News Nov 5, 2009 at 4:00 am

Undercover with Portland's Housing Discrimination Police

Comments

1
This law in regards to live-in landlords is effin' retarded. If I own my home and decide to rent out a room, wouldn't it be more prudent to advertise the fact that I don't want children in my home? Or that due to my personal feelings of safety I only want a certain type of gender living in my home with me?

Or can I get around this by setting up a dummy corpopration that owns my home and I pay rent to that corporation and then I'm just a tenant in a building owned by a business I own?
2
That seems ridiculous - people looking for roomates are allowed to base their selections on race, gender, religion, etc, but they just can't advertise it? Who does that benefit? If someone isn't eligible for the room, why can't they be told in advance? If we really get that information out of the ads, won't people just end up wasting a lot of time? Who does this law benefit, and why should anyone waste time enforcing it?
3
I think it benefits black people, and single mothers, and those with disabilities, Reymont. I think that's why we're "wasting time" enforcing it.
4
@Matt How does it benefit them? The article says that someone renting out a room can legally decide not to rent to someone because they're black, single mothers, or have a disability. They just can't advertise that stipulation. So, if this expensive waste of time succeeds, it will force all your black, single mother, disabled people to go through the whole application process, even though it's a waste of time for them. Wouldn't it be better for them to know that up front?

My first post was pretty clear - please don't come back with "Because!" again.
5
So, you're suggesting would-be renters should just write "no blacks" on their ads?

Because that seems to be what you're suggesting.
6
So would-be renters should just be able to be frank and write "no blacks" on their ads? Is that what you'd prefer?
7
You get the idea. Damn this internet.
8
If they aren't going to rent to "blacks," and you can't legally make them rent to blacks, then yes, of course they should warn blacks up front. You think it's a better idea to force them to show their apartment to blacks, and accept applications and application fees from blacks, and lie to blacks that their applications are "under consideration," when blacks don't actually have a shot at the room? Why? Who benefits from that change?
9
Sure, Matt. Why not?

As far as I can tell, the only people who benefit from the current law are the discriminating sudleters who are legally obligated to hide their discrimination from the public.

Why not put every one's cards down on the table? How could that make things any worse, under the current law?
10
Oh brother.
There seems to be alot of willing mis-understanding here & i think people are making this abit more complicated than it needs to be. I'll try & see if i can make this alittle more easy to understand:
NO, YOU CAN'T PLACE ADS ANYWERE REGARDING ANYTHING SAYING "BLACKS AREN'T ALLOWED", WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?!
Whew. Now, for some people who apparently slept through U.S. history in 4th grade, i'll simplfy this some more for you.

IF EVERYONE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO POST OPENLY DISCRIMINATING RENTAL ADS & FREELY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POTENTIAL RENTERS, ALMOST NONE OF US WOULD HAVE A PLACE TO FUCKING LIVE!

If you own commercial rental property (e.i. apartments), you just can't DO that! THAT'S why we have these "pesky" laws. Now, if you own a house & you want to rent out a room or some space, you can rent to whom ever you damn well please. You just can't SAY "no coloureds, no children, no gays, christian-only", etc. And quite frankly, why would anyone WANT to say some shit like that? Say you have a room to rent. You place an ad on CL. You leave a no. Someone calls. But you, for what-ever reason, don't like the person. Don't rent to 'em. It's THAT fucking simple. You don't have to say why, & really you shouldn't. And Noone wants to stay somewhere they're not liked or wanted. People CAN take a fucking hint, you know.
But if you tell someone "NO, you're Black" THAT'S illegal. THAT'S why we have fair housing laws. Just like, if i apply for a job, there's no law in the country that says that particular employer HAS to hire me. They just can't say it's b/c i'm Black.
I thought the few only people who still DIDN'T understand this lived in the South. WFT?
11
Congratulations, DamosA. You've managed to type 310 words and contribute absolutely nothing new to the discussion.
12
I think the law is there to make those who would discriminate against black renters, or disabled renters, or those with children, think twice. And I think that's a marvelous thing.

The idea that the law is bad because it forces would-be discriminators to keep their discrimination a secret, well, I accept that there's a double standard there, but that's what these investigators are for—to find out if people are discriminating without saying so.

Any law that discourages discrimination is a good thing.

And yes, it seems you are arguing that those who would write "no blacks" on their rental units simply go ahead and do so, to avoid awkwardness, or passive aggression.

