Why, as a landlord, I will never rent to Section 8 tenants

[alturic]

Source? Otherwise I call bullshit.

You do realize he can say "statistically speaking" and be 100% correct? Just because it's statistics to him (in terms of previous renters) doesn't mean he's not right. In his area he might be right, in you're area it could be the complete opposite.

[Wafffles]

On the one hand, that's terrible and I can certainly see why a landlord would be prejudiced against lower class renters, justified or not. It doesn't mean every one of them is a dirty rotten scoundrel, it just means the likelihood is higher and risking it just to 'be nice' to the ones who aren't dirty rotten scoundrels may not be worth it for some people.

On the other hand (and I'm sure I'll catch flak for this, just sayin') but a landlord's job is exactly what's in this video: customer relations and maintenance. I'm not saying a landlord should expect to have their property destroyed. but if they expect to have perfect tenants every time then being a landlord is literally free money...right? If you never hear a peep from the tenant, if they never have repairs that they need, then short of mowing the lawn you're literally just collecting easy money every month. Which is essentially what you just condemned section 8 tenants for doing: getting easy money. Yeah yeah, your's was an investment whereas they're siphoning off the system - but rent isn't just to break even, rent includes a profit for the landlord which one might say was taking money from others the easy way.

Now I know that's isn't actually how it is: there's repairs to be done, delinquent rents to collect, the whole nine yards. Landlording is a lot of work which is only adequately rewarding after a certain point, with a certain amount of property and a lot of days of hard work. Which is what this is: just another day as a landlord. A bad day, sure, but we've all had days at work where we had to pick up after some idiot's stupidity, and we don't post video rants online. So yeah, that tenant's an ass, and I think any landlord has the right to turn down any potential tenant for any reason if they're willing to suffer lost business, but with all that said I don't have a ton of sympathy for what is ultimately part of a landlord's chosen profession. Patch it up, find a new tenant, move on with your business.

[THE Bigzoman]

So your grand supporting evidence is a story about your buddy's deadbeat Mom?

Not at all. Simply stating that as it currently stands, my own personal experience vindicates Laize's prejudice. I could actually research it (if there is anything regarding the topic) but the burden currently lies on him to find SOME kind of statistical data to support it.

[Laize]

I guess I'm wrong, but that scenario I described isn't the "typical" Section 8 recipients? A family of four, 1 works, the other doesn't and gets Section 8...?

I am not required to accept Section 8 under NJ law nor am I forbidden from explicitly stating that I do not participate with Section 8 (Which I do explicitly state). I have had very few people come through asking if I accepted it... none of which struck me as model tenants even before they asked.

I do know other property owners who participate in Section 8 and not a one has anything good to say. When your tenant is S8 you are severely hamstrung in your rights as a property owner.

For one thing, rent increases become requests rather than edicts.

Section 8 authorities are permitted to inspect the home to make sure you're keeping it up to code, but will do nothing to enforce your rights.

If there's something that isn't up to snuff, you'd better hope it's in your lease agreement that they have to notify you... otherwise it falls upon you to conduct regular inspections.

The people who use S8 who actually deserve it seem to be, unfortunately, the minority.

As for the inevitable question as to why the people I know still participate? One has a home in an area that has... not held up well... over the last 10 years. It's very difficult for him to get the rent he needs from the people there without Section 8. That's his fault, though.

The one that concerns me more is the person who is stuck with a Section 8 tenant because he generally operates a month-to-month lease. The tenant smokes. He knows the tenant smokes. The problem is there is no PROOF the tenant smokes. In all eviction attempts, the yellow walls and stinking carpet never hold up as violations of the lease because no one witnesses him doing it (Except the NSA maybe). Now in most cases he could simply serve a notice of non-renewal and be done with the matter in 1-2 months. NOT WITH SECTION 8! Section 8 contracts grant the tenant the right to a meeting and a full eviction hearing if they desire.

Section 8 tenants are ridiculously hard to get rid of.

