Sunday, June 8, 2008
anarchists real estate
As previously noted the City Council passed a source of income discrimination law in March of this year. But all over Brooklyn it's business as usual. As seen in these ads here here here here here here here here here here here and here the law has been given a collective middle finger. Thank you City council and Human Rights Commission for another disingenuous B.S public relations feel good legislation with no mechanism to actually enforce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
All the examples are from Craig's list, which provides a mechanism for reporting these listings: flag as "prohibited," since they are in violation of NYC code. Enough flags, and the poster will be barred from Craig's list.
Real enforcement will be another matter.
Isn't the law confined to buildings with 6 or more units? At least one of those ads was for a house, and several others seemed to be exempt (I didn't read them all). So is your problem with the law's enforcement, or the 5 or less unit exemption in the law? Thanks for the good post, people should always know their rights.
I have long believed that a certain percentage of every multi-family rental dwelling in the city should be legally required to be set aside for Section 8 etc., whether the building is in Bushwick or on Park Ave. and East 79th Street.
Whether or not each example here is technically breaking the law, they all are morally reprehensible.
It occurs to me that I don't even know how section 8 stuff works and am quite curious. Does anyone have a good info site on that (wiki or other plain language explanation)? I know when I was in the rental office of Flatbush gardens someone called and the girl said that they accept section 8, but currently do not have any section 8 units available, and took their name down. How much are they for, is there a restriction on how expensive the apt can be, how does the landlord convert to cash, etc?
Section 8 is a Federal program. The allowance for rent depends on apartment size which is based on family size and locality. There are caps. Let's say that a family of four finds a two bedroom for 1395 in NYC. If the allowance for their family size and locality is 1300 monthly, section 8 will pay 1300 but the tenant will have to pay the 95. Some people who get section 8 work and can pay the difference from their salaries, others are on public assistance or social security disability and can pay from that money. They are still responsible for paying the security deposits which can be obtained via social services.
I have had tenants who received section 8 who were no better or worse as tenants than free market tenants. Some people prefer section 8 tenants - for the wrong reasons though. They don't complain as much because they know that the apartments are hard to find and the rent is guaranteed.
And yes certain housing categories are exempt from housing discrimination policy although realtors are never exempt.
real flatbush, you should learn to read. The article about the rental rule included the following:
"After the City Council overwhelmingly passed the bill last month, Mayor Michael Bloomberg VETOED it."
Do you understand what that means?
No law. No go. Not in effect.
The article further said:
"The mayor apparently thought the measure was too restrictive of business. "The onus," he wrote when he vetoed the bill, "should be on government to make the program more attractive for private sector participation, not the other way around.""
By the way, there was NOTHING wrong with the Craigs List ads. EVERY landlord has the RIGHT to assess a tenant. A landlord has a RIGHT to know your income and set standards for eligibility in his building.
For some odd reason, it appears that you think a landlord has no right to ask how much a prospective tenant earns.
From the same article
"The City Council ovverrode the mayor's veto by a vote of 44 to 7."
Learn how to read Sue. Get a Life
Any messages that are off topic will be deleted.
I second Anonymous in thinking how hilarious it is the Sue called real flatbush out for not reading when it was her who did not read the article. Hilarious.
I would also like to point out to Sue, who clearly cannot read, that it has nothing to do with AMOUNT of income, as Sue argues, but everything to do with SOURCE of income. Feel free to set your income requirements at $X per month, but if the gal with $S >= $X is ok, so should the gal who has ($S + $8) >= $X. (S=Salary, X=income requirement, $8=section 8 voucher).
"The onus," he wrote when he vetoed the bill, "should be on government to make the program more attractive for private sector participation, not the other way around."
In a fair world, I would 100% agree with that statement, but we don't live in a fair world. Otherwise someone could say: "The onus should be on the government to make [insert minority here] people more attractive for the private sector acceptance, not the other way around." When the free market is free, then I say let it be free. When it's disturbed by irrational racism, then the government must intervene.
flatbush nyc,
The Craigslist ads clearly asked for incomes to equal specific mulitples of the rent. There was no STATED reference to SOURCES of income.
However, as anyone who has worked in non-salaried positions knows, SOURCES are critical.
You need only put yourself in the shoes of a landlord to see the obvious.
As far as the bias against Section 8 vouchers goes -- if that's what you mean when you mention "source of income" -- there are endless TRUE stories about Section 8 tenants who are problem tenants. Thus, the bias against Section 8 tenants reflects some troubling facts.
Public housing -- when it began -- allowed for checking the character of prospective tenants. That changed in the 1960s when it became illegal to "discriminate" among hopeful tenants.
Public housing projects became nightmares, and many of the public housing complexes built in the 1960s were eventually emptied and knocked down to end the madness.
Some of the worst places in Far Rockaway have been gutted and rebuilt. Nevertheless, violent crime is still a problem there.
Are Section 8 tenants involved in the problems in Rockaway? The drug dealing and shootings?
"There was no STATED reference to SOURCES of income."
Sue I urge you to please learn how to comprehend simple English. The ads said "NO PROGRAMS", Programs such as section 8 and social security is a source of income.
Sue has got to be the biggest moron I've ever came across.
believe what you want, but the Section 8 PROGRAM is not INCOME.
It provides a voucher, which is NOT MONEY in the conventional sense. It is NOT Income, and the PROGRAM puts limits and restrictions on the LANDLORD that do NOT exist with employed tenants.
IF there were NO differences between tenants with program vouchers AND employed cash-paying tenants, THEN LANDLORDS would have no objection to accepting tenants of either category.
I've already admitted to a lack of knowledge of the section 8 specifics. However, my understanding is that it is income in the conventional sense. Maybe not money (i.e. cash), but no one is talking about money, we're talking about income. Interest off of loans made to others, interest off deposit accounts, dividend payments, short-term stock sales, social security, alimony, child support, wages, etc. are all income in the conventional sense. What specifically keeps a voucher, my understanding of which is basically a check from the government for rent on qualifying property, from being income in a traditional sense?
Please state the limits/restrictions it puts on landlords, for my own education and to solidify your argument.
The tenants are not necessarily unemployed, they just have multiple sources of income. One happens to be federally funded. A federal aid check is far more secure than an income, even in a good economy.
PS, I apologize for my misstatement in my last post. "who clearly cannot read" should have been "who clearly did not read".
Sue how many tenants do you/have you had?
Once again, I have had both cash paying, working Section 8 and Section 8 tenants. I have had problem tenants who were cash paying and those who recieved Section 8. I have also had great cash paying and Section 8 tenants.
In the home that I reside, a two-family, I prefer not to have Sectioln 8 tenants, as is my right. In the three-family where I rent all of the units, I prefer all Section 8 tenants.
Section 8 will generally pay market or a little above market rate. The tenants tend not to complain too much but may not live lifestyles that working people are accustomed to but you get your rent every month and if there are any major problems you can always contact the tenants worker for intervention or resolution.
Working people expect alot more for their rent and do generally complain more. They are also sometimes late with the rent. Their lifestyles howver are usually condusive to the lifestyles of other working people.
So it boils down to where the property is located and how upscale the property may be. Unfortunately when you have whole neighborhoods of people getting Section 8, where the children don't have many positive role models, you get neighborhoods like Far Rockaway.
wow, it's pretty clear that neither sue nor the commenter in all caps before her are capable of rational discussion!
Post a Comment