Think that position through a little more, would you?
13
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Cleaning up the ads doesn't fix the underlying problem, it just forces people to pretend that it doesn't exist - and it would force people on both sides to waste a lot of time just to be politically correct, just because it hurts Matt's little heart to see the words "no blacks." There's no gain, there! It's an expensive project that isn't going to benefit anyone. I repeat, if they won't let blacks in, and we can't force them to, how does it benefit anyone to pretend that's not happening? I wouldn't respond to an ad that said "no blacks," - I'd be really happy to know in advance that the poster was a dick.

And of course people who say "no blacks" are terrible people. But what about an 18-year old girl who doesn't want a male roomate from the Craigslist pool? What about the frat house that doesn't want a new roomate who has a toddler? That seems like totally acceptable "discrimination" to me, and both are being targeted by this project.
14
About couple months ago i was in same situation finally someone wrote great article.
Thank you Mercury.
15
Reymont, it seems we simply disagree on whether people should be able to post "no blacks" rental advertisements on Craigslist. I don't think they should, you think they should. I'd say I'm with the moral majority. Although this is Oregon, so who knows.
16
I was apartment hunting back in August and found a crazy posting on Craigslist for some guy who was renting his fully furnished house to someone who he was basically going to be using as his grounds keeper while that person still pays him rent AND he was only going to allow a good practicing Christian to rent his home. He was also going to be stopping by for monthly check ups to make sure everything was being kept in proper order and to his liking.
17
i am so glad you posted this. my partner and i looked for housing for months.we have good credit, great rental references and stable income, but we have a a baby. i sat down and sent out 10 emails to craigslist ads EVERY DAY and guess what the rejection letters said? no kids. houses, apartments they all said the same thing. some flat out said no kids others would schedule an appointment or cancel or suddenly become filled when we said we had a baby. but, i am glad i didn't rent from any of them, what kind of human would rather a family be homeless? it sickens me really. when i contacted people about it there really isnt much you can do.
18
@Matt - But I keep posting logical reasons why this doesn't benefit anyone. You're arguing from emotion, and have never answered who you think this helps, or why, or why it's worth the money. It's fuzzy thinking, it's knee jerk, and it's stupid.
19
@Mamamouse - That sounds like it was a big hassle. Sorry you had to go through it. But just to be clear- this WON'T fix it. All those people will STILL be allowed to turn you down. All this does is keep them from TELLING you in advance. How much longer would it have taken you to find a place if no one was allowed to tell you "no kids," but still wouldn't rent to you? How many more phone calls and e-mails would you have had to make, waiting to hear back from people who couldn't respond? To me, this effort makes things a lot worse for you.
20
Hey discriminators! You can still list in your ads that you don't rent to felons! You can tell people to their face that you don't rent to anyone with a criminal back ground and it is 100% perfectly legal. No one can do shit to you for discriminating against felons.

I know first hand, I'm a felon! I can't move out of my shack because no one will rent to me.
21
@markmark Also, you look a lot like Hitler. That may have something to do with it.
22
There is no "wiggle room" for race (and most of the other fair-housing protected classes: http://www.fhco.org/pdfs/matrix_ore.pdf) regardless of the circumstances, so saying that room-for-rent landlords can generally turn someone away for being black as long as they don't advertise it is incorrect, and those rejected in such a way might have a good case for a lawsuit.

The article doesn’t mention that it is illegal in Portland and throughout Multnomah County to discriminate on a person's age if they are over 18—so the numerous Craigslist-Portland “rooms & shares” ads looking for beer buddies who are no younger than 21 or older than their early 30s, etc, are also outlawed. And it’s important to emphasize that the many ads demanding that tenants be employed obviously violates the state of Oregon, Multnomah County, and city of Portland prohibitions against discriminating on "source of income"—as it would exclude most senior citizens and disabled who are not employed but receive Social Security and SSI checks, as well as the temporary jobless subsisting on unemployment checks.

But good luck getting any of these blatantly biased and illegal ads removed from Craigslist—who apparently have been given an OK by the federal courts to continue token gestures such as reader-policed "flagging" of ads (which only seems to work when ads contain suspected offers of prostitution).
23
I smoke pot, drink beer, own guns, and don't want to have to be forced to child-proof anything. I find it absurd saying "no kids" is discriminatory.
24
@ Reymont
You haven't posted ANY "logical" reasons for why anti-discrimination laws IN YOUR OPINION don't benefit anyone. You just keep saying that racist renters should be able to post racist ads if they want. It makes me shutter to think what YOUR opinion is on hate crimes laws.
And the fact that you would count every word in one of my postings says alot more about YOU than it does me.
25
I think we can all agree that these laws are failing to have the desired effect, beyond what's discussed here, since there are huge swaths of the country where real estate agents and neighborhood associations act to institute de facto discrimination. This creates a stratified society and enables historic inequities to persist.

Things become less clear-cut when it comes to renting, where there is often enough flexibility that a "Slums of Beverly Hills" approach can be made to work. So the more Rawlsian concerns drop away and we're left with a traditional liberal concern for the dignity of the individual as the guiding light for these laws. As such, Matt's opinion is correct, since the seeming paradox of allowing individuals to discriminate privately while pretending otherwise is actually an important compromise between the concern of the would-be-renter in not being humiliated or insulted, and the would-be-landlord, the owner of a private house in this case, whose property is respected. Note that I didn't refer to either of these "folks" as having rights at stake in this issue, since I'm not sure it rises to that level, which isn't to say it doesn't.

Also, Jack may be right. http://www.fhco.org/faqs.htm#WhatHsCovered indicates that in Oregon the renter and landlord have to be sharing personal spaces for FHA to not apply, and that's only for certain classes. Frankly, a clear exposition of these nuances would seem to be the journalists' job. Also, the Merc seems to be cribbing the NYT's style sheet and mixing subjects at random in order to hide their gaps. A graf about CL jumps to one about the secret renters, and the details of the laws, important information, gets shuffled away.

Some other thoughts on this.

At this point, I consider the "public debate" about racism over. There just aren't enough people who would post racist rental ads, so this is a red herring. Family, sexual orientation, and religion are the ones I can see as being real current issues. If you can't empathize with these folks and need to talk about race, you have a problem.

Also, I consider being a landlord to be immoral. In theory it's a fair exchange of the use of property of a fee, but whereas shelter is a necessity, renting creates an "externality" of massive renter abuse and fraud. This is also a product of the traditional role of landlordship in Anglo-American society. This horrific history, going back from the modern slum lord, through the planters and sharecroppers, to the feudal lords and serfs should give pause to anyone who doesn't support massive regulation and taxation of landlords. If it's such an imposition, they can get a real job, and leave low-income housing to publicly owned enterprises and co-ops. This is not to malign the many good landlords of all sizes and structures. I just think a different system would be better on balance.
26
@DamosA - Every post of mine (except the Hitler joke) has given an explanation of why this effort doesn't help anyone - see my response to MamaMouse below. And that wasn't me who counted every word in your post, that was someone else.
27
Well like Jamdox said, there aren't that many people who're crazy enough to post racist ads anyways. It's a red herring & it was alittle aside the point to even get diverted by that.

I personally regard Craigs List in much the same way i regard eBay, in that i assume atleast half of what takes places on there is completely fraudulent. It's hard for me to believe that ANYONE's ever gotten a decent job or apt. or anything as a direct result of something they 1st saw on CL. I once discovered 3 scams over the course of a week while looking over their job ads. Then there's the whole prositution/call girl section. Then there's the 'rants & raves' section where bored lunatics are apparently allowed to say whatever mad, depraved thought that pops in their head.
And ofcourse, the police routinely use CL to entrap pissant drug users, even though doing this is itself illegal.
So, it doesn't at all surprise me that CLs' 'apt/housing' section is rife with all sorts of shadey business.
28
Okay, has anyone actually read Reymont's posts before firing off in all caps? He's not trying to say that discrimination is right, he's just saying the aforementioned laws are incapable of curbing it. Think about it, say a person only wants to live with atheists, and is set in this to the point that they will not rent to anyone else. Laws won't change his mind, it will only change what he puts in writing. Let's explore two scenarios
Scenario 1- he is allowed to say so in the ad: Theists scroll down, read the ad, click the "back" button and continue looking for other places to live, only atheists apply to the ad.
Homeowner's time wasted: none
Homeowner's money wasted: none
Potential Renter's time wasted: 30 seconds
Potential Renter's money wasted: none

Scenario 2: Laws prohibit discrimination on religious affiliation, etc: Everyone and their bible-thumping mom apply, to the constant irritation of the homeowner, who has to interview 30 people, make up excuses on why he didn't select them, until he finds someone he likes.
Homeowner's time wasted: inordinate
Homeowner's money wasted: potentially $1,000,000
Potential Renter's time wasted: however long it takes to make the phone calls, the drive to a fruitless interview, etc.
Potential Renter's money wasted: Application fee

Both scenarios have the same result, except that scenario 2 wastes time and money for both sides.