[Sunseeker]

Same is true of oysters I believe.

If you think about it there is absolutely no reason for one food to be "rich" and another "poor" other than culinary fashion. Unless they're just really hard to grow like truffles.

Scarcity of course, but the majority of scarcity is artificial. Certainly higher quality goods require more time and energy and thus cost more, but generally speaking, most foodstuffs are only limited by our ability to replenish the source.

[alturic]

My sister loves her Section 8 tenants. /shrug Just means that she never worries that they'll pay on time. A bad renter is a bad renter regardless of whether or not they're Section 8.

If all you care about is dat money, sure. If you care about the property people on welfare (outside of those temporary ones who truly need the assistance, lost job, death, illness, etc) are much more likely to trash the place. I can almost guarantee if you ask any landlord what his "horrid" demo's are he'll have them. Some people it's Section 8 renters, some it's those older people, etc.

[Orbitus]

Thanks to me losing my job a few years back, my family fell under section 8. Funny thing is the place we rented looked better when we left than when we got there. We made sure to fix little problems that popped up when we could and generally keep the place clean. But just go ahead and stereotype people on section 8. I'm sure there are no honest, hard working people that just fell on hard times. Probably all drug dealers and rapists.

Its Laize, he and his conservative cronies always blame all the problems with the government on the poor. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04...-america-with/

[skrump]

Not everyone on Section8 is a lowlife that will destroy you're property.

But here is a list of people to look out for
#1 single mothers under the age of 30 with more than 1 kid (they rarely take care of anything)
#2 Single people under 30
#3 couples under 30 (35 if they have kids)
#4 anyone under 30 DONT RENT TO THEM

30 is the magic number and even then there is still a 1 in 3 chance they are a lowlife who will destroy your property.

[SL1200]

We prefer them; their rent is always paid on time. They usually don't' do much damage, and when they do damage the government reimburses us. Could be we've just been lucky so far.

[Tribunal]

There is a (slight) difference between choosing not to rent to Section 8 for any given property or tenant (if your state gives that right) and making it into a publicly stated gross generalization.

Most of the people taking issue in this thread are concerned with the generalization, not the denial of any one tenant (only 'evidence'/defense I've seen). Though it was nice to see the mention of possible denial/different consideration over skin-color, in possible violation of the Fair Housing Act. Better hope you're one of the non-broker excluded properties, or that no one notices enough of a pattern to file a complaint.

[THE Bigzoman]

I suppose I could see (although very, very slightly, depending on your definition of "occasional") that occasional lobster/crab/filet mignon but you have to at least agree food stamp abuse is rampant with not only people gaming the system but also those using it as a means to buy tons of luxury food items.

The same thing that creditor goes off of? They decline you, until you find one (in this case a landlord) who throws you a bone.

There is virtually no present evidence that states that food stamp abuse is a prevalent tendency.

Does it happen? Sure.

However, the question is how often? And is it problematic? Currently, I have seen no credible evidence suggesting that it happens often enough to be problematic.

[Zaqwert]

People on welfare and government assistance are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be shitty tenants. I'm sorry that this simple common sense fact offends people so much.

Sure not all of them will be, and sure there are people who are rich who are scumbags, but in life you HAVE to use generalizations to guide your decision making process.

[THE Bigzoman]

There is a difference between choosing not to rent to Section 8 for any given property or tenant (if your state gives that right) and making it into a publicly stated gross generalization.

Most of the people taking issue in this thread are concerned with the generalization, not the denial of any one tenant (only 'evidence'/defense I've seen). Though it was nice to see the mention of possible denial/different consideration over skin-color, in possible violation of the Fair Housing Act. Better hope you're one of the non-broker excluded properties, or that no one notices enough of a pattern to file a complaint.

Sad but true. Once a discrimination complaint is filed, the burden lies on the accused to prove otherwise instead of the other way around.

[crazy8]

I get the sense you're not entirely sure why one would rent a house out.

