"NO SECTION 8" "ONE PERSON ONLY" & "BACHELOR PAD"

[Account Closed]

Legal or not in your jurisdiction? Here in CA, i believe there are anti-discrimation laws that state a landlord cannot discrimate on the SOURCE of the income, nor can they refuse households based on the sex of the applicant, or the number of applicants.

While i totally understand the first 2 (source of income, as long as legal, and sex of applicants) I dont understand why if you are renting a studio with zero bedrooms, you can't limit the occupancy to say one person.

Thoughts?

[Marcus Curtis]

In most every state Section 8 is a participatory program that landlords can chose whether or not they will participate in it (for now at least) So, although your state law says you cannot discriminate on the SOURCE of the income it does not say you must participate in the program or accept all government subsidies.

To my understanding in California the Dept of Agriculture regulates most of the landlord tenant laws for state specific. For the occupancy requirements doesn't it state that a unit can be occupied by two people per bedroom plus one? In a sense, a studio is a open one bedroom therefore you can have up to two people plus one? Most states allow for the Landlord to limit the total occupancy to say no more than four individuals may occupy a two bedroom apartment of which only two can be adults.

I have heard some horror stories about California's regulations. One such regulation I am aware of is that you cannot discriminate against a person for the "association" to or with gay, lesbian or transgender individuals. Not sure if that is state specific or on the municipality level.

I do not recall the case but there was recently a discrimination case in California that went a little something like this:

Tenants of a large apartment building complained of another tenant in the building who stood in his window, blind open masturbating while other tenants came home from work. The management terminated the lease on the grounds that the individual was violating the quiet enjoyment for other residents and was interfering with the companies ability to conduct business. During the eviction hearing, the tenant claimed he was being evicted because he was gay. Long story short the tenant lost after arbitration and HUD involvement.