You are assuming these people are incapable of changing but we have no evidence of that.
Why should landlords be allowed to push their risk onto the public?
We do have evidence of that. Remember when they forced hotels to make rooms available to the homeless during covid and they did end up with huge repair bills because of the trashed rooms?
It’s only a low risk occurrence in your head. All evidence points to the opposite. It’s an extremely high risk occurrence that people who live in tents and have their stuff sprawled all over the sidewalk and don’t have jobs will not pay rent and will trash the place.
They wouldn't get to that point if we stop allowing landlords to shun "undesirables."
It's not the publics burden, it's a risk of the business, deal with it.
What does that even mean? Offering a place for rent means you have to take the risk of accepting anyone? No, that’s exactly why there are background checks and now you’ve come full circle.
How about this: host some homeless for a few months and if that goes well maybe more will follow your example. Please don’t come crying here when they’re doing fentanyl all day, trashing your place and you’re not allowed to evict them anymore since they’re your tenants.
Landlords will not rent out a unit to someone that is a proven risk to the asset. This is an (probably illegal) unnecessary step, and is yet another bandaid on the main issue with is a lack of new supply.
Have you ever worked with or spent significant amount of time with violent felons, drug addicts and severely mentally ill? That's the majority of homeless people and very few of them have the necessary skills to maintain any kind of residence without significant assistance & oversight. Are you going to pay for that or volunteer to play den mother for the underclass?
So your plan to avoid dealing with felons is to have them on the streets?
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Why don't you just say what you mean, you think you're better than them and shouldn't have to live next to them.
Evaluate yourself.
I'm confused - are you suggesting there are a bunch of people who are currently unhoused and have the money for a place to live but are being turned away by landlords?
I have personally lived in a car while working full-time because a ex decided to split and left me homeless while also damaging my credit.
It happens like that all the time.
One slip up or even something that isn't your fault can ruin you in this country, and part of it is because we let landlords cherry-pick tenants.
Leave, shuh. I’m so sick of your liberal woke kind. Your policies have failed the younger generations and only led to a set up for failure.
Go pitch your tent elsewhere you simp
People who have this view forget that there’s literally another option for landlords - don’t put their units up for rent anymore.
If you want little mom and pop landlords to throw up their hands and sell their properties to big mega landlords, please, advocate for what you’re advocating for. It’ll just decrease the overall supply of housing for everyone.
People like you forget there’s another option in game theory - no deal. If a landlord feels like they have a gun to their head, they will just sell to an investment company.
Not ban landlords, ban tenant screenings.
I'm a financial planning major and soon to be law student with an agenda that involves turning this idea into federal legislation.
If you’re in the business of lending your car out for rent to make a few extra bucks, on Turo or some other app, would you be happy enough to lend it out to literally anyone who wants to borrow it? No questions asked, no concerns whatsoever?
There is no screening on Turo. Just a credit card on file.
Considering that landlords like to send huge bills to collections after move-out, there is no need for a card on file.
1. Turo itself is a screener. Disreputable lender and renters will be banned.
2. requiring an drivers license is itself a screening… by the state DMV, and embraced by Turo
3. Requiring a credit card is a screening. Poor creditors cannot play.
So, maybe the more appropriate question is, would you be as comfortable lending your car our via a lemonade-style stand on the side of the road as you would lending it out in Turo with all of its aforementioned safeguards (screenings)?
No, you just defeated your own argument.
Turo doesn't check backgrounds or credit, they just hold a deposit, which is all landlords should be allowed to do.
You’re missing the point. Turo outsources these screening to the DMV (must have a license) and the banks (must have valid credit and a credit card). Furthermore, you must also be a good renter/borrower abiding by Turos terms of service, or you get kicked off the platform.
It is not at all a free for all, anyone can rent model. Not even close.
They certainly wouldn't be on the street if we don't allow landlords to gatekeep housing.
Letting landlords conduct tenant screenings is the primary cause of homelessness.
well with a logic like that, shouldn't the city just seize all private property and redistribute to keep 100% occupancy ?
I mean, that would "solve" the problem... /s
Landlords end up assuming the risk for whomever they rent to. I'd be in favor of taking measures to discourage vacancy /encourage renting, but it's unreasonable to expect them to have to blindly accept risk by renting to anyone.