Just to be clear; I've been "discriminated" against plenty on craigslist. When I was looking for a place to rent in Portland, I was disqualified from several rooms for various reasons, including: I'm not a female, not gay, not 30-something, not vegan, not atheist, not Buddhist, don't like to go clubbing, not extroverted, not the tidiest of folks, etc. Some of those reasons are legal, but I think all of them are valid and should be legal. I didn't waste my time or theirs, and I probably wouldn't have gotten along with them if the state forced them to take me. If someone doesn't want to rent to me because I'm part Native American, or whatever, they're probably an asshole, but I don't think the state should force them to pretend otherwise; let them keep their house, I'll find somewhere else. For every jerk who discriminates hatefully, there's probably a hundred who aren't comfortable with the opposite sex walking around in their underwear, don't want a screaming baby keeping them up, or would just prefer someone with a similar age and lifestyle who ought to have the right to choose who they let move in.
29
@ Magabyxos

I read through your buddy Reymonts' comments quite thuroughly. And judging by them, i'd say he's an apolygeist for racist landlords.
30
I am one of the lucky Portlanders to own a house, and I rent out my spare bedroom to a housemate that shares common spaces. I rented for 10 years, so I understand that perspective.

While I am generally supportive of the Fair Housing Act, especially as it applies to apartments, whole-house rentals, etc., I am very concerned about any clauses that make it difficult for an owner to offer a room in a shared-space house to anyone of their choosing. The compromise allows an owner to be "discriminate" in their choice, just not their advertisement, but why can't an owner just say who they want to live with? I get the sense from some of the comments that renters would like to force unwilling owners to allow them into the house, if the owner can't provide the proper excuse.

I've run into this problem in the past. I would be happy to share my space with a renter in most of the protected classes. But, because the FHA and the folks at the Fair Housing Council seem to lack any sense of context, it is illegal for me to advertise that, for example, I don't want a married couple with two kids moving into my spare bedroom. If I was renting out a basement apartment or a converted garage, ie, a living space that was completely separate, then this wouldn't be an issue and I'd happily rent to anyone who could pay. But I do think we need to consider an exception to the FHA rules when we are talking about shared-space tenants. Your housemates are a de-facto family! For your sake and theirs, you need to find a housemate that fits your personality and lifestyle.

Renters, please put yourself in a homeowner's shoes and ask yourself if you'd want the Fair Housing Council sniffing your CraigsList posts (which they do -- its really creepy), and furthermore if you'd want to feel like you need a law degree to dance around the proper language in order to specify in a CraigsList ad who it is you actually want to live with you in YOUR home.
31
Since moving to Portland I've been turned down for three rooms by landlords who thought my references and money were fine but my non-Christian status wasn't. The last one told me I got the place, then called later to say they had "prayed on it" and changed their minds.

When it comes down to it people routinely exercise their prejudices despite the law, and most people affected by these prejudices aren't going to try to sue or report them or waste any time or money on them at all.
32
Is anyone CAREFULLY reading @Reymont? She/He is making logical, practical arguments.

Here's is my ONLY response to @Reymont... If I'm a conservative Christian and not gay-friendly, I THINK I can mention my own situation/beliefs on the phone during the first contact.

For instance...
- I'm a live-in Landlord looking for like-minded individuals to live in my private residence (but I don't mention what kind of person I'm looking for so I don't discriminate)
- I place non-discriminating ads
- I receive calls from those ads
- I conduct a brief phone interview to determine if we are a good match and whether I should ask the caller to come in for an interview and pay the application fee
- In the phone interview I mention that I am devoutly religious, my room mates are the same, and I say that we sometimes have gatherings with friends that may or may not involve prayer circles, speaking in tongues, and snake handling.
Then I ask, are you comfortable living in that environment?

The responsibility is now in the applicant's court and no discrimination has occurred... right? If I'm talking to a liberal-minded, gay male, who has left the church because the church doesn't accept him, he's likely to decline and we both move on.

Of course, the practical side of me wishes I could just say these things in my ad and save all our time by not even getting calls from people who are not a good match. But I guess that's the price we pay for living in a democracy with individual rights and freedoms.
33
@Megabyxos and @Reymont and @P.K.Henry - all intelligent contributors.

As I mentioned above, if forced to live under FHA rules, it seems live-in landlords have at least one legal process, namely, to describe what living in your household is like (work it up as much as you need to) and ask if the applicant is comfortable living in that situation. If they say they are, and you still don't think it's a good match, work it up some more... FOR INSTANCE... "yeah, we're a household of singles. Not only do we have over-night "hook ups" once a while like I mentioned before, but sometimes we have naked parties with lots of alcohol and other "intoxicants." Are you sure you're comfortable exposing your child to that kind of environment?

A single mom will likely decline to bother coming in for an interview.

Time wasted? Yes, but less so than if you were to just invite all prospective applicants for in-person interviews for the sake of FHA regulations.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.