A court fight has erupted over Seattle’s demand that landlord’s offer a rental unit to the “first person” who submits a valid application, in essence telling property owners that the city will pick their tenants because they might be hindered by “unconscious bias.”
Under Seattle’s “first-in-time” rule, a landlord must offer a rental unit to the “first person who submits an adequate application,” explains Ethan Blevins of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which sued over the Big Brother policy.
“This goes far beyond preventing intentional discrimination by banning choice across the board. No discretion, no chance to sift among potential tenants, no right to make a basic judgment call about who you want on your property for years to come. If the first person to apply is rude on the phone, too bad – you have to rent to them. If you notice a swastika tattooed on an applicant’s shoulder when he visits the unit, too bad – if he applied first, he gets the house. If someone who applied second, though, makes a good impression and needs a break, too bad – you have to reject them,” Blevins said.
The case, in King County Superior Court, names the city as a defendant. It’s on behalf of Chong and Marilyn Yim, Kelly Lyles, Beth Bylund, CNA Aparements and Eileen LLC.
They are asking the court to declare the city’s ordinance 125114, “requiring residential landlords to offer a tenancy to the first qualified person who applies for a rental unit,” in violation of the state constitution’s provisions for takings, due process and free expression.
Read the rest here: WND
This is exactly what my gal experienced living in Soviet Estonia. What comes next is they tell you your house is too big for one family so they’ll be turning your place into apartments and moving in a new family into your house.
Surely, only communists would do such a thing and theres plenty here to try and pull this off.
Sure, why not? I suppose the Seattle government will be guaranteeing the full payment of rent and 100% of any damages incurred?
I would refrain from renting to a person wearing a Swastika. Why? Not because of any reference to any political party or belief system. Because they are stupid for wearing it. Too dumb for me to rent to them.
Yepper,
That means when that MS13 piece of sht walks into your office demanding an apartment, you had better learn to tattoo necks, and goddamn fast.
Not a problem. Owners of all housing units sell off. If it is for a loss better now than later. When the Communist took over Russa they exicuted the landlords. Will be the same here. Sell, Sell, Sell. Get the hell out of the loss and take what is left over and invest in someting more secure either in the USA of an other country that is more friendly to those that work for what they attain. Let the Comunists Democratz have the housing units to make high rise holding cells out of them. The Democratz won’t stop till the county side is bare and everyone is holed up in the city swamp under the controle of The Order.
“first person who submits an adequate application,”
Then you always have someone who turns down the apt apply first.
Done and oh yeah done.
Its chess not checkers.
Found this comment also,
Timothy Adams • a day ago
They have these types of requirements here in Honolulu, so the owners simply raised the basic requirements so high the we can almost literally refuse anyone. Our renters now have to have incomes, credit scores, cash savings and background checks along with no violations from previous landlords or they don’t qualify ever and so we can legally refuse them. It now sometimes takes 75 or more applicants to get a tenant.
Since most of the application process can be charged to the applicant up to or beyond in some cases of around $150 per application in some locations it is a lucrative source of revenue and none of this will change until the vetting process can be done internally without gov intervention. Can’t discriminate legally, well yes you can and its all done with money or the lack there of.