Comments on: Seattle law strips landlords of choice of tenants

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:17:50 +0000

Sounds like Seattle is soon gonna find it needs to amend its voting and hiring laws too.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:30:12 +0000

In reply to Platonus. From the original link: "The lawsuit says the city’s policy amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property and violates due-process and free-speech protections." It also describes the suit as being filed under the state constitution, so one possible inference is that the suit cites a provision in the Washington state constitution that is parallel to the U.S. Constitution's takings clause.

By: Platonus

Platonus — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:31:44 +0000

You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you regulate. expect higher rents, more requirements for renters, and fewer properties for rent. Sorry, you don’t have at least an 820 credit rating, no rent to you! Someone should challenge this sort of nonsense under the takings clause…

By: ras

ras — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:12:20 +0000

My pre-announced guidelines would include passing my Ouija board test.

Don’t scoff, you’ll get better tenants with it than without it, thereby demonstrating its validity.

By: aedwards

aedwards — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:05:32 +0000

What if the new renter commits a series of crimes centered around the rented property? Can the police confiscate and keep the property for being ‘a place of criminal activity’ if the owner had no choice in who rented from them?

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:16:26 +0000

First, what about people like members of the Jewish faith who cannot conduct business on the Sabbath? If you advertise a property starting on the Sabbath, aren’t you in fact discriminating on the basis or religion?

Secondly, you have a person that answers the ad and gives you an application that technically says they qualify for the apartment despite being a convicted felon (disparate impact, you know) not having a job (subsidized housing allowance) and had been evicted several times in the past.

Later that same day, some nice couple with the money, income, stability and rental history calls but a landlord has to rent to the first person because he got their first while the other couple was working?

This is another overreach by the government. As long as the person is not breaking any laws of discrimination against people, it is none of the government’s business who a landlord rents to. In fact, I believe a case can be made that this law basically not only says “we the government own your property” but also “we the government think that there never should be any personal responsibility that can ever affect your interaction when it comes to business.”

This is a law with lawyers chomping at the bit to sue landlords who are looking out for their properties.