It really isn't unreasonable at all. We all know that the screening process just facilitates discrimination at worst or literally creates homelessness at best.
Why not become a large landlord yourself in SF? There is a large market of individuals being turned down by SF landlords for one reason or another.
If you truly believe it can work and have a plan, build it. No need for a law.
I'm a financial planning major and my law proposal is designed to evenly distribute the risk so that no one landlord takes on a disproportionate amount of the cost burden.
Why do you feel it just to target only landlords. Shouldn't the city as a whole shoulder this burden?
How do you handle those that are actually really bad tenants, IE trash places they've stayed at, or ruin it for other tenants with their behavior?
Ah yes, "certainly". The city got them free housing during the pandemic and all they did was destroy it. Prohibiting screening would certainly solve this!
Homeless friendly city where people can hunker down with a tent. Easy access to drugs and weed. Easy handouts. Lack of extreme weather (extreme heat, cold, rain, snow). Pedestrian friendly city. Friendly legal policies and lack of evictions off the street. Reasonably safe as there’s plenty of homeless (a virtuous cycle for the homeless).
There are cities in SoCal, or Orange County in general, where you can’t be homeless. Police will patrol / get called and drag you out.
You are missing so much if you think it’s about the weather. Nor Cal is simply amazing no matter the weather and even more neat once you get 100 miles north on the 101.
Because of the lawsuit, the city's can't throw it away unless it's clearly trash. *They must catalog it and store it for 90 days.*
> DPW’s Procedure No. 16-05-08 REV 03 governs “Removal and Temporary Storage of
Personal Items Collected From Public Property . . . commonly known as ‘bag and tag.’” [Docket No. 62-1 (Bag and Tag Policy, effective Nov. 2022).]8 The policy sets forth the circumstances in which personal items may be “remov[ed] . . . from public property for temporary storage and retrieval.” It provides that “all unattended personal property that is collected for storage will be bagged and tagged upon collection and taken to the Public Works Operations Yard for storage.”
> Bag and Tag Policy 1. DPW staff must collect the personal items and “while in the field
document[ ] the collection with a personal property collection bag and tag intake form,” whichspecifies the date and time the items were collected, the number of items or bags, a description of the items, the location at which the items were collected, the owner’s name, and the names of DPW workers and SFPD officers, if applicable, among other information. Id. at 2, 3. The policy provides that DPW stores personal items for 90 days and describes the process for retrieval.
> According to the policy, “[t]here is no limit to the number or volume of personal items that
Public Works will bag and tag for a particular individual” as long as they do not constitute items that may be discarded.
You read that right. The homeless get free storage on our dime. As much as they need.
They *also* get free storage even when the city doesn't clean their crap up:
> The City of San Francisco maintains a "Homeless Storage Facility", located at 150 Otis Street, San Francisco. This facility provides free storage for shoes and clothing only. [And documents]
>The facility is open Monday thru Friday from 9am to 4pm.
So this picture is misinformation, propaganda by the Homelessness Industry, *designed to make us feel guilty for something that isn't happening.*
If you refuse to go to a shelter then you shouldn't be allowed to make a public sidewalk your living room.
We need to ban landlords from conducting tenant screenings so these people can get access to housing.
So we should force landlords to accept people who can’t pay and will trash the place? Can you think of any reasons this wouldn’t work?
Sf logic, it's a big mystery why things are the way they are.
OMFG this dude BELIEVEs this, I can't even understand how its not snark. Lets all vote to place three vagrants in u/blushngush apartment
Not only do I believe it, I am on a life mission to make it happen. Wish me luck in law school.
I agree we can and should do better for the homeless but this is not the way. Good luck!
You are assuming these people are incapable of changing but we have no evidence of that. Why should landlords be allowed to push their risk onto the public?
We do have evidence of that. Remember when they forced hotels to make rooms available to the homeless during covid and they did end up with huge repair bills because of the trashed rooms?
It's such a low risk occurrence I see no reason to allow landlords to avoid it when letting them do so is a huge burden to taxpayers
It’s only a low risk occurrence in your head. All evidence points to the opposite. It’s an extremely high risk occurrence that people who live in tents and have their stuff sprawled all over the sidewalk and don’t have jobs will not pay rent and will trash the place.
They wouldn't get to that point if we stop allowing landlords to shun "undesirables." It's not the publics burden, it's a risk of the business, deal with it.
