Originally posted by @Brian Garlington:
@eric G. With all due respect, let's not get to sanctimonious when you say "They made their choice to behave the way they did in the circumstances they were in." There are plenty of people who have been arrested and subsequently without proper legal counsel they ended up locked up....even though the entire time they were innocent.......not saying most are innocent but a fair amount have been my man.
I like my sanctimonious statement. It's really, really good.
Humble reply aside, perhaps I should have written a couple of qualifiers in there addressing what you addressed. But I had a feeling you'd bring up the rear. Besides, who am I to steal your thunder?
Soapbox talking or not, we (and painfully me so included too) all do make decisions where as surely night follows day consequences of those actions follow too. And yes, government corruption does exist where innocent people have wrongly been incarcerated, which most definitely is unsat, and I relent that point to you, but in a general sense it still stands we are to make the highest and best use of our time. Crime isn't one of them. As people who engage in crime (and not ones with the caveats you so mention), particularly those addicted to the darker side of life (which really is to say – death), they have only shown as documented by our justice system and by the degree of their mischievous behavior they are people who, in the best of lights and save all genuine redemption, are a proven concern.
What Oakland has done here is to take away a valid and sensible means for law-abiding people to insulate themselves from those with a history of making decisions of harming others. For all this talk about tenant’s rights (and even so-called squatter’s rights it so seems, i.e., the Moms 4 Housing group) in the news nowadays. I’d think the everyday tenant would very much appreciate his landlord not to assign someone with a criminal background, especially a violent one, in the next unit over to him. The only realistic or practical relief or recourse for the tenant would be to move. To me, that’s much more unfair.
I also wonder, and we will see as time goes on, whether crime will trend upwards in Oakland due to this new law. Think about it. We, as people, usually do things or not do things due to a particular motivation or the lack thereof. If people on the edge of whether to commit a crime now knows they can still get a place to live as easily as the fella who never committed a crime. What’s to discourage him? Yes, yes, yes, I hear you, we have something called jails and what not. What I am getting at is this new law is just one less thing to hold him back. Not good.
In similar fashion, consider the impact of California’s Proposition 47 that in effect legalizes stealing up to $950:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-prop-47-shoplifting-theft-crime-statewide
https://www.laadda.com/lies-behind-selling-prop-47-57/
https://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-prop47-anniversary-20151106-story.html
And yes, The Gray Lady herself will vehemently disagree:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/us/california-incarceration-reduction-penalties.html
What I find sanctimonious is the bold, unapologetic attitude of the Oakland City Council to pass a law that merely appears good, kind, and compassionate (so as to fool and maybe even humiliate the opposition into silence) but in practice erodes away at a vital foundations designed to keep their city safe and strong.
Admittedly I am speculating this next point and forgive me for not pickpocketing every possible scenario here, but I believe since none of the council members who approved this resolution will be necessarily directly affected by this law, as in they are probably neither a landlord nor a tenant – at least not a tenant in a building where they believe none of these criminals could afford, they are either social experimenting for kicks or, worse, intentionally trying to destroy. Perhaps both. Otherwise, why do something like this that is so easy to see is wrong.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we still gots our creative screening methodologies to fall back on. Until Oakland notices and deems credit scores are unlawful too. Maybe I should write ‘em a letter for them to consider adding that to their next agenda meeting. Will your blood start pumping and over-heating then?
Kidding. Besides, if they passed this badboy, it’s hard to believe banning credit scores aren’t next. Give it time, you’ll see I’m sanctimoniously right there too.
- - - - - - -
Originally posted by @Brian Garlington:
You know what i worried about when I had cash tenants out here? What happens when the cash tenant decided to get 5 pets in the 1 bedroom rental exactly 61 days after moving in without telling me....and when I said it's a violation of the terms of their lease, they said these were service animals and I was not allowed to ask them for proof of their need for a service animal....then they subsequently decided to start not paying rent because they lost their job and there was nothing i could do because of their condition.
- - - - - - -
No argument here. I’m 100% your ally on this one.
For those tenants you believe are abusing the law regarding service animals and assistance animals, maybe the following could be of some educational or informational use to you:
Joint statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice Reasonable ACCOMMODATIONS
under the Fair Housing Act, dated May 17, 2004
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/huddojstatement.pdf
* See paragraphs 7, 17, and 18.
Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications
* General information concerning disabilities
Joint statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice Reasonable MODIFICATIONS under the Fair Housing Act
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf
* Nothing about animals, but bonus material concerning the rules for interacting with people with disabilities
Also, you might find this interesting:
Air Noah No More?
https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/52/topics/797614-air-noah-no-more
