This is delusional. Of course the second part is true but most people don’t fall into that category. A landlord can have several applicants and can only choose the white people from that pool. How is that not obvious? Where I live, the occupancy rate is like 98%. Each opening gets over 20 applications in the first few hours it’s listed.
Without specifically referring to Seattle’s rental ordinance, it strikes me as acceptable for elected officials and knowledgeable agency specialists to create commercial policies and laws despite not having run businesses themselves. I wouldn’t expect OSHA people who craft safety regulations to necessarily have experience running factories with complex and potentially dangerous machinery.
You define a completed application to include the check with first and last month’s rent and security deposit. Put a line somewhere in the application that makes it clear that the application isn’t complete until you get the check.
Don’t ask for them for the check because someone might give it to you. If an applicant explicitly asks if you want a check, you can tell them they don’t need to submit it now and that you can request a check to complete the application if you find that they are acceptable. You can even offer to waive the application fee if they wait to submit the check and allow you to review the incomplete application. You don’t want a check until you have received all the applications you intend to review and made your decision. Then, you ask that person for a check, which becomes the first complete application. It’s well outside the spirit of the law but it seems based on a cursory reading of the rule to be within the letter.
None of the gamesmanship needs to get nearly that elaborate. Enforcement is all but non-existent, so de facto the government relies on the honor system to get landlords to comply. They can fail to do so in any of a thousand ways and each thousands of times before somebody somewhere looks over their shoulder to check.
Then they pay the fine for the one occurrence where they got caught and go back to business as usual.
It’s not elaborate gamesmanship. It manifests as one line on the rental application.
In the last few years I’ve changed my default. I now assume that in any given situation racial discrimination is a problem, unless shown otherwise. Looking at the history of the US, it’s racism all the way down.
And here is an example. The non-racist landlord is still part of the systemic racism problem. In this example it costs more for non-whites to live in the area than it does for whites.
As for the OP, what I’ve seen practiced by corporations is the second somebody threatens to sue, all communication stops, and any future dealings must be done through the attorneys. I’ve had prospective tenants express disappointment when they were not selected, but never had anybody get angry.
OP here. This is a bad idea. I have several steps I go thorough before offering to rent. I use the “Iowa Courts Online” to check criminal and judgment records. Most important is if they have several recent collection agency judgments or similar. So with this law I would be required to rent to this person who has a lengthy track record of not paying just because he/she applied first? I also check social media, do they post things, like “F the police”, or how they are “going to stick it to their landlord” because they raised rent. Or the dog owner (according to them) who has the nicest, well behaved fur baby but post pictures of their “naughty” doggy tearing up furniture and woodwork and they think it is funny. These last examples have happened to me. Or the properties that have a no smoking or no pets policy, but the applicant smokes or has pets. Yet I am required by law to rent to them because they applied first? This would be a good time to pull the listing and do some updating of the rental. Sorry if I would be breaking the law but I need to protect my property.
This is another reason why I prefer referrals instead of advertising. When I advertised I got 25+/- people interested and want an application and showing. 5 don’t respond back when I contact them, 4 don’t show, 2 are “tire kickers” who do this just for fun or are nosey with no interest in renting. 5 who, despite the ad saying no smoking/no pets either smoke or have pets thinking I, for some reason, will make an exception for them- service animal excluded. So I end up with 10 or so qualified applicants, about the same as I get with referrals but with much less hassle.
No, you would not be required to do that. You can specify that the applicant gave a good rental history and no criminal record.
What you can’t do is pass over one person with a good rental history and rent to the next person. Because we suspect this happens when the first person is black and the second is white and not vice versa.
My wife was a rental agent for several investors did many years. She turned away a couple of investors who wanted her not to rent to Black/White/Indian/young/male/whatever people. She was also fired by an investor because she wouldn’t implement discriminatory policies.
My parents and two siblings are landlords. All three engage in flagrant violations of the Fair Housing Act as well as state and local regulations.
