r/asheville NC Sep 10 '24

New law--HB556--passed by veto override prohibits local governments from passing any ordinance that would forbid landlords from refusing to rent to tenants whose income includes funding from a federal, housing-assistance program News

https://newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article292183155.html
137 Upvotes

121

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

NC GOP once again owning the libs-

They call me "dangerously liberal," but really I just want shit to work.

I want Healthcare that works, Education that works, an electrical grid that works, public transportation that works...

The Republican party really just wants me to work for some corporate overlord, ideally until I die so the government doesn't have to work. It's maddening.

14

u/Parking_Meaning_5773 Sep 10 '24

Welcome to the race to the bottom. This has been going on for many years. It will only continue to get worse. The elephant in the room is the two to three billion dollars paid out and interest regularly for the national debt.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

30

u/risingthermal Sep 10 '24

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re misinterpreting what this law does. This isn’t protecting landlords from having to accept all assistance receiving tenants, regardless of application quality; it’s codifying allowing landlords to reject all of those applications wholesale. Currently landlords are already allowed to do this.

The municipalities on the map you’ve presented are trying to prevent this practice, which has always seemed like systemic discrimination to me. What reasoning for rejecting all assistance applications can there be other than that these are undesirable people?

This article goes more into it:

Kentucky Lantern- No, that’s not what Louisville’s housing discrimination law does

17

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

17

u/Vladivostokorbust Sep 10 '24

There are landlords who refuse section 8 over the “perception” that the tenant has less invested in the rental since they don’t pay the whole bill, therefore will be less inclined to take care of it. Its also true that section 8 renters in many cities are more likely to be POC , creating a potential for discrimination.

Libertarians and conservative property managers often complain about section 8 using the former excuse while often are actually motivated by the latter. A common topic on Neal Boortz’s and Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows back in the day

12

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

Section 8 also comes with a number of hoops for landlords to deal with that doesn’t exist for other prospective tenants. That alone is enough to push people away from the program.

2

u/mr_remy West Asheville Sep 10 '24

That’s a great point, there should be some stipulation written in that damages reported by the landlord (proven, why everyone should do a walk around first with landlord) could result in issues with getting assistance in the future / less of a payment.

I believe in affordable housing and gasp using taxes by making sure no person goes homeless if they don’t want to.

“You can tell a lot about a society by how they treat their lowest in status”

2

u/Vladivostokorbust Sep 10 '24

I was a landlord/long term RE investor for almost 30 years. Always did the walk through with tenants, took photos and encouraged them to do likewise. Wouldn’t matter if they were section 8 or not, however I never had a section8 apply in all that time. Was not opposed to the idea at all.

I gave tenants 2 weeks from move in to finalize their list with signature in case they came across something we missed initially. It was rare i had a tenant that got none of their deposit back, a few got partial, many got full deposits returned.

I have no idea if a damage report history impacts section 8 eligibility or not.

3

u/mr_remy West Asheville Sep 10 '24

Oh yeah, you brought up that second point I forgot while writing out my comment lol.

Tenants should be required to put a security deposit down too: housing voucher or not! Preferably their own money, not the government so it gives them some motivation

2

u/goldbman NC Sep 10 '24

What if they don't have the deposit because their job won't pay them a living wage?

1

u/Vladivostokorbust Sep 10 '24

Section 8 program should figure that into the compensation.

0

u/mr_remy West Asheville Sep 10 '24

Hence the preferably but not required.

Don’t even get me started on the other thing though. I consider myself blessed on the job front overall for both compensation and company values, but know it is not common anymore unfortunately.

-1

u/amongnotof Sep 10 '24

Except the law literally forbids governments from keeping landlords from discriminating against government assistance. It is the opposite of what you are suggesting.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

4

u/amongnotof Sep 10 '24

Oh no! Not the poors! Or more accurately... *gasp* minorities!

-5

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

6

u/amongnotof Sep 10 '24

Thank you for proving my point. People who need assistance are not all criminals.

4

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[deleted]

3

u/amongnotof Sep 10 '24

Then why are you suggesting they are?

1

u/Dear_Bullfrog_2661 Sep 12 '24

"I want Healthcare that works, Education that works, an electrical grid that works, public transportation that works...."

