Question #61254 - Good Tenants

[wired]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/61254/

I took the landlord's question to be a little less malicious than Hypatia did. This is a guy who wants to have as few headaches as possible and in his mind, having RMs would accomplish that objective. Further, the BYU Handbook RECOMMENDS asking filtering questions in order to avoid getting criminal tenants (presumptively because criminals would be worse than non-criminals.)

While I think discriminating in any individual case is a bad idea, I would put money down on stats confirming this guy's thoughts. In the case of men, if you were to take all tenants aged 21-25, compare the damages left, problems caused, etc. over their tenancy, I would think that the distribution of RMs would be more favorable than a distribution of non-RMs. This isn't because I think people who don't serve missions are bad people or even worse people. Simply, it's a matter of self-selection and probabilities.

That being said, Hypatia's answer is correct. The Fair Housing Act (Title IX of the 1968 Civil Rights Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, in addition to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, or familial status. [Interesting to note, BYU REQUIRES landlords to discriminate based on gender and familial status. This actually caused litigation against Glenwood's parent company in the 90s which was ultimately dismissed because the plaintiffs weren't eligible to bring the lawsuit. It is presumptively legal for BYU Approved Housing to discriminate on the basis of gender and familial status; the statutory history shows that university housing was meant to be unaffected by the Act. There is some question about whether BYU requiring private renters to do that qualifies.] While Hypatia's answer is correct, I think the landlord can accomplish what he wants by requiring new tenants to provide references, suggesting the references could come from previous landlords, work supervisors, or volunteer organization leaders. It's more work for the tenants, but if the deal is right, you'll get tenants.

[thebigcheese]

I think the landlord can accomplish what he wants by requiring new tenants to provide references, suggesting the references could come from previous landlords, work supervisors, or volunteer organization leaders. It's more work for the tenants, but if the deal is right, you'll get tenants.

I was about to say exactly the same thing.

Only, sometimes it backfires for the tenants. My husband once had a nasty manager who gave him a bad review for really stupid reasons. This scared his next manager so badly that she required him to keep his all of his music stuff off the premises (he's a DJ on the side) and pay all of his rent at the beginning of each semester! In the end, she ended up liking him a lot and gave him a great review for our married housing.

[Marduk]

It is also now illegal in the state of Utah, as well as many other states, to discriminate in housing based on sexual orientation.

Also Wired, I don't think RMs would overall cause less damage than non-RMs. Most apartment damage isn't malicious, it is just careless, and I see no indication that RMs would be any more careful than anyone else, someone with a criminal history included.

[vorpal blade]

I agree with Wired. I also think Hypatia's answer was unnecessarily harsh.

I remember renting out my home for two years while I went back to school. I had a rental manager to take care of things while I was gone. But I had to help decide who would rent my house. The first person to look at my house wanted to rent it, but confessed that he was a chain smoker. I supposed that I was not allowed by law to discriminate in housing on the basis of who smokes. It made as much sense to me as any of the other laws I had heard of. My manager told me that I could reject the prospective renter on the basis that he was a smoker. The guy promised he would always go outside to smoke, but somehow we doubted he would keep that promise. So, we rejected him, and it felt strange. No lawsuit, but I guess I should have known there would not be. Well, you can't know everything. It's odd, but I suppose he could have told me he was a gay smoker and then I would have to make a claim that it was on the basis of his smoking, and not being gay that I rejected him. Could be a problem. For the record, if he had been gay but not a smoker I would have let him rent my place.

[wired]

I think the landlord can accomplish what he wants by requiring new tenants to provide references, suggesting the references could come from previous landlords, work supervisors, or volunteer organization leaders. It's more work for the tenants, but if the deal is right, you'll get tenants.

I was about to say exactly the same thing.

Only, sometimes it backfires for the tenants. My husband once had a nasty manager who gave him a bad review for really stupid reasons. This scared his next manager so badly that she required him to keep his all of his music stuff off the premises (he's a DJ on the side) and pay all of his rent at the beginning of each semester! In the end, she ended up liking him a lot and gave him a great review for our married housing.

Did your husband ever live on Condo Row?

[thebigcheese]

Nope.

[wired]

Nope.

Your husband lives the life of a guy I knew in Condo Row. To the tee. (Previous manager didn't like him, so the new one required him to keep his audio equipment elsewhere and pay up front at the beginning of the semester.)

Then again, I could be thinking of when I lived at University Villa.... anyhow.

