"Fair" to Whom?

Liabilities and restrictions on property owners have been continually litigated in U.S. courts. Perhaps the most severe law that affects property owners is the so-called "Fair Housing" Act.

By definition, Fair Housing prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)."

Last week, a friend in the midwest went to post a "for rent" ad in the local weekly. As he included the specifics of that property to the newspaper office, he included, "no pets," thinking of his expensive hardwood floors. The classifieds operator quickly corrected him, saying, "No pets except for service animals." Because, obviously, his town has decided that pet urine/feces/scratching is endemic to discriminating against the "differently abled."

Several years ago, I rented out one of our properties to a military family with two hyperactive toddlers. When they broke their lease due to an overseas transfer, I walked through the building to find the toddlers had taken a black permanent marker to no fewer than ten white walls and two wood doors.

When I deducted the re-paint (it takes three coats to cover Sharpie, BTW) and door replacement from their security deposit, I received over a dozen phone calls from a military lawyer at their overseas base, who was threatening to sue my family if his clients did not receive a full refund. Of course, I had to pay our attorney hundreds of dollars to tell me, "It's not worth it. Return the money." I was also inadvertently paying for their attorney, who, courtesy of the U.S. military system, was representing the couple on the tax dime.

Particularly offensive to me was that I couldn't get a handyman to come paint in time to rent the following month. So I spent three evenings after work doing the work myself, charging them only for the necessary materials. If I had hired someone, their deposit would not have covered the entire cost of the work.

Since then, I am loath to rent to families with children. They're hard on properties. Same with pets. But I can't come out and say that, and the whole process frustrates me so that I've offloaded that part of my obligation to a family member with more free time.

But with the numerous restrictions that property owners experience, why should we be hampered with this Fair Housing nonsense? After all, in jurisdictions around the country, property owners are held liable for gang and drug activity conducted on their premises; it is becoming increasingly common for communities to pass legislation that forbids property owners from renting to illegal immigrants.

Ironically, except for a handful of states and cities with sexual discrimination laws, it is still acceptable to print "no gays." Personally, I find this highly offensive.

While the government wants to induct us into some sort of citizen police patrol, there are no guidelines for this. How would I know if the charming "student" that I might rent to is actually planning to cook meth in the basement? How would I know if the seemingly normal young couple are gang members? If the lady with an accent is a legal citizen?

So, in reality, various governments are forcing me to discriminate against housing applicants. But I can't say that one house is "within walking distance to a prominent synagogue" because it somehow implies that I'm looking for a Jewish tenant.

Now, the left-wing nation of Kalifornia wants to expand Fair Housing to roommate and house-share situations. As of today, it is still legal for me to write an ad that says just about any damn thing if I'm looking to share my own space with another human.

Enter bureaucrats and lawsuits:

"The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego are suing the popular website roommates.com for violating federal anti-discrimination law by allowing ads that express roommate preferences. The ads cited in the lawsuit—presumably the worst of the bunch—include one requesting “no drugs, kids, or animals” and one that specifies “no psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Another advertiser writes that he would “prefer a Christian male, no women allowed in home, living for Christ.'"

While a similar lawsuit against Craigslist was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Chicago, this new suit is headed through the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit. So I'm guessing there's a 60-40 chance the plaintiffs will win.

Why??? WHY?!?!? I don't want to even consider sharing my home with a nineteen-year old ecstacy-popping nightclub DJ. Similarly, I don't want to rent any of our properties to crazed breeders with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

And why should I?!?!? I'm liable for their behavior; I'm liable if they hurt themselves on the property; I'm liable for the damage and destruction they may cause. So why do the legislative and judicial branches continually hamstring property owners?

In short, rather than expanding Fair Housing, I'd prefer to see the courts strike down Fair Housing. Because this isn't a national issue. It's a homeowner issue. And, as the Ninth Circuit will decide, it's an issue of how we live our lives in peace and security behind closed doors.

The government can't have it both ways. They can't decide that those who hold legal liability, whether a homeowner or lease holder, cannot mitigate said liability.