You might want to move out of Trashville. Because all of those work mediocre at best and not at all at their worst. (The infrastucture is too old and the local government just wants more and more hotels with little care for anything aside from kickbacks and their salary (look them up. Asheville's city board makes the most money out of any Mayor, Vice Mayor, etc in the state). But adding more hotels to a failing water supply, a failing power grid, a failing and already bad road situation... That's all they care about. More people means more money in their pockets. So, we should look at our own people before looking at the government at large. We need to fix our own politics first. Fair wages for fair work. Fair housing prices that aren't 3k for a one bedroom/studio apartment in downtown. (NY city prices ugh!) Etc.

1

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 12 '24

Too late for me bro- I've been here 45 years and am pretty deeply entrenched. Save yourself!

-8

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

The Republican party really just wants me to work for some corporate overlord...

There was a saying in the USSR: "We pretend to work and the party pretends to pay us." It sounds like that's what you want.

11

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

Not sure how you got that. I work hard, I make decent money, I pay taxes, which pays these asshat legislators... and then every time I turn around, they're making some law that neither represents my needs nor does it generally help the working class in any way.

Instead they're making shit like this that ultimately protects business interests or tries to tell me I can't wear a mask in public or tells me which fucking bathroom I need to go in.

Tell me again which is more like the USSR? And you may no longer use the "communist" analogies when the leader of your party is a Putin apologist/cuckold. That ship has sailed for the party of Trump.

-2

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

The Russian Collusion meme sailed a long time ago.

But to answer your question - Republicans are forcing you to work for a living? Oh the horrors! And how could other people people possibly have interests that don't align with yours? That's unthinkable in a democracy!

4

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

Again, this is neither an "answer" nor a coherent counterpoint. Nobody is forcing me to work, but rather my concerns have to do with how the lawfully collected taxes are spent by lawmakers. Now, of course my interests aren't the same as all constituents... but the data suggests the NC GOP, in general, is passing unpopular laws that most constituents are neither asking for, nor do they serve the greater needs of the state. It's almost as if they are serving only themselves.

And the meme isn't about Russian collision- it actually happened that Trump stood in front of our allies at the fucking United Nations and told the world he trusted Putin more than he trusted our own intelligence services. Also, his recent claims that he wants to be "dictator on day one, " and that if evangelicals voted for him, they'd "never have to vote again."

It's beyond me that any American can hear these statements from this nutcase and not take him seriously.

Let me flip it- do you consider yourself an American? A patriot? You're on the wrong track, friend. My (Republican) daddy always told me to believe a man when he tells you who he is. RIP, but he would be disgusted by the current state of his party.

1

u/Leading_Leader9712 Sep 10 '24

You say, “ the NC GOP is passing unpopular laws that most constituents are neither asking for, nor do they serve the greater needs of the state” and yet they are winning the elections. Maybe the majority doesn’t agree with you. I know this may be a shock 😳.

0

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

As long as the voters continue to believe the lies coming out of the mouths of politicians, this will be the case. "Majority" is a subjective term when it comes to politics- you seem like a smart person, so I'm sure you'll agree with that statement. Voter turnout for midterm and down ballot elections is a fraction of the population- most likely because most candidates don't represent the views of the broad middle, so they(we) are disenchanted and unmotivated.

It is my opinion that anybody who wants to be a politician should be disqualified from running for office.

0

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

They are only winning because they drew the maps.

0

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

Your rant is completely devoid of facts.

1) Legislators passing laws that "serve the greater needs of the state"? That's your opinion, but not one that is supported by voters, given the Republican super-majority. (Yeah, I know...b-b-but gerrymandering. Nope).

2) Trump saying he believed Putin more than the intelligence services he inherited from Obama was perfectly reasonable, even more so in light of the FBI's "insurance" that he wouldn't become President and their claim of "Russian disinformation" regarding Hunter's laptop. That doesn't mean he supported Putin in any way.

3) The "dictator" comment and "never have to vote again" were taken out of context; you were gaslighted and happily swallowed it. What he actually said is completely innocuous.

4) Did you believe Harris for the first 3 1/2 years of Biden's presidency when she kept saying what a great job he was doing? Only to see for yourself that she was lying when you watched the debate. Do you believe her now? I don't.

2

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

"What he said was completely innocuous" is the biggest feat of gaslighting that has ever been accomplished. Congratulations- you've been grifted.

Party politics being what it is, Harris as VP standing behind her commander-in-chief regardless of her personal feelings is no more or less loyal than all the redhats continuing to back Trump's ridiculous claims of a stolen election and standing behind him after January 6th 2021.

Personally, I considered Biden unfit for reelection, so no- I did not believe what they were saying either.

0

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

He said he would only be a dictator on his first day in office when he would do the same thing Biden did on his first day (retracted some executive orders he disagreed with). Do you think Biden destroyed democracy?

