9 ms·

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :) Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These

by MiroF 5y ago

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :) Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These things are about actions, not self-assigned labels.

Cederfjard 5y ago
Just curious as an outsider, what laws are she breaking by doing that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MiroF 5y ago
  Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit, the rules are different (at least here in Seattle), you can discriminate a lot more legally than you could otherwise. So someone who rents room in their home only to Chinese international students is completely ok (as long as they share living space with the landlord). Not sure what the laws are in California, but federally it’s kosher.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit A duplex by definition is a building with two separate dwelling units.
      - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
        You are right, here are the seattle FAQ on first qualified applications: > Yes. The first-in-time requirement applies to duplexes and triplexes even if the owner resides in one of the units. The non-owner occupied units are considered separate dwellings, and therefore are subject to the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance, which includes the first-in-time provisions. The other two points where exceptions exists are for accessory dwelling units and (as I stated previously) when the owner lives in the same spaces being rented out, see http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/Fair%20Housing/FAQ_FIT_11-20-19.pdf http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/Fai... Now if the lady in question was renting out the basement, that might count as an accessory dwelling unit, and she would be exempt under Seattle rules (but this is in SF, so the rules would be different). My guess is that as long as she doesn't advertise the unit (in the sense that she put it up for application), she can simply mention its availability to a small network that conveys it by word of mouth. It is impossible to legislate that kind of discrimination, there are tons of units that don't officially go on the market (via advertising on zillow, for example) but still get rented out.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    What part of the civil rights act does it violate?
    - MiroF 5y ago
      It's discussed on other parts of the thread. Also, I was assuming that this was not an owner-occupied duplex. It falls to state law if it is.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.
    - MiroF 5y ago
      I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        Oh sure, rather flagrantly. I count at least four protected traits it discriminates on. (Mentioned in a post in another branch of the thread.)
ensignavenger 5y ago
Is visa status a protected class for rentals in CA/Berkley?
- pvarangot 5y ago
  Yes it is, but it's impossible to enforce because landlords can ask for your drivers license/ID with the application and if you are on a visa your ID says "LIMITED TERM" on it. So they can always say yes or no based on that but pretend it was something else that made them make the choice.
- ensignavenger 5y ago
  Answering my own question- it appears that yes, it is- https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/#whoBody https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/#whoBody
- gnicholas 5y ago
  Looks like immigration status is protected. I wonder if a plaintiff could win a case on the grounds that they were discriminated against because they weren't on a temporary visa. As a former lawyer, I realize it's possible to make the argument, but it's probably clear from the legislative history of the law that it's meant to protect people who are on visas, not people who aren't. Also, she would probably say that her rule is that she only rents to people who have an extremely compelling reason to leave after 1-2 years. Compelling reasons include time-limited positions (postdocs) or visa restrictions.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Citizenship and national origin are, as is immigration status (under different laws.) Also source of income. Renting only to international university affiliates on particular kinds of visas is directly discrimination on the basis of all of citizenship, national origin, immigration status, and source of income, and might also constitute disparate impact discrimination (which California FEHA also covers as well as direct discrimination) on other protected grounds if the direct discrimination wasn't enough.
rdtwo 5y ago
Liberals can break laws just like conservatives can. Free country
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Sure they can! But ongoing intent to break certain categories of law will also mean that certain political labels are incorrect.
  - rdtwo 4y ago
    Nah labels are based on how you want others to behave not how you behave yourself
nebula8804 5y ago
>Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. Thats just the scam the corporate left likes to play. They love to be super "progressive" while actually performing nothing progressive other than performance art. It costs nothing to call yourself "progressive". Hell I bet Trump has probably called himself "progressive" ha ha. Like you said, its actions that matter. If you look at that, essentially the elected progressives in this country trend towards 0.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > the corporate left This thing does not exist.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Haha… all those woke Silicon Valley CEOs would prove you wrong.
tomp 5y ago
I read this more as an indication that "liberal" philosophy is at best hypocritical (liberals "want things" (e.g. free education/housing) as long as they don't have to pay/work for it themselves) and at best contradictory (e.g. "open borders" while at the same time "social security").

