I have followed this thread with interest, and I hope I don't sound like a whiner if I say that landlords seem to be in a no-win situation. If we are selective we are discrimminatory, and if we are not selective we are slumlords who get held responsible for bad behavior... and I'm not even going to get into the issue of lost income from tenants who can't/don't pay the rent.
I think that small self-financed landlords should be able to rent to who they want, within reason. (i.e. not discrimminating on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc) Frankly, if someone calls me about one of my units and I don't like how they sound on the phone, I might not call them back. My screening method is my gut and I feel perfectly justifed to keep it that way. (And I charge very cheap rent with no application fees so I have to be very careful.) I figure that people with previous unlawful detainers, crimminal records and the like should be able to find housing with one of these non-profit developments that seem to be popping up all over town. Those folks ostensibly have the padding in their budgets to cover rent loss, eviction proceedings, property damage and whatever else might come from a high-risk renter. Personally I cannot afford that kind of risk. I went out on a limb and rented to one girl who had a previous unlawful detainer and -wouldn't you know - she proceeded to not pay rent at my building for three months straight. I offered her a thousand bucks just to move out so I could avoid a lengthy and costly eviction process. I had to absorb that cost along with the rent loss. My rents do not even cover my mortgages, (much less utilities, which I mostly pay for my tenants) and if I had two or more problem units at one given time I think I'd have to sell. Connie Nompelis West Phillips and Powderhorn --- Anderson & Turpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > __________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html 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