[thebigcheese]

Yeah, he lived in some small condos on the west side of University Avenue, so you're probably thinking of a different guy. I don't think University Villa was in his ward, but he went to their pool all the time. At any rate, it was the Liberty Square manager who didn't like him, which shouldn't be too surprising for anyone who's lived there. I've heard more shady stories come out of that place than any other...

[Laser Jock]

To play the devil's advocate: let's assume a landlord did find out something about someone that falls under the fair housing act and refused to rent to them as a result, but didn't say that that was why. What recourse would the prospective tenant have? How would they prove that the landlord refused to rent for racial/religious/orientation reasons, rather than for a lawful reason?

[Hypatia]

Simply, it's a matter of self-selection and probabilities.

Show me your data.

[Marduk]

To play the devil's advocate: let's assume a landlord did find out something about someone that falls under the fair housing act and refused to rent to them as a result, but didn't say that that was why. What recourse would the prospective tenant have? How would they prove that the landlord refused to rent for racial/religious/orientation reasons, rather than for a lawful reason?

The same as discrimination in any other selection process; job, school, etc. I would wager most potential tenants would simply wave it off and keep looking. But if they have reason to suspect that such is the case; i.e., heard him make some discriminatory remarks or slurs about gays, and then a gay person applies for contract and is rejected, it would be highly suspect. These sort of issues are almost always resolvedf in court. Unless, however, there is additional evidence to suspect the landlord of discrimination, nothing is likely to come of it.

[TheBlackSheep]

It is also now illegal in the state of Utah, as well as many other states, to discriminate in housing based on sexual orientation.

I just wanted to point out that this is not, in fact, true. Thanks to Equality Utah's amazing "10 in 2010" campaign, sexual orientation and gender identity are now protected classes in ten Utah "entities" (Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Park City, Logan, West Valley City, Summit County, Taylorsville, Murray, Moab, and Grand County, which passed its laws with just days to spare!). This means that only about 25% of Utah's citizens are protected from housing or workplace discrimination based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

And hey, in case you didn't notice, neither Utah County nor Provo is on that list, so the renter in question would be perfectly within his rights to refuse to rent to a gay, bisexual, or transgender person. Which, if you ask me, is pretty sick.

State Senator McAdams has said he'll bring up an anti-discrimination measure this session, and according to a poll last January 2/3 of Utah residents support such a measure, but as the new House Speaker said, "We have been very resistant in the past to doing anything that might make sexual orientation a protected class. I don’t think that has changed."

Anyway, the point is that the state of Utah as a whole has not made discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity illegal.

[wired]

Simply, it's a matter of self-selection and probabilities.

Show me your data.

Show me yours. I made it fairly clear it was my assumptions and thoughts. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just giving you my paradigm of the world.

My first thought was that, of all males 21-25 seeking BYU approved housing in Provo, the majority of those would be RMs. Those who aren't are probably non-Mormons attending BYU, Mormons who were disallowed from going because of previous transgression, Mormons who choose not to go on a mission despite being eligible, and Mormons who were unable to go for physical or emotional reasons.

Non-Mormons would be split between athletes attending BYU (who, my own informed biases would say, are probably much more likely to have Honor Code issues and cause problems then the average BYU student) and non-Mormons who wanted to attend BYU despite it's strict Honor Code (who, my own informed biases would say, are probably much less likely to have Honor Code issues and cause problems then the average BYU student.)

The second class I wouldn't think deviates in any major way from the BYU distribution.

The rhid class is a class I think would deviate in a major way from the BYU distribution; you can rail me all you like, but the majority of individuals in this category I have met lack the maturity. Not because they didn't serve a mission, but because I don't think they were mature enough to make the decision in the first place. (I think this, any my athlete statement, are the ones most likely to give me flack.)

I'm not sure how this last class would pan out. However, I definitely doubt they would be better performing than RMs. One the whole, my perceptions indicate that self-selection would cut in favor of finding RMs who were mature enough to go on a mission.

Further, while this wasn't my argument before, I think a mission could effect behavior in a way that causes RMs to be more desirable tenants. I assume that all individuals, whether they go on a mission at age 19 or not, have the same probability of being given some level of maturity. (I don't actually believe this, but I'll assume it.) Now, I do believe that the events and interactions that one is exposed to DO affect maturity level. I assume that a mission is a rigorous event that can positively effect maturity if the missionary reacts positively to it. People who opt not to go on a mission can achieve the same maturity level, but they have to be exposed to circumstances to allow them to grow in maturity and also react positively. If we assume whether or not they choose to react positively is randomly assigned, then it is much more likely that RMs (100% of whom would have had been exposed) would have a better distribution of current maturity than non-RMs (some smaller percentage of whom would have been exposed to sufficient circumstances.)

