The ordinance prohibits adverse action taken on account of arrest record, conviction record, and criminal history. Arrest record and conviction record are specifically defined as “information indicating” arrest and “information regarding” convictions. It is not limited to information obtained from the sources you mention, but encompasses any information known to the landlord.

Or they can go with increasing landlord risks and see how that works out…

As PaulB suggested, if the city wants to remove the possibility of landlords to screen tenants, then the city should make landlords and fellow tenants whole for tenants who do not work out.

Before putting a released prisoner into the tenant pool, parole authorities might do screening themselves for bad bets, e.g. those who have history of evictions or assaults.

Richard,

The ordinance says that the adverse action may not be taken because of any information obtained from a registry (local, state, or federal databases.)

My ad wouldn’t be doing that at all. If the person wants to supply their records, that’s on them and not me. As a landlord, I am not requiring the information, asking for it, or getting the information from a registry.

My original post was satirical and based on the cases where it was decided something along the lines that you can’t charge more for purchases made with a credit card (a surcharge) but you could offer a discount for purchases made with cash. (A distinction without a difference.)

The bottom line is that Seattle wants to tell landlords how to run their businesses and their properties without and compelling reasons. The ordinance lists all sorts of “whereas-es” and most of them center around discrimination within the legal system against minorities.

How can there be discrimination within the legal system of the uber left leaning City of Seattle? Doesn’t Seattle think of itself as the model of diversity and correct political thought? There simply can’t be discrimination there. It’s just not possible.

Right?

gitarcarver, the ordinance generally specifies that the landlord may not take “adverse action” based on criminal history. “Adverse Action” is defined, in part, as applying different terms. Allowing someone without a criminal history to rent at a lower rent than someone with a criminal history would be an adverse action under the provision.

SmallGovGuy,

I am not sure why I would be heading anywhere. The ordinance(s) appear to prevent a landlord from asking about convictions and rental histories. It says nothing about a prospective tenant offering information which may lower the price of the rental property to them.

Off to re-education for you, gitacarver!