that subject in Palo Alto. The city then tried to place a limit on the number of unrelated occupants, and it went to the California Supreme Court, and the city lost.
As for any marital status violation cases that’s a definite gimme. And don’t try to use sex or gender to discriminate directly, or indirectly either.
As a landlord feel free to do what you want, but the cases I have run into where I recommended to people that they file with fair housing have cost all knowing landlords plenty.
Back in 1966 after the U.S.Supreme Court upheld the 1866 discrimination law, one landlord in my area who constantly announced he would rent to only the people he wanted to rent to, watched a 12 unit building he owned go to a woman he wouldn’t rent to.
Yes, you can openly discriminate for many reasons, I don’t rent to smokers, pet owners, lawyers, law students, child molesters, etc. But when your dealing in gray areas I suggest your errors be in the right direction, put your prejudices on a shelf, and stay out of court.
I live in Weirton Wv and our city council has proposed an ordinance to fine landlords for “tenants disruptive behavior”. It seems that tenant disruptive behavior is being left to the police to define.
This ordinance does not include owner occupants, it only targets landlords.
Landlords would have to pay fines of up to $500 after two violations involving a landlords properties, in any given year. Violations could be by different tennants. As an example if I have 10 properties, and police are called to three different locations I would have to pay a fine.
We are in the process of forming a landlord association, in order to fight this ordinance…
What are the potential legal challenges to this ordinance?
Is there anyone with a similar ordinance in their city?
It doesn’t seem like this would survive the equal protection statutes of the Federal or State Constitutions.
Problem is your stuck with the output of the local idiots in charge during the interim, unless you can get a stay.
My first suggestion is to draft a letter to your state attorney general with the problems of this new law and ask for an opinion. For starters it says a landowner can be a general nuisance to his neighbors but a tenant can’t be. I also hate the fact the perpetrator is not the one being fined but some other party is.
Also time to investigate which idiot sponsored this and why. Sounds like someone needs to be replaced. Start a blog, go national, cut off your advertising in the local paper if they supported him or it.
Boycott the businesses of those involved, go radical, burn down the police station and city hall, sorry the last suggestion was a flashback memory and was caused by living in S.F. during the 60’s and is to be taken only as a suggestion to be proactive to the degree necessary, not to destroy the town only those running it.
Power to the people!!! Whoops, there it goes again, some memories just keep popping up. Remember Wounded Knee, remember the Alamo, darn I think I better take a nap.
the idea of this ordinance is to make landlords more pro-actoive in policing their properties and their tenants. its a good rule if its written well. They are trying to get landlords to do something they SHOULD BE DOING ANYWAY.
in other words, if you KNOW you have a nuisance at one of your properties, it is YOUR responsibility to eradicate the nuisance. the first time the cops cite you, you are formally on notice. You can no longer claim you did not know. The next time they come to the same property for the same tenant, you are on the hook.
with that said, it they come to a house #1 one day, and then are called out to house #2 five miles away on another day, you have an excellent argument. this would be unfair, if you were unaware of the problem at house #2.
but here’s a potential problem. what if the nuisamce issue is not one that necessarily violates the lease? In other words, what if the activities in question are not grounds for eviction, but are annoying enough for the police to get involved? you would have a pretty good defense on this one as well.
bottom line: stay on top of your properties. KNOW whats going on.
First of all, it seems unfair to target only landlords. I bet there are more than a few owner-occupied residences where disruptive behavior occurs. Seems to me they should be subject to disciplining, too. Unfortunately as so often happens with City Councilmembers, they may mean well but they do stupid things. As an alternative, I suggest you develop closer cooperation with the police. Perhaps all rental properties can be registered with the city or police with the owner or manager’s contact information. Whenever the police get a complaint, you want them to notify you so you can tell the tenants to knock it off, or if not, you can terminate their lease. You’re only in this situation because the council is tired of tenants causing problems. And in a way you can’t blame them. Being more aggressive about controlling tenant problems without police or city council involvement might be the best and easiest way to solve this problem.
Landlords are not a protected class. Yes, organizing to fight is a good idea, but I’d also organize for the purpose of working together to solve the tenant problem. Is it bad tenants causing all the ruckus, or is it lazy landlords not properly screening out bum tenants? A landlord’s job is to not just receive money every month, but to be responsible in choosing tenants & in maintaining good tenant relations so that peace prevails. I succeed & the community is a better place only if I do my job well by training the applicants I accept (10-15%) to give me, their neighbors & their future landlords as little grief as possible.
One of the 1st thing any landlord needs to do immediately is root out the troublemakers. Sometimes it takes a while to identify the drama queens, the troublemakers, the alcoholics & the druggies–not to mention all the folks living on your property that aren’t legal tenants. Some of the folks who give you trouble @ 1st are really OK, but they just haven’t adjusted to the ways of the new landlord.
I don’t rent to pet owners, smokers & non-related roommates. It sure cuts down on the drama & damages. I do welcome children, though have strict rules about them leaving if they drop out of school.
Sometimes it’s good to discriminate. If you want to have a happy tenant community, you’ve got to select from the best candidates,& interact often enough to remind folks not only that you care about them & your property, & that you have eyes in the back of your head (snitches help, & work cheap).
“Won’t rent to non-related room-mates”. Congratulations on violating the fair housing law. But if you prospective tenants don’t know it, I guess it’s OK.
How are “non-related rooomates” a protected class? There are many resort communities that will only rent to families. Are you thinking that this has something to do with familial status? If so, I’m in disagreement. I think that discriminating against non-related room-mates is perfectly legal, but what do I know?