You Think You Get To Choose Who Rents Your D.C. Apartment? Think Again.
The District of Columbia has anti-discrimination gotchas at every turn, writes landlord Douglas Hsiao on the Washington Post. (The best is the bit where his property manager advises against meeting the prospective tenants.):
So when I had a group of three young professional women who wanted to rent the apartment a few years ago, I was surprised to learn from my property manager that I couldn't turn them away. In fact, I was told that I should score them as stronger candidates because they had three incomes to cover the rent. The only thing that prevented them from becoming tenants was that, as a condition of their offer to take the apartment, they wanted to put up a wall to convert the living room into another sleeping area. I could legally say no to that structural change, and to my relief they decided that they didn't want the apartment after all.Another tenant who once applied for the apartment was unemployed. Easy case: no job, no apartment. Not so fast. The potential tenant's father was willing to co-sign the lease, and he had a large and enviable income. Even so, I still think that a landlord has a good reason to turn the renter away, since the actual resident of the apartment doesn't have sufficient income of her own to afford the rent. All things being equal, I would prefer a person with a job over one who does not.
I got my hand slapped for that one by my property manager.
Under D.C. law, you are not allowed to discriminate based on the renter's "source of income." Who knew? It's to protect the Section 8 program, which provides housing vouchers to low income residents. Because I worked for a Legal Services housing clinic in Boston during college, I know something about Section 8 and how valuable it is to tenants and landlords alike. (Federal guaranty? Yes, please!) But the wording of this D.C. law protects not only those low income families from discrimination but also the trust fund baby with unlimited parental backing or the bookmaker who doesn't want to say where he got the money for his Porsche.
And finally, this: I asked my property manager whether we could meet with potential tenants and interview them. She told me that, as a general rule, she does not like to meet any potential tenants. Why? Because if you never meet them, you cannot be accused of discriminating against them. It would be funny if it were not so Kafkaesque.
Between a dues-paying member of the D.C. bar and a property manager with decades of experience managing properties, we cannot agree on what the housing discrimination law means. While I fully appreciate the rules my property manager maintains to protect me from illegal conduct, this protection comes at a price, by shutting down the normal ways that people engage with one another. And there's no reward for testing the law, no matter how much it may defy common sense.
via @WalterOlson







Does anyone read this and wonder if WaPo fact checks like Newsweek?
yummy at September 9, 2012 11:19 PM
When I rented an apartment in Hong Kong, the landlord never asked about my job or income. There was no credit check, nothing. Just the first month's rent and a two-month deposit.
The laws in HK are so pro-landlord that landlords don't sweat the small stuff.
Plus, Cantonese culture has this crazy idea that you don't rent an apartment you can't afford.
Paul Karl Lukacs at September 10, 2012 12:30 AM
When the civil courts are invoked, the law means whatever the lawyers and judges agree it to mean on that occasion. Do what ever you want and see if the tenants sue, if they sue see if they bother to show up in court, if they show up see if they are a politically popular victim class. A litigious, undocumented, gay muzzlum will successfully sue you whether you rent to them or not so just throw the dice and keep on marching.
Oh, and if you leave the apartment empty, Occupy-DC will occupy it and declare housing is a basic human right.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at September 10, 2012 6:19 AM
A handyman from an apartment I lived at years ago had this comment: He found that if the renters paid on time when they moved out he had the most work to prep the apartment for the next renters. If they were constantly late and were struggling, he had to do little work for the next renters.
The apartment complex had a few Section 8 renters. Take a guess who paid on time?
That was about ten years of experience talking.
Jim P. at September 10, 2012 3:26 PM
The law works against renters too.
If property managers and landlords refuse to meet potential renters because they fear discrimination lawsuits, the renters can not properly vet the landlords. If I had known the person my property manager would turn out to be, I would not have rented this home.
Cat at September 10, 2012 3:41 PM
I hate Section 8. I've rented to a couple of Section 8ers, and it's nothing but a pain in the ass.
For one, Section 8 has stupid requirements that conflict with my state's Landlord-Tenant Act. For example, in my state, it is the landlord's responsibility to provide the smoke detectors, and the tenant's responsibility to keep them in batteries. Unless you're Section 8, in which case it is the landlord's responsibility to provide the batteries (or not get paid).
Seems like a lame bitch on my part, right? Well try having to drive over to replace batteries in all the smoke detectors every other week because these entitled fuckers keep using them to juice up the remote controls to their giant-ass televisions and god knows what else.
Also, Section 8 just pisses me off in general. It really disturbs me that a woman can have 6 kids with 5 dads, take some bullshit college courses that won't amount to real-world employability, and be financially supported by a government that pays all but $50 a month in rent and utilities (yes that is a real example).
Meloni at September 10, 2012 10:16 PM
Leave a comment