Originally Posted by
Stanton Biston
I wholly own 44 of the units. And I'm still the one that's totally liable under Oregon law. The property owner isn't liable for the actions of a licensed property manager.
It's totally a state by state thing. I know my state really well. Outside my state, I have no idea. But honestly, I see this being an issue the 9th circuit takes up in the next 15 years.
As a property manager, my duty is to get the property owner the most out of their assets, including protecting them against loss. When I first started not renting to ugly people, I did it out of crass, juvenile motivations to be surrounded by pretty people.
It was only afterwards that I found the research that suggests ugly people do worse in life, make less money, and from a credibility and financial stability point of view are statistically worse tenants that I found a real justification for it. Statistically, the pretty people don't end up in collections and don't damage property.
So why not rent to them?
Historically, societies across time and the globe have had caste systems that puts ugly people into the bottom rung. It's the nature of natural selection to select for the best outcomes. We just have things like credit scores and rental history, but it's just a way of enforcing the existing bias.