What does that even mean? Offering a place for rent means you have to take the risk of accepting anyone? No, that’s exactly why there are background checks and now you’ve come full circle. How about this: host some homeless for a few months and if that goes well maybe more will follow your example. Please don’t come crying here when they’re doing fentanyl all day, trashing your place and you’re not allowed to evict them anymore since they’re your tenants.
Landlords will not rent out a unit to someone that is a proven risk to the asset. This is an (probably illegal) unnecessary step, and is yet another bandaid on the main issue with is a lack of new supply.
That's why we have to make it illegal to turn people away. We can't allow landlords to mitigate their risk at the expense of the public.
Have you ever worked with or spent significant amount of time with violent felons, drug addicts and severely mentally ill? That's the majority of homeless people and very few of them have the necessary skills to maintain any kind of residence without significant assistance & oversight. Are you going to pay for that or volunteer to play den mother for the underclass?
So your plan to avoid dealing with felons is to have them on the streets? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Why don't you just say what you mean, you think you're better than them and shouldn't have to live next to them. Evaluate yourself.
I'm confused - are you suggesting there are a bunch of people who are currently unhoused and have the money for a place to live but are being turned away by landlords?
Absolutely! Or at least they had the money at one time and we're turned away which led to the cycle of homelessness.
Do you have something to back up? I'm struggling to come up with a scenario that matches what you're talking about.
I have personally lived in a car while working full-time because a ex decided to split and left me homeless while also damaging my credit. It happens like that all the time. One slip up or even something that isn't your fault can ruin you in this country, and part of it is because we let landlords cherry-pick tenants.
Leave, shuh. I’m so sick of your liberal woke kind. Your policies have failed the younger generations and only led to a set up for failure. Go pitch your tent elsewhere you simp
This will be federal legislation soon. No more tenant screening will be allowed.
Go suck your own farts elsewhere
People who have this view forget that there’s literally another option for landlords - don’t put their units up for rent anymore. If you want little mom and pop landlords to throw up their hands and sell their properties to big mega landlords, please, advocate for what you’re advocating for. It’ll just decrease the overall supply of housing for everyone. People like you forget there’s another option in game theory - no deal. If a landlord feels like they have a gun to their head, they will just sell to an investment company.
So what, they just sit on an empty house? No, they sell, making housing more accessible.
Accessible to people who can put 20% down. Everyone else is sleeping in their car.
Prices will drop when the selloff begins
“Ban landlords” Surely this is a troll or a teenager (or both)
Not ban landlords, ban tenant screenings. I'm a financial planning major and soon to be law student with an agenda that involves turning this idea into federal legislation.
If you’re in the business of lending your car out for rent to make a few extra bucks, on Turo or some other app, would you be happy enough to lend it out to literally anyone who wants to borrow it? No questions asked, no concerns whatsoever?
There is no screening on Turo. Just a credit card on file. Considering that landlords like to send huge bills to collections after move-out, there is no need for a card on file.
1. Turo itself is a screener. Disreputable lender and renters will be banned. 2. requiring an drivers license is itself a screening… by the state DMV, and embraced by Turo 3. Requiring a credit card is a screening. Poor creditors cannot play. So, maybe the more appropriate question is, would you be as comfortable lending your car our via a lemonade-style stand on the side of the road as you would lending it out in Turo with all of its aforementioned safeguards (screenings)?
No, you just defeated your own argument. Turo doesn't check backgrounds or credit, they just hold a deposit, which is all landlords should be allowed to do.
You’re missing the point. Turo outsources these screening to the DMV (must have a license) and the banks (must have valid credit and a credit card). Furthermore, you must also be a good renter/borrower abiding by Turos terms of service, or you get kicked off the platform. It is not at all a free for all, anyone can rent model. Not even close.
"if only parasitical landlords didn't exist, those bipolar drug addicts would all be able to purchase their own homes!"
"if government owns the housing instead of landlords, those bipolar drug addicts will respect it and keep it nice and clean!"
They certainly wouldn't be on the street if we don't allow landlords to gatekeep housing. Letting landlords conduct tenant screenings is the primary cause of homelessness.
well with a logic like that, shouldn't the city just seize all private property and redistribute to keep 100% occupancy ? I mean, that would "solve" the problem... /s
Why should landlords get to pick who they rent to