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

[u/goldbman]

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

[u/og_speedfreeq]

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.

[u/risingthermal → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Vladivostokorbust → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Mortonsbrand → u/Vladivostokorbust]

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.

[u/mr_remy → u/Vladivostokorbust]

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”

[u/Vladivostokorbust → u/mr_remy]

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.

[u/mr_remy → u/Vladivostokorbust]

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

[u/goldbman → u/mr_remy]

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

[u/Vladivostokorbust → u/goldbman]

Section 8 program should figure that into the compensation.

[u/mr_remy → u/goldbman]

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.

[u/amongnotof → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/amongnotof → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/amongnotof → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/amongnotof → u/[deleted]]

Then why are you suggesting they are?