He also asked Christian fundamentalists to vote for him just this one time, they will never need to vote for him again. Do you think that destroys democracy?

2

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

The actual quote:

“Christians, get out and vote!” yelled Trump. “Just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine! You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. I love you, Christians!” He added, “You gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.”

Does that mean something different to you?

But I'm sure it's "innocuous," and most likely out of context /s

I think I'm done screaming into the void today.

2

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Ha ha you’re so silly. You can’t stand to have your nonsense arguments dismissed but you dismiss gerrymandering without even addressing it.

2

u/lightning_whirler Sep 11 '24

Whining that the other side won because they cheated is only wrong when Republicans do the whining; it's okay when Democrats whine.

-17

u/AgentIanCormac Sep 10 '24

I is it really that big of a deal?. I'm assuming if the Democrats passed this you'd be jumping for joy. This is why Democrats are the worst kind of hateful people.

13

u/og_speedfreeq Sep 10 '24

This is a false equivalency. The Democrats would not pass this bill. The rest of this paragraph is nonsense.

8

u/squarenot Sep 10 '24

Apparently it was a big enough deal for someone to write a law about it one way or another. Policy affects actual people

4

u/Strykerz3r0 Sep 10 '24

Statements like this are really very telling as people usually expect others to think and act like they themselves do.

So even though commenter has no knowledge of the person they are speaking to, they automatically assume a behavior that they themselves would use.

lol

50

u/wadonious Sep 10 '24

Finally someone is looking out for those poor landlords

-59

u/Mister-Marvelous North Asheville Sep 10 '24

Finally a win for the good guys!

Landlords are one of the most marginalized and hated communities in America. The discrimination we face regularly from the citizens, courts and governments across this entire country is egregious!

4

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Known troll

3

u/NCUmbrellaFarmer NC Sep 10 '24

Economy is good RAISE THE RENT economy is bad RAISE THE RENT. Those poor bastards. 

1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/asheville-ModTeam Sep 10 '24

We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users.

Please see our full rules page for the specifics. https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/

-5

u/g33may Sep 10 '24

They are easy targets given the ridiculous rents but people fail to realize the cost to own these properties, and stress and costs dealing with deadbeat tenants. Just hire a plumber to unclog a drain and see how that can eat up a months rent alone. The real problem is skyrocketing house prices and huge inflation on everything the past several years. Just my opinion.

5

u/Qbnss Sep 10 '24

Ah, the valuable service of calling someone to fix a problem, I see the added value

-5

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

High demand and limited supply.

2

u/g33may Sep 10 '24

It's country wide. Where is the demand coming from?

-1

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

In Asheville? Seems largely from Floridians moving away, and people from other “blue” cities moving to the mountains.

Also, while the supply of housing has not kept pace with demand broadly across the country, there are a lot of places where it is no where as acute as it is in Asheville/WNC.

1

u/g33may Sep 10 '24

I thought the birth rate had been declining for decades now. I would think as boomers die off there would be a flood of available homes. Where are all the people coming from (demand)? Too many people owning more than 1 home(supply)? It just doesn't add up in my mind. Surely Covid took out millions 🤔🤔

1

u/Nervous-Event-5049 Sep 10 '24

Millions of ppl move to America every year

0

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

I don’t have all the answers to that on hand. Millennials and Gen Z have both come pretty close to being at the replacement rate for birth rates, so while there is a long term population decline, it should be pretty slight for the rest of our lives.

All of that to say there isn’t really a huge demand cliff that is coming with the deaths of the boomers. Some of it may be due to them owning multiple homes, but in many cases those that do own multiple homes are using them as rentals rather than vacation homes which keeps them in the housing supply.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/asheville-ModTeam Sep 10 '24

We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Calls to physical violence or cyberbullying against another person or organization.
  • Suicidal posts.
  • Text that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or abilities.
  • Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users.

Please see our full rules page for the specifics. https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/

21

u/Caitliente Sep 10 '24

Wait, so I’m having comprehension issues here. Isn’t this good? This prohibits local governments from writing laws that would allow landlords to deny taking housing vouchers? 

44

u/puckman13 Sep 10 '24

Nope, what passed prohibits local governments from forcing landlords to participate in voucher programs. Which AFAIK is the current state of affairs - so no real change, just prohibiting future changes.

43

u/Caitliente Sep 10 '24

Gotcha. Thank you for breaking it down. All those double negatives had my head spinning. 

