moonbattery logo

Mar 15 2017

Seattle Anti-Landlord Measure Takes Tyranny to Surreal Extremes

Leftists have always had a particular hatred of landlords, probably based on their feeling that housing should be provided free of charge. So it is no surprise that when it comes to leftist tyranny, abuse of landlords is at the cutting edge:

With a heavy-handed new law that is the first of its kind in the nation, Seattle has set its regulatory crosshairs on landlords, attempting to police their inner thoughts and eliminate the possibility that their decisions could be motivated by “implicit” or unintended bias.

Known as the “first in time” rule, the mandate forces landlords to rent to the first qualified applicant, rather than choosing the best fit from among prospective tenants.

Sponsors contended that this unprecedented restriction is needed because traditional anti-discrimination laws do not protect against unconscious prejudices. Landlords, it was alleged, can’t be trusted to make decisions based on their “gut instincts,” because there’s no way to know whether those instincts are “pure.” The only solution is to take away their right to make discretionary decisions altogether…

Not even a liberal could conceive of repression more totalitarian than violating property rights so as to police not only thoughts but even the unconscious.

The deck is already stacked against landlords. They can easily be ruined by one bad tenant who refuses to pay rent, cannot be evicted without an extended and expensive legal battle, and then pours concrete down the toilet before finally leaving. Making their lives still more miserable in the name of political correctness won’t make decent housing any easier to come by.

On a tip from R F.

18 Responses to “Seattle Anti-Landlord Measure Takes Tyranny to Surreal Extremes”

  1. A Leftist relative was mugged by reality when buying and fixing up some rental properties. The tenants took advantage of him, so much so that the properties are officially considered blighted and he has to pay fines. The water is being turned off because the tenants who won’t pay the bills, but he’s being held accountable for being a bad landlord and not providing water. Sadly, he still probably won’t learn from this.

    That said, I wish all Leftists would have to go through what he did to learn the logical consequences of their ideology.

  2. Raw moon says:

    ok, now i see …
    my wife owns a house in wilkes barre,pa where NO ONE will manage the property for her. the laws against the owner/landlord are so draconian that it is normal for the magistrates to allow renters to disregard paying monthly rent.
    makes sense now that i read this article: moonbats believe rent should be FREE for all. Damn those rich property owners !!!!

  3. Occam's Stubble says:

    Remember this guy? Why was he so evil? Because he was always trying to get people to pay the rent.

  4. Mr. Freemarket says:

    If you own a rental property, you must be rich.

  5. dda6ga says:

    greek lightening

  6. Eddie_Valiant says:

    And, because most snowflakes live in a cartoon fantasy world, they believe he’s real.

  7. Eddie_Valiant says:

    The relative should learn how to perform a credit check. From a couple of friends who I know own rental properties, they say anyone with a credit score under 700 is probably a risk.

  8. geeknerd says:

    And the Left wonders why there isn’t enough low-income housing. Sheesh

  9. Ol' Uncle Lar says:

    Then they’ll tell you you can’t do credit checks because they have a “disparate impact” on “minorities”.

  10. 762x51 says:

    Where else would cartoons live?

  11. 762x51 says:

    Still think you live in a free country?
    Still think Progressives will stop someday on their own?
    Still think you can vote your way out of this nightmare?


  12. 762x51 says:

    And most of those with a credit score over 700 own their own home. Seems like a very narrow market to me.

  13. Eddie_Valiant says:

    In the world of the demoncrats!

  14. Eddie_Valiant says:

    That’s mostly true but there are those that are all thumbs and can’t handle simple home maintenance, preferring to rent and let the landlord take care of things.

    My friends have done well with their rentals, but their properties are located in safe suburbs. Given how the rental laws in MA are so turned against the landlord, that’s no small accomplishment.

  15. 762x51 says:

    That is quite an accomplishment, but then again, I wouldn’t be held hostage in MA. It must be a horrifying existence.

    A few years back, my next door neighbors moved to MA. The wife was all excited because they had a special needs child and she “could get paid by the state to take care of it”. I’m like, WTF?!?! Seriously?

    If it suits you I guess that’s your choice, I’d leave everything I owned there and buy new in a free state.

  16. Bodhisattva says:

    There’s a simple answer for this one:

    Tell everyone, including the first person who shows up, that the law requires the place to be rented to the first person that showed up and they aren’t the first… BUT they’ll be put on a list in the order they showed up and if the first person doesn’t come through you will go down the list in order… then simply pick the one that is the best fit and tell them the first person didn’t come through and they were next.

  17. Bodhisattva says:

    The quickest way I know to turn towns into Detroit style failures is to drive out landlords, force owners to sell to people who can’t afford and won’t keep up the houses, housing values will crash, tax revenue will crater, people won’t be able to afford water, power, sewer, etc. and government won’t be able to afford to provide it either due to loss of tax revenue, etc. Downward spiral but at least the greeniacs will be happy as more and more places wind up bulldozed or just otherwise return to nature.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy