The “Water Cooler” is a feature on Claycord.com where we ask you a question or provide a topic, and you talk about it.
The “Water Cooler” will be up Monday-Friday at noon.
Today’s question:
The City of Oakland has become the first city in California to ban criminal background checks on potential renters, according to a report on CBS5.
This ban means landlords will no longer be able to turn down potential renters because of criminal convictions, CBS5 reported.
QUESTION: Very good idea or very bad idea?
Talk about it….
52 comments
No law should ever tell a person who they can and who they cannot rent to and that includes discrimination laws. A property owner should be able to rent to whoever they please without fear of a law suit or government interference.
And vice versa, right Dawg? “A property owner should be able to DENY rent”.
I’m glad I’m not a slum lord in Oakland.
It’s amazing to me how much the People’s Republic of California will bend over backwards for criminals.Pure insanity.
No because they might be the only ones who can afford the rents.
Very BAD idea. City of Oakland: build more low-income housing and rent it to criminals, if you like. But do not tell private citizens that they must entrust their financial investments to criminals. There are consequences to living a life of crime and one main consequence is that people don’t trust you! For good reason!
I totally agree with Shiloh! This is an all around a bad idea. I get that criminals need a place to live when they get out of the joint but making private owners house them is not fair to the hard earned investment the owner made into buying that property. I like the idea of having specific housing made for transition back into society. If there are work programs and social services to help them stay out of trouble so they can prove their trustworthiness to rent to, then ok. So if they graduate after meeting certain criteria while back in civilization, and they show they are working actively to be on the straight and narrow, then that law would be more appropriate so they can’t be discrininated against for renting. I’ll be honest that I didnt read the article or research the new law….perhaps they do make those considerations in how its written.
I like your ideas, Concord Gal!
That’s a much better way to handle it – good common sense.
Sure wouldn’t want to be a landlord in Oakland. And, the “Mom’s” have gotten the house through the Oakland Land Trust, a non-profit likely financed by the city (taxpayers).
Dear Jeff, You don’t know what you are talking about. In this case it’s better to research how a land trust works or just keep quiet. There is information available.
Supposedly sold below market value. I wonder what the neighbors are saying?
Their website lists City of Oakland as one of their project funders. I wonder where the City of Oakland comes by the revenue used to contribute to such projects?
This makes no sense. I have not read the ordinance, so this is my first question
Would An owner would have to accept a child molester, into their rental property next to a school?
They wouldn’t know until it’s too late, and the victim sues the landlord for letting the molester live in the neighborhood. See how this could play out?
@ Lovelace
Yep,….that would be my first question too.
And this time next year, let’s count how many landlords have sold their properties and moved out of state. Great way to create less available housing Oakland. I see what you are doing. You don’t want those people there either, and who can blame you.
Yeah, this is ridiculous. Maybe and a big maybe, I could sorta see something where a large multi tenant building being required to house x amount of low cost housing / released convict,with strict requirements.
But really, as a property owner, I want to know who is living in my building. I feel for the plight of person down on their luck. If they have a job and can make the first and last month’s rent + a deposit I would consider them as long as they weren’t a violent criminal. However, there is no way I’d want a pedophile or someone with a rap sheet a mile long living there.
Yikes.
Can these idiots get any dumber? Sad to watch this state continue to decline with outrageous decisions.
Insanity !!
I think it’s a bad idea, but in a city like Oakland – I understand why it passed. As a landlord, I’d be more concerned about credit and employment checks, as well as unlawful detainer to see if you’ve ever been evicted. Most landlords probably don’t run criminal backround checks. Or maybe they do in Oakland. It’s better to rent to ex-cons then have them on the street, but I still think you should be allowed to run any type of backround check. It’s your property.
I guess I’m supposed to be outraged about landlords not being able to control who they rent to. And I might if I had ever met a landlord who was not a complete jerk. This is 100% of my experience having rented three different places in San Francisco, with for example the refusal to fix the heat during the winter. Zero heat. Or another one who did nothing about the extremely noisy tenant who came home from work at 3 am and blasted his music and the landlord did not care how many police reports were made as long as he paid the rent. I am just not going to stand up for the rights of jerks. Your experience may differ.
If you are able to afford rent in San Francisco you should be able to buy outside of the city unless your credit is crap.
Not sure how the City plans on enforcing this nonsense. Any landlord can go online to multiple websites that will run a criminal background check for a small fee. They could probably get all the information they need about a prospective tenant by talking to previous employers and neighbors as well. Seems to me like it’s probably more pandering and coddling of the criminals in order to keep their voter base intact. Have at it Oakland and keep your nonsense on the other side of the Tunnel.