21

u/ReallySmallWeenus Sep 10 '24

You’re not alone.

5

u/mojotoodopebish Sep 10 '24

I'm so glad you asked for clarification because I had no idea wtf I was reading

19

u/SarahsDoingStuff Sep 10 '24

Yeah, there’s a triple negative in there, and it’s hella confusing. I have to imagine it could’ve been worded better.

Puckman already responded, but really all you need to know is the Republican super majority passed a shitty bill. Gov. Cooper vetoed it and then said super majority played a draw four reverse on his reverse. Bunch of ghouls.

10

u/Caitliente Sep 10 '24

You should have written the bill because I understood all of that. Thank you! 

2

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

This is why democracy doesn’t work.

2

u/Illustrious_Can3214 Sep 11 '24

It's good because landlords bought a property and should be able to deny taking housing vouchers, etc

Anyone wanting to rent apartments accepting vouchers, can simply purchase property and do it.

They shouldn't be forced to accept vouchers. So yeah very good 👍

21

u/bokehtoast North Asheville Sep 10 '24

They really just don't want poor people in Asheville at all.

16

u/OkCommunity1625 Sep 10 '24

Just incase anyone else had to read several times

State government is making sure that landlords are ABLE to DENY tenants who use federal housing assistance money. They are doing this by passing a law which bans local governments from passing any laws that would restrict landlords from doing so

0

u/Illustrious_Can3214 Sep 11 '24

This is good. Landlords should be able to decide who they rent to. After all, they worked hard and bought the property.

Anyone wanting to rent to just anyone can simply buy a house and do the same.

12

u/leaky_eddie Sep 10 '24

Help me understand this: If I have a house that I want to rent, I'm going to advertise it, interview potential renters and choose to rent my house to whoever I want. I don't have to tell someone why I made the decision. If I keep my reasons to myself, how will you apply this law or any other rental discrimination law?

0

u/Mister-Marvelous North Asheville Sep 10 '24

Some states have laws requiring you to write a rejection letter which is where it gets tricky. Otherwise you’re correct and the way most people are just simply told sorry we had a more qualified applicant than you.

Believe it or not there’s groups out there who purposefully contact landlords and property managers looking to create a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

-1

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

There's also the appearance of discriminating. Suppose you own an apartment building with twelve units, all rented in a price range the would be covered by Section 8, but none of your tenants are receiving rent assistance. You are obviously a criminal and must be punished.

17

u/usernamechecks321 Sep 10 '24

Limited government at its finest.

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Literally it’s not. The state government is interfering with local government.

0

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

That's exactly what's happening here. Local governments can't dictate how private citizens use their private property. Bernie would be angry.

4

u/usernamechecks321 Sep 10 '24

Actually they can, and to an extent, should. Home rule should be a thing.

1

u/lightning_whirler Sep 10 '24

Home rule exists in the context of state law, which tends to side with private property rights.

2

u/sabotabo Sep 10 '24

prohibits loval governments... from forbidding landlords... from refusing to rent....

https://preview.redd.it/0qbexayij1od1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=884621c2af53628b494320f254ced63bb7901983

2

u/goldbman NC Sep 10 '24

I wonder how this will affect our unhoused rate? Though in a high demand area such as ours, the landlords can probably just choose tenants that don't rely on housing assistance.

10

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

Since it doesn’t change anything from the current status quo, shouldn’t impact it one way or another.

2

u/goldbman NC Sep 10 '24

Yeah, admittedly I had Orange County on my mind because I always saw those ads about housing discrimination while riding the bus.

1

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

Fair.

9

u/puckman13 Sep 10 '24

It shouldn't, because there aren't any local regulations forcing landlords to participate in voucher programs. This just means you can't change that current state without changes in state law.

4

u/MellerFeller Sep 10 '24

Many prospective tenants lose their section 8 housing option from inability to secure a lease in time, so of course it has and will continue to contribute to the rate of homelessness. This is what Republicans want.

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Probably against federal law

1

u/Dear_Bullfrog_2661 Sep 12 '24

Why not just stop with all this gang crap. Republican vs Democrat. It's all the same. Gang mentality. (You ain't wit us yer againus!) We need to all look long and hard at what both sides are doing and stop playing the game of watching them dangling keys in front of us while the rest of them sneak in to the movie theater while we're distracted. I get so tired of seeing people go... "Yer a dumb because yous a Republican." Or "Your a stupid because you a Democrat."

