Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Airhostnyc t1_jdidb5o wrote

Reply to comment by Metapod_Used_Hardon in NYC tenants report rampant housing discrimination by landlords over vouchers by DrogDrill

All nyc has to do is guarantee payment and also agree to paying for damages and eviction cost if necessary. If you had a choice would you a qualified applicant with no eviction records/job stability or an applicant with no job and housing voucher than can expire?

34

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdipi3s wrote

In short, more prejudice.

−40

JeffeBezos t1_jditif1 wrote

Is it prejudice when Amex won't approve someone with a 500 FICO score?

34

jay5627 t1_jdiu0so wrote

There's no point in engaging with someone who just copies and pastes a response to try and frustrate

26

JeffeBezos t1_jdiu726 wrote

I just wanted to see where that person drew the line in the sand.

16

jay5627 t1_jdiufwm wrote

wherever it would be convenient for their position

21

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdiyqtt wrote

I didn’t draw the line. That’s legally defined as housing discrimination.

−19

JeffeBezos t1_jdj1ppk wrote

LLs cannot discriminate based on their source of lawful income. We all know that.

But they don't have to choose an applicant with a voucher over someone without.

16

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj2jmk wrote

No one said they do, but if the decision always ends up being for the non-vouchered applicant, well, one has to wonder how that happens without discrimination. The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

−2

JeffeBezos t1_jdj2w43 wrote

Then where is the prejudice in electing to choose the most qualified applicant?

Is it prejudice when a company hires the person with an MBA versus a GED?

11

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj34ck wrote

> The voucher isn’t supposed to be factored into the decision at all.

Discriminating on education and professional qualifications is one of the forms that is legal and societally accepted.

This is closer to employers discriminating based on criminal history in jurisdictions that have enacted “ban the box” laws. They’re not supposed to make decisions based on that particular characteristic.

1

JeffeBezos t1_jdj3kc1 wrote

The LL can't say they don't accept vouchers and can't deny solely based on the voucher.

But again, if there is an applicant without a voucher, they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Vouchers aren't a golden ticket.

13

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdj3vqd wrote

> they're very well within their legal rights to opt with the other applicant.

Of course they are. I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself when I already agreed with you. Not discriminating against vouchers does not mean favoring vouchers. I never claimed that and I already told you that.

What I have said is that the voucher status isn’t supposed to be part of the decision at all. If a landlord consistently ends up accepting non-vouchered applicants over vouchered ones, though, it would be hard to come up with an explanation that doesn’t rely on the voucher factoring in to the decision.

0

mehkindaok t1_jdn3hv3 wrote

Make 40x the monthly rent, have 750+ credit score and stellar prior landlord references? Voucher or not, come right over! Have 400 credit score and a bunch of prior eviction? Go pound sand, no soup apartment for you - irresponsible deadbeats are not a protected class! That's how it works in the real world bucko.

0

mehkindaok t1_jdmej7o wrote

Of course it is, racism as well - low credit score due to poor decisions is a protected class, amex black for all!

1

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdivm05 wrote

Yes, that’s literally the point of credit scores.

Prejudice takes a lot of forms. Most of them are both legal and societally accepted. Whether and how much it should be is debatable, but what’s not debatable is that “voucher tenants are going to destroy the place and refuse to leave” is a prejudicial statement (and if acted upon is illegal housing discrimination).

−5

lgny1 t1_jdjhlsx wrote

So why don’t you go buy an apartment building and fill it with section 8 ! Then look no prejudice

7