by MiroF 5y ago

Cederfjard 5y ago

Just curious as an outsider, what laws are she breaking by doing that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MiroF 5y ago
Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit, the rules are different (at least here in Seattle), you can discriminate a lot more legally than you could otherwise. So someone who rents room in their home only to Chinese international students is completely ok (as long as they share living space with the landlord). Not sure what the laws are in California, but federally it’s kosher.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > If you are sharing your own house vs renting out an autonomous unit A duplex by definition is a building with two separate dwelling units.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      You are right, here are the seattle FAQ on first qualified applications: > Yes. The first-in-time requirement applies to duplexes and triplexes even if the owner resides in one of the units. The non-owner occupied units are considered separate dwellings, and therefore are subject to the Seattle Open Housing Ordinance, which includes the first-in-time provisions. The other two points where exceptions exists are for accessory dwelling units and (as I stated previously) when the owner lives in the same spaces being rented out, see http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/Fair%20Housing/FAQ_FIT_11-20-19.pdf http://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/CivilRights/Fai... Now if the lady in question was renting out the basement, that might count as an accessory dwelling unit, and she would be exempt under Seattle rules (but this is in SF, so the rules would be different). My guess is that as long as she doesn't advertise the unit (in the sense that she put it up for application), she can simply mention its availability to a small network that conveys it by word of mouth. It is impossible to legislate that kind of discrimination, there are tons of units that don't officially go on the market (via advertising on zillow, for example) but still get rented out.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  What part of the civil rights act does it violate?
  - MiroF 5y ago
    It's discussed on other parts of the thread. Also, I was assuming that this was not an owner-occupied duplex. It falls to state law if it is.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  The Fair Housing Act (the part of the 1968 Civil Rights Act you are referring to) exempts owner-occupied buildings with less than five units, so it wouldn't apply to the other unit in an owner-occupied duplex.
  - MiroF 5y ago
    I didn't understand the GP to mean they were occupying the duplex. But in that context, it still violates california fair housing law.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      Oh sure, rather flagrantly. I count at least four protected traits it discriminates on. (Mentioned in a post in another branch of the thread.)

ensignavenger 5y ago

Is visa status a protected class for rentals in CA/Berkley?

pvarangot 5y ago
Yes it is, but it's impossible to enforce because landlords can ask for your drivers license/ID with the application and if you are on a visa your ID says "LIMITED TERM" on it. So they can always say yes or no based on that but pretend it was something else that made them make the choice.
ensignavenger 5y ago
Answering my own question- it appears that yes, it is- https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/#whoBody https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Housing/#whoBody
gnicholas 5y ago
Looks like immigration status is protected. I wonder if a plaintiff could win a case on the grounds that they were discriminated against because they weren't on a temporary visa. As a former lawyer, I realize it's possible to make the argument, but it's probably clear from the legislative history of the law that it's meant to protect people who are on visas, not people who aren't. Also, she would probably say that her rule is that she only rents to people who have an extremely compelling reason to leave after 1-2 years. Compelling reasons include time-limited positions (postdocs) or visa restrictions.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Citizenship and national origin are, as is immigration status (under different laws.) Also source of income. Renting only to international university affiliates on particular kinds of visas is directly discrimination on the basis of all of citizenship, national origin, immigration status, and source of income, and might also constitute disparate impact discrimination (which California FEHA also covers as well as direct discrimination) on other protected grounds if the direct discrimination wasn't enough.

rdtwo 5y ago

Liberals can break laws just like conservatives can. Free country

Dylan16807 5y ago
Sure they can! But ongoing intent to break certain categories of law will also mean that certain political labels are incorrect.
- rdtwo 4y ago
  Nah labels are based on how you want others to behave not how you behave yourself

nebula8804 5y ago

>Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. Thats just the scam the corporate left likes to play. They love to be super "progressive" while actually performing nothing progressive other than performance art. It costs nothing to call yourself "progressive". Hell I bet Trump has probably called himself "progressive" ha ha. Like you said, its actions that matter. If you look at that, essentially the elected progressives in this country trend towards 0.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> the corporate left This thing does not exist.
- refurb 5y ago
  Haha… all those woke Silicon Valley CEOs would prove you wrong.

tomp 5y ago

I read this more as an indication that "liberal" philosophy is at best hypocritical (liberals "want things" (e.g. free education/housing) as long as they don't have to pay/work for it themselves) and at best contradictory (e.g. "open borders" while at the same time "social security").