I won that case and got my towing fees back but I guess there's a stain on my record now even though this is really the landlord's fault for picking a shitty towing company who can't even follow state non-consent towing laws.
Personally, I certainly don't like this practice as a prospective tenant, but it would nonetheless be tempting to consider using it were I a landlord.
Of course it would. I still don't like this practice.
> is there any protected status in the US for "people that make use of the court system" that would bar such discrimination?
There are certain laws that protect people who use the court system in some ways, but there is not (to my knowledge) a general protection. But whistleblowers, litigants in harassment claims, etc. have anti-retaliatory protections.
But this would be hard to demonstrate in most circumstances.
Later, there was interview with her and she said she had huge problem to find a new job for years. Employers really did not like that she exposed someone else.
The previous comment is pointing out that this could be a problem if you've been sued by an unscrupulous landlord in the past. That problem exists for fixed income people as well.
A landlord reviewing 50 applications for a place isn't going to go into the particulars. Depending on the landlord's approach, anything with a yes won't make the short list.
Credit reports should not have suspicious stains whose meaning could be that there is in fact nothing wrong (there was a dispute which was caused by someone else, and resolved in the applicant's favor).
1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood.
2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do.
3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized.
4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair.
What a nasty situation for conscientious tenants landlords and neighbors you are advocating.
Only the least conscientious people win.
The entirely predictable result is some very rich landlords and some very homeless people.
>1. Bad tenants will have no incentive not to harm the property and the neighborhood.
Of course they will: they may lose the security deposit, may be evicted, may be sued, and may even be arrested.
>2. Landlords will be forced to pay for insurance to cover all the bad things that tenants are now free to do.
They already pay for insurance.
>3. Rents will rise to cover the costs of the insurance. Conscientious tenants will be penalized.
Building more housing will make housing more expensive?
>4. Even otherwise conscientious tenants will start to cut corners since they are having to pay for the insurance anyway and it’s clearly unfair.
No, for the same reasons I gave before they still have an incentive to behave well.
This is so silly.
Who's going to build these hypothetical housing units? So many that there are more houses than applicants.
For that matter, just ask your parents. It was national policy of the U.S. to build an overabundance of housing for the 50 years after the Great Depression, which is why landlords' income as a fraction of the national economy hit an all-time low in the mid 1980s. It has since rebounded to all-time highs, which is why nobody can find a place to live.
During this time, the world population has more than quadrupled.
Can you explain what you mean in more detail?
Can you point out exactly where they said that?
Growing by less than 40% in 100 years is slow. Austrians hardly had to scramble to provide housing for themselves.
(Now this line of reasoning is simplified quite a bit, because housing is area dependent. Even if the population in some country remains constant, say that everyone suddenly decides that a very tiny area of the country is the only worthwhile place to live. They all concentrate there and now there is a housing problem now. Well, not everywhere, just in that spot! In other spots there are empty, cheap houses.)
What? How? Real estate prices to income ratio in Austria is one of the worst in the EU. Few people can afford to buy without inheritance. Austrian real estate market is broken AF.
While I sympathize with the logic, there is no reason to expect that.
1. That implies that home owners would not be permitted to rent only to family members (or friends), because that constitutes picking and choosing tenants.
2. Not being able to pick and choose tenants literally means you cannot evict existing tenants for any reason, like years of non-payment of rent, or damage to the unit or whatever. Such a move can be interpreted as trying to replace tenants with a better choice of tenants; i.e. picking and choosing tenants.
3. Only a complete fool or someone desperate would rent their home out under such a rule. (Even in a housing market in which you can screen tenants, you can still get awful tenants. Imagine if you had tenants foisted upon you by some rules. Yikes!) The result would be fewer rental units on the market.
4. But, in this imaginary world, banks would likewise not be allowed to pick and choose to whom they give money to buy a house, so there would be a lot less renting.
Do you leave your domicile unlocked for anyone to visit, while you are elsewhere? No? A landlord doesn't want to do that, either.
General prices would drop, but renters would end up paying for something they are not using or even have access to...
Having a liquid supply of decent rental apartments on the market is important for a dynamic economy.
It's not a majority yet, but it's been slowly eating it's way into these sectors for the past couple decades.
Similar "scores" are being silently enacted for such trivial things like returning merchandise to retail stores. Stores now share information and will outright reject returns if you are deemed to have done too many returns in the past at a totally unrelated business.
Leave town with a $2 bank balance and forget to close the account out? Good luck getting a new bank account for the next 7 years with the "minimum account balance" fees drawing it into the negative regardless of fixing the oversight when notified.
Same for chargebacks on your credit card - chargeback more than then the calculated long-term EV of your account and you will find the process all of a sudden becomes very difficult and your account is likely closed shortly thereafter.
Same goes with Amazon - have a high value account that does $50k/yr in purchases? Returns are always granted no questions asked. Low value? You will start seeing pushback from customer service very quickly and account closure regardless of the validity or reasons for return.
The above are all examples I've personally experienced or witnessed.
Airline mileage programs that turned into revenue programs are likely where most of this ends up. Companies simply will stop servicing low EV customers altogether on an individual vs. the group basis as it's done now.
Of course, tenants being afraid to assert their rights is in the unethical self-interest of a landlord. A society that's attempting to be just should not want that.
Yes, I'm sure that is the point.
Don't be a serf.
If you can't afford to buy a property, burn the system down.