Great point. It’s not like they enforce any laws anyway so this holds as much clout as a fart in a snowstorm.
Agree. Or have a friend run it for them. I would not want to be a landlord in most of Oakland. Seems like the good Mayor is steering Oakland in the same direction Mr. Newsom steered San Francisco.
Good idea for criminals I guess.
This law has very little to do with making some political stance and more to do with money than anything else. Doesn’t matter where the rent comes from…whether it is drug dealing, theft, or hanging out with Tony Montana.
Oakland slumlords realized years ago that kicking people out of their rental properties for criminal behavior will result in empty and vacant apartments. Which means no money for them.
This is not low-income housing, it is criminal income housing.
This does not make sense to me!! Because if I lived next to a rental unit that has criminal activity. I can sue the landlords and owners for damages because of criminal activity!
Once again for protecting the bad people, and Penalizing the good people
I wonder what Oakland will be like in 5 years?? My guess is it will be way worse than it is now !!
Bad idea for Oakland. Good for clay cord and surrounding areas
As an ex-landlord, not just no , but HELL NO. We had a situation where a parole agent rented a unit for his “client”. We didn’t know til the news came on that night that a convicted child molester was moving in and the neighbors were out there throwing a fit. Quite a shock seeing your property on the news with a mob gathering. He was moved elsewhere for his own safety. It was done very underhandedly.
It’s a race to the bottom between Oakland and San Francisco and it’s really close at this point.
Ain’t that the truth. I wonder how this will affect the owners of upscale rental properties… Goodness knows, some felons have mighty good incomes. Might not even be able to sell or do a 1031 Exchange on a unit with these restrictions.
I fill sorry for hard working pppl coming home to neighbors who haven’t been working all day partying and playing loud music all day,dealers and pedos living next door while your hard at work= I’m so happy I moved out of the Bay Area..
They can still run a check and deny renting to them,and just tell them a different reason.So it’s illegal to TELL someone that they are denied due to a background check.
Exactly. Just do the background check anyway! I would.
It seems pretty unenforceable on the face of it.
That said, it seems to me that if the owner is taking more risk by not knowing to whom they are renting to, they would be justified in raising their rents and security deposit requirements. It would also seem reasonable to assume the property owner’s insurance premiums will be going up with the added risk and that added cost will be passed along to the renters.
More risk = higher prices.
My son lives in another state. It turns out his LANDLORD has a criminal record! So it works both ways.
I assume your son is free to rent from someone else?
Did u see that Thing on the City Council? There’s your answer.
I bet this law applies to everyone except those who actually implemented it.
And so the California government takes another step forward in its never ending quest to support, encourage and protect criminals,
So now a landlord can’t properly screen a prospective tenant. Therefore it’s reasonable to suggest they have no liability regarding the tenant’s behavior. If that tenant commits a murder on the property, then the victim’s family should no longer be able to sue the landlord. They should however be able to go after the city of Oakland for both the liability and for signing on to CBS5.
Didn’t anyone learn anything from the recent Orinda murders?
Is there something in the water?
Single family homes are exempt from this ordinance.
Where would you rather someone with a record to live? If they can rent, then they can worry about finding and maintaining a job, or schooling , or training.
If they can’t rent, that puts them where? On the street. Homeless. If you live on the street it’s pretty hard to maintain a job, or schooling or training.
What then are the alternatives for a homeless, jobless person with a criminal record?
So Oakland just forced the liability of renting to criminals on to the property owner.
How’s this solution…….
Hey Oakland, why don’t you sign the lease agreement, then sublet to known criminals. Essentially indemnifying the landlord from issues with a tenant they would not have rented to.
That way you achieve equality regardless of criminal history, without making your landlords utilize alternate means to protect their investments.
Landlords…….. simply raise rents to price the criminal element out of the market and to cover the inevitable cost of renting within the confines of the stupid law.
Joe
I’m guessing credit checks on potential tenants are still done and, again I’m guessing, that criminals and/or shady tenants will have poor credit histories which IS cause to deny them as renters. Still I’d hate to be a landlord in Oakland.
All the laws work in favor of the law breakers, creeps and homeless. I am tired of supporting those that “don’t want to work or feel the need to work” because they know they can get everything for free because those of us who pay their way and crooked politicians.
Enough is enough. Where are my rights??????
Surely there will be a legal challenge to this absurd law.
Remember when Californians voted in stupid crap laws like these? What happened? We have no say so any more? They just make a law without our input.
Sounds like a bad deal for landlords.
VERY BAD idea! Thought that would be common-sense, but then again common-sense is in short supply in this State.
Hmmmmm…..I’m just going to sit here and scratch my head.
Comments are closed.