People... You need to all grow up and start holding the actual people at fault. Not a party. Because the way I see it. Both parties are complete trash fires. You have a woman pretending to be something she isn't because it furthers her narrative. And you have a man who talks a lot and yells a lot and people praise him. (Yes. I could say more about both because both choices are trash fires. There hasn't been a good president in decades and decades. Each one has glaring flaws and good things too. Everything the opposing party does isn't always wrong or bad. But hate is so instilled in some people that it just makes all the ugly come out and they hate what that person does no matter what they do.) So, stop hatin! It's time to put aside all the BS and just be people, neighbors, Americans...

We get absolutely no where fighting each other. Because it's pointless, stupid, and only makes everyone upset and accomplishes nothing.

Now, I don't care if you downvote, because I don't care about votes at all. Upvote, downvote, who cares.

If you do nothing it's almost as bad as if you commited the crime yourself. So, stop blaming each other for whatever they vote for. It's not right. It's actually pretty hypocritical! (And dare I say... Racist? People seem to love throwing that word around. Or should the word be biggotted? Nazi? All the bad buzzwords. ) Most people would. But stop to think for yourselves. Turn off the news, stop watching things that will upset you just so you can fight someone about something that no one should care about. We should look more in to why Senator's make millions of dollars in office. We should look more at the house and Senate. The president has and always will be (since the 1930s) a figure head. A scape goat for the party they represent.

You'd think this all would be common knowledge, but common knowledge isn't as common as it used to be.

1

u/glenda-goodwitch Sep 12 '24

I have friends who utilize section 8.

The landlord is a slum lord. They refuse to fix a drain field with "it would cost 30k to fix it." They knew a giant tree was dangerous. A limb the size of a tree itself fell across two cars. One of the cars was totaled. (No choice but to replace a car, instead of just cutting the tree)

The management company then has the cajones to send out a letter telling them to take one shower per day, don't flush paper, etc. One of the ladies is trying to make it work by taking sponge baths.

This law will just allow this garbage human to keep shuffling until he finds more suckers. People who can't say anything or they can hit the bricks.

She said section 8 has seen the plumbing issues and still signs off.

1

u/Regular_Card_9089 Sep 13 '24

Do away with government subsidies. Socialism is only getting bigger and at some point full blown Marxism will have run of the place.

1

u/Hurricane1323 Sep 13 '24

very confusing headline in the way that it is written...

1

u/Exciting-Source-3449 Sep 14 '24

Sadly the ones who keep voting for these folks fail to recognize they are actually voting against their own self interest and instead look to blame the Democrats instead of looking into the mirror. Its maddening but unfortunately its the reality we now find ourselves dealing with on a daily basis.

You just can not fix the stupid.

1

u/rollotherottie Sep 10 '24

here comes the unpopular opinion. As a landlord, if you have a nice property and maintain it, why take the risk. Someone with vouchers probably doesn't have any money to go after if they trash your place, plus there is the extra layer of dealing with the gov. If you have a good renter it is a safer bet to rent to someone with a good job/income/credit score. If you your place isn't so nice then its more attractive. I just view it as an increased risk as a landlord.

3

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Life is so hard for landlords. Shelter should not be an investment.

5

u/Skittlesharts Where's the beer? Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24

If you can refuse to rent to someone with a bad credit score or background or something else, you should be able to refuse this as well. It's your property and you want people living there who are not going to destroy it. Even if you would be fine renting to someone with credit vouchers, you may refuse them based on other criteria. This is a law that keeps the government out of your business.

Edit to add- That and it doesn't violate the Fair Housing Act or anything else like that.

4

u/au5lander Transylvania County Sep 10 '24

so the assumption is that because someone is on government assistance (aka ''poor") that they are the type of person that will trash your property?

1

u/Maga2024kag Sep 12 '24

Yes. And sadly it’s usually a safe assumption. Look at Covid. We had several friends with rental properties that couldn’t evict because the govt said they had to let people live there RENT FREE, meanwhile they had to keep up the taxes, mortgage etc. The tenants were living off the government. Then, they trashed the houses and our friends were out 10’s of thousands of dollars with no recourse. We no longer have a rental but I would NEVER rent to someone on gov’t assistance.

1

u/Skittlesharts Where's the beer? Sep 11 '24

Nope. My point is that you shouldn't be forced to rent to anyone who you don't feel will take care of your property. Doesn't matter if they have housing vouchers or not.

-11

u/Mister-Marvelous North Asheville Sep 10 '24

Thank You NC GOP for finally sticking up for private property rights and putting it into law with section 7… It was only a matter of time before Asheville and Charlotte tried to pass local ordinances saying you had to take vouchers.