You'll, of course, point out that this is all assumptions. But I feel my assumptions here aren't that far off from reality. Once again, I am not saying ALL RMs are more mature than ALL non-RMs. I'm just saying my experience has indicated that, on the average, RMs are more mature.
While there are immature missionaries and returned missionaries, missions certainly affect some people in a positive manner. So while 100% of RMs who have gone through a rigorous event that accelerates the social maturation process, I would seriously doubt that 100% non-RMs have gone through a rigorous event that accelerates the social maturation process. (By social maturation process, I mean becoming more aware of your effect on others, being inculcated to forebear from doing "stupid" things.) I am not saying that a mission is 100% effective in that regard, just that all missionaries have gone through it.

[thebigcheese]

Missions aside, there is certainly something to be said about age and gender. I was a maintenance worker for the dorms for a couple of years, and we had to clean up the most ridiculous messes from freshmen boys. Walls full of airsoft pellets. Holes in the walls and ceiling that bore an uncanny resemblance to baseballs and golf balls. Blown up toilets. Flooded floors. Messages written on the walls in glow-in-the-dark ink. The stupid kid who kept kicking in our wall repairs on a daily basis. The boys who would play soccer indoors. Ugh. The boys halls were always worse than the girls halls. No contest.

Granted, I have also known idiots who were older. Like the guy who would jump up and down to annoy his downstairs neighbors, and all his jumping eventually made part of their ceiling fall. Or the guy who punched a hole in the wall during a football game.

Most of the issues I've seen with girls are tied to ignorance, not immaturity. These issues tend to show up in off-campus housing, when they suddenly have their own bathrooms, laundry rooms, and kitchens to deal with. "We didn't know the bathtub was leaking!" "We didn't know you're supposed to clean out the lint from the dryer!" "We didn't know that watery bubbles in the sheetrock are a problem!" "We didn't know we're not supposed to leave the bathroom fan on for five hours!" "We didn't know the stove was still on!" "We didn't know the fake blood would stain the walls!" "We didn't know we were supposed to leave the heater on during Christmas break!"

Frankly, I'm not sure which one is worse for the owner: ignorance or immaturity.

[thebigcheese]

OH. and then there was one apartment we had to repair that was worse than all of the other apartments combined. It was actually in Wyview, while it was still married housing. Pretty sure these people gave their kids a bunch of hammers and nails and just let them go to town on the place. I've never seen so much destruction in one apartment. Doors, walls, carpet, ceiling...you name it, it was ruined. BYU Housing was supposed to charge the couple $1600 in repairs, but they decided to knock it down to $1200.

[Marduk]

Yes, thanks for the correction BS, I don't know how I missed that. I knew the affected areas, but due to what can only be described as a brain fart, put erroneous information anyways. Thanks again.

[Laser Jock]

I just realized that I have no idea what kind of criteria you can use when selecting tenants. Is anything other than the list wired gave in the first post here fair game? Could a landlord reject you because he wasn't getting good vibes? Or because he doesn't like people named Bob? Or because his dog didn't like you, and his dog is an excellent judge of character?

[Marduk]

Yes, although the less substantive reasons would raise more suspicion, and thus lend themselves to more scrutiny. Probably the safest reasons to reject someone would be, say, credit score, or a bad reference from a former landlord.

[Katya]

I just realized that I have no idea what kind of criteria you can use when selecting tenants. Is anything other than the list wired gave in the first post here fair game? Could a landlord reject you because he wasn't getting good vibes? Or because he doesn't like people named Bob? Or because his dog didn't like you, and his dog is an excellent judge of character?

I believe you're allowed to be more selective if you're renting out a property that's physically attached to a property where you live. (I.e., if you own a duplex and are renting out the other half, or if you're renting out a basement apartment.)

[Laser Jock]

Hm, okay. I was curious because it seems like unless the landlord actually admits to it, it would be impossible to do anything about suspected discrimination—which, in turn, means the anti-discrimination laws are toothless.

Also, Katya, about your point above: what if you are one of the tenants of the property you're renting out? I knew someone who managed the place they lived in, and werf mentioned to me at one point that werf preferred not renting to Asians because the smell of them cooking was rather pungent and bothered werf. Is this acceptable, or illegal?

On a tangent, Macs apparently recognize werf as a (non-misspelled) word. Interesting.