I can tell you that it isn't to roll in dough. The only houses I actually turn a PROFIT on are 2 family homes when both units are rented out. Single units not so much. They are, however, excellent stores of value and the rental payments more than cover the mortgage payments (though not the property taxes) which builds equity for a fraction of the cost on my part.

Preservation of property is just as important as the rent itself. Why do you think we pay for background checks and have leases that allow us to evict for any sign of property damage?

The government can't force us to rent our property to certain people. They can prevent us from discriminating based on things they believe are unfair (such as race, gender, family status, etc). This is bullshit if you ask me, but I'm free to find any legitimate reason to choose someone else. In truth it's not hard at all.

The whole "can't evict during winter months" thing is bogus as well. I've done it once myself.

It's not that I don't feel someone who can't pay the rent on their own "doesn't deserve" to live in the house. It's that I don't think they have any reason to take care of it like someone who was paying for it out of pocket would.

Correct, why the heck these stories always devolve into, omg they are picking on the poor is ridiculous.

In most cases these are regular working folks who as an investment for their retirement take on the RISK of renting out a home"s" to strangers.

They have every right to take precautions to protect their investment, the stats back it up as well.

While I did not grow up in an American ghetto, I did grow up in the Canadian equivalent, at least the white side of it and our place was a dump, granted, as had been said in this thread there were many people that kept their home in great condition, these folks are probably the ones that hit a rough patch and did own a home or car at some time.

People that turn these issues into something about race or being poor do a disservice to us all.

[Orbitus]

As much as I would like to disagree with Laize on this one, my own personal experiences vindicates what he is saying.

I previously hung out with someone at my school, a single mother on section 8 to be exact. And from the times I visited her apartment, it was a complete sty. To the point where I even volunteered to help her clean it.

I have actually seen more well off people destroy more stuff than poor people. Some people in my town would willingly wreck vehicles because apparently money grows on trees for them. The poorer people I know take care of their stuff because they can't afford to be replacing stuff over and over.

[Sunseeker]

Not everyone on Section8 is a lowlife that will destroy you're property.

But here is a list of people to look out for
#1 single mothers under the age of 30 with more than 1 kid (they rarely take care of anything)
#2 Single people under 30
#3 couples under 30 (35 if they have kids)
#4 anyone under 30 DONT RENT TO THEM

30 is the magic number and even then there is still a 1 in 3 chance they are a lowlife who will destroy your property.

It's no wonder young people hate their elders when their elders so blatantly treat them like shit for no reason beyond their age.

[Xl House lX]

Wow that is insane... the amount of anger I would have if my tenants did something like that to my rental property would be concerning for certain. I hope he had the proper insurance for that beautiful home... if not theres nothing he can do but file charges and hope that he can win his case.

When renting out a home, you have to be patient and look for the right people. You have to see what they're like, what there interests are, their age, gender, etc. You have to limit the risk of bad tenants by setting up limits on who can live at your house. I have two doctors that live in my rental property and they call me whenever something is wrong immediately when they find out about it, and I immediately fix it. Having that connection of trust is vital in these situations. But @ OP if you don't feel comfortable with someone living in your home you don't have to accept them and their offer. Do what you feel comfortable with.

[THE Bigzoman]

I have actually seen more well off people destroy more stuff than poor people. Some people in my town would willingly wreck vehicles because apparently money grows on trees for them. The poorer people I know take care of their stuff because they can't afford to be replacing stuff over and over.

There is a common theme in both of our anecdotes. In both situations, both tenants are taking what they have for granted.

[Orbitus]

People on welfare and government assistance are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be shitty tenants. I'm sorry that this simple common sense fact offends people so much.

Sure not all of them will be, and sure there are people who are rich who are scumbags, but in life you HAVE to use generalizations to guide your decision making process.

Sorry its not common sense. Its just conservative generalizations with Laize's train of thought.

[Krolikn]

Yeah, every Section 8 tenant is like this...not.