Bill, if you are using the below list of tenant screening as a recommendation from the List as a whole, you need to realize that there are several of us out here that agree with your original suggestion that maybe it's not a good idea to deny housing to anyone who has any of those attributes. I don't have a problem with some landlords having restrictions such as you list below because it will cost them more than they'll get in rent. But I'm certainly glad for the so-called bad landlords that will give these marginal tenants a chance. I hope Margaret Hastings will be posting here soon, because she should realize that Jim is trying to throw a bunch more people out on the streets.
It might be reasonable to require landlords to kick out a tenant for certified infractions while in that landlord's building. But to require landlords to reject potential tenants because they've done something wrong in the past is to deny that anyone can be rehabilitated. If we deny housing to people after they've gotten out of jail is to push them back into crime. It is just plain wrong. If someone breaks the law, make him do his time, and then let him re-enter society. And of course several of the restrictions suggested below go well beyond punishing criminals for mis-behavior: 1) Credit score issues. Should people be denied housing because they deal poorly with money? 2) No more than 2 per bedroom. Of course throw them out if they have a big family and are too poor to afford a big place! 3) Must have finished high school. I guess all dropouts should be homeless. 4) Evidence of no gang activity. I think I'd fail this one. I don't know where I'd find evidence that I haven't been part of a gang. 5) Drug test. So now landlords should enforce our drug laws? It's bad enough that employers do this. 6) Income 3X rent. Again, throw out the poor! Bill, I don't know if this list is tongue in cheek. It is a real good idea to have a list like this, so that anti-landlord groups can see what they are pushing. I will repeat that we need landlords that are willing to rent to marginal tenants. If they cause problems after they move in, then you can kick them out. I haven't rented for a long time, but I remember I hated it because of the hassles of dealing with the landlord. These suggestions would just make the landlord/tenant relations a lot worse. Mark V Anderson Bancroft -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Cullen Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 10:36 PM To: 'Bill Cullen'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Social responsibility We are making progress here. With on-line and off-line discussions, I have come up with a list of proposed rental criteria. Below is the minimum standards this board recommends private landlords use when offering housing. Remember, I want this to be a recommendation from all of you, so please comment: 1) No occupant can have a felony or greater than one misdemeanor conviction in the past 5 years. 2) No occupant can have any conviction that would make the individual dangerous to the safety of others. Especially assaults or sexual perversions. 3) No occupant can have a successful eviction in the past 3 years or 2 evictions in the past 7 years. 4) All occupants older than 18 must have a credit score greater than 500 and at least one occupant must have a credit score greater than 600.* No bankruptcies in the past 3 years. (*for first time renters and full time students, exemptions are allowed) 5) Applicant families must not exceed 2 individuals per bedroom. 6) All applicants over the age of 18 must have finished high school (or achieved the equivalent GED) and be able to offer evidence that they are not part of any gang activity. 7) All applicants over the age of 18 must pass a drug test. 8) The household monthly income must be 3x the monthly rent. Is this strict enough? Surely, it will keep many families with historical behavioral problems out of housing, but I wonder if it will do enough? Would this rental screening make a landlord socially responsible? Best Regards, Bill Cullen Whittier Landlord. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 6/11/2005 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