You already could straight up advertise that you didn’t accept vouchers, people don’t understand the pressure a lot of “nonprofits” would put on property managers to accept vouchers. They had already been working with cities on beginning to create local ordinances to force people to accept vouchers.

Do I feel bad for people and are there good people using vouchers? Of course, absolutely… Anyone who has a problem with who in their mind thinks of a single mother with 3 kids or some sweet elderly lady who has a voucher living next to them when in reality this ends up being the person wacked out on meth they see screaming to themselves.

Sorry socialists and Marxists I just want to remind you rent control is also written in law to be illegal in N.C.…

5

u/A_murder_of_crochets Sep 10 '24

Your last post was bragging about how you drive drunk.  But sure, go off on hypothetical meth grandmas.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/asheville-ModTeam Sep 11 '24

We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users.

Please see our full rules page for the specifics. https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/

2

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

This is a known troll just ignore them.

1

u/iowhite Sep 10 '24

Please frame this argument from Jesus’ perspective, whom you worship.

0

u/Mister-Marvelous North Asheville Sep 11 '24

Tell me more about Jesus and the Bible when people like you can’t do anything except make fun of Jesus….

Let me guess you think Jesus was a socialist?

I have plenty of scripture to combat you….. so you tell me who you worship and the scripture to back it up with….

-13

u/AuthorizedAgent Sep 10 '24

Being forced to accept voucher would be criminal. It’s near equivalent to being forced to rent to meth heads. Not discriminate against good people using a help system for good. Just identifying the large business risk of the collective.

2

u/ExcitementOk1529 Sep 10 '24

There is a difference between being forced to rent to anyone with a voucher and not being allowed to discriminate on the basis of source of income. This absolutely discriminated against people using the system for good by allowing landlord to implement blanket “no voucher” policies.

1

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

What’s the difference between the two. If you’re not allowed to deny based on source of income, you’re defacto forcing them to rent to voucher holders.

1

u/ExcitementOk1529 Sep 10 '24

If you have 2 voucher holder and one has good credit and a good rental history and the other doesn’t, you can’t discriminate against the one that meet all of your regular criteria other than “no voucher”.

0

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

Sure.

But say I have 4 applicants.

The two vouchers you mentioned above, the two remaining tenants exactly match the voucher holders save for source of income.

In that case I’d much rather rent to the prospective good tenant who doesn’t have a voucher, and not have to deal with the rigamarole that is associated with voucher programs.

3

u/ExcitementOk1529 Sep 10 '24

Well, that is discrimination

2

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

Is it? Where I sit it looks a lot more like a business decision based on the pros/cons of all 4 tenants.

Would you force landlords to take the voucher holder all other things being equal?

3

u/ExcitementOk1529 Sep 10 '24

First qualified applicant?

1

u/Mortonsbrand Native Sep 10 '24

That’s a possible solution for sure.

2

u/rollotherottie Sep 10 '24

you are correct. you look at a lot of things, but if someone with no real income and vouchers with several kids vs a couple with no kids and good income. I know you should give those in more need a hand, but it's a business not a charity at the end of the day. As a landlord you look at who is most likey to pay, be the least hassle, cause less wear and tear on the house, etc

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

Shelter should not be an investment. Your crowd is so Christlike.

-2

u/Designer-Anxiety75 Sep 10 '24

Section 8 is really profitable for landlords as you are always guaranteed money from the government. This will only help make sure bad tenants can be dealt with, which will help good tenants find housing. It's a good bill.

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

That’s not what the bill does. And this is why democracy doesn’t work.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

The I got mine fuck everyone else mindset at its finest.

0

u/Turbulent-Today830 Sep 10 '24

Well I would’ve likely lost mine if i were required to rent to those subsidized

2

u/WishFew7622 Sep 10 '24

lol you have no way of knowing that. Good luck getting into heaven something about passing a camel through the eye of a needle. I’m sure you’re a good Christian so I shouldn’t need to explain any more.

-1

u/Turbulent-Today830 Sep 10 '24

wrong again…

1

u/WishFew7622 Sep 11 '24

On what count

1

u/asheville-ModTeam Sep 10 '24

We are removing your post/comment due to hate speech or insults. This includes but is not limited to:

  • Calls to physical violence or cyberbullying against another person or organization.
  • Suicidal posts.
  • Text that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or abilities.
  • Demeaning or inflammatory language directed at other users.

Please see our full rules page for the specifics. https://www.reddit.com/r/asheville/about/rules/