The lived experience of pretty much all people militates against the assumption that landlords will NOT discriminate if they are given the opportunity.
Yeah, that would help.
No, of course not. It’s the first qualified applicant
It seems like a lot of the “what ifs” responding to this are answered by the article, so I’ll just quote it (bolding mine):
According to the FIT rule, when landlords want to fill a vacancy, they must inform applicants of the criteria that will be used for screening, the minimum requirements to apply, and any type of necessary documents for the application. The FIT rule also requires landlords to document the exact date and time the completed rental application documents are received.
Landlords must screen these documents in chronological order, and if any additional information is needed, applicants must be notified either by phone, written communication, or in person.
Lastly, landlords must offer the first available unit to the first applicant who met all of the requirements – in other words, first come, first served. The applicant has 48 hours to accept or decline the offer, and if the offer is declined, the next applicant on the list will be offered tenancy. This process continues, in chronological order, until an applicant accepts.
It seems really unlikely to work, with the new information about having 48 hours to give an answer. And what if an applicant who knows the law asks, “Is my application complete?” At that point, if you’re engaged in this “first and last month’s rent” nonsense, you’re opening yourself up for trouble.
You have 48 hours from when the application is complete to give an answer. The application isn’t complete until you get a check. If you have invited a check, you can give the answer instantly. You are correct that if someone asks if the application is complete, you can tell them that it isn’t but that you can consider the application as submitted without them submitting a check that would complete the application. Most legitimate renters won’t want to write a deposit check just to be considered. But more importantly, no compliance investigators will write a check to be considered.
You wouldn’t be the first person to think you found a genius end-run around a law, only to find out that genius end-runs around the law don’t work. This is moving into gold fringe territory, though.
This strategy presents what is often referred to as “litigation risk.”
As a person whose job requires me to be the decision-maker about whether certain kinds of discrimination and other violations have happened–and consequently who does a lot of asking people who have been accused of such violations just exactly what they thought they were doing, please never change.
I’m really having trouble parsing this.
I don’t think the landlord has 48 hours to give an answer - the prospective tenant has 48 hours to accept or reject the apartment once it is offered. It doesn’t really make sense to put a time limit on the landlord - if my application is the first application that meets the screening criteria, how does it benefit the prospective landlord to delay offering the apartment to me?
I would be shocked if even one applicant in Seattle was willing to write a check for first , last and security just to be considered for an apartment. That’s going to be between $4500 and $7500 - just to be considered. And if someone qualified submitted an application before me , I’m just supposed to trust that I will get a refund quickly - there’s no point in requiring a check if you aren’t going to deposit it immediately. And maybe Tired and Cranky isn’t the only landlord doing this - how many of those checks can I have out there at once?
Which kind of makes it obvious that there is no legitimate reason for the requirement and it’s just a means to try to get around the law. And there’s really no reason to try to do that unless you are planning to engage in some sort of illegal discrimination - you are apparently free to set criteria such as an 800 credit score or requiring an annual income of 60x the rent as long as those really are the minimum that you will accept. Which means if you do require first, last and security and no one provides it, you will have to start all over , leaving you with a vacant apartment for longer.
I’d be interested in hearing how you think this sort of tricksiness would play out, given your professional experience.
I think you believe I am advocating for this strategy. I am merely noting that it is possible.
Thank you for correcting me. I’d forgotten the details because I frankly don’t care that much.
That’s the point.
Designing means to get around compliance requirements is a significant part of compliance law.
It depends on what you mean by discrimination. There are reasons other than discriminating against racial or ethnic minorities, or families with children, or the handicapped, etc., to want to avoid this particular requirement in Seattle. One reason is to prefer candidates with an 800 credit score who earn 10 times the annual rent over a minimally qualified candidate with a 720 credit score who earns four times that annual rent who applied five minutes earlier. If you would call that discrimination, then you are correct that discrimination might be the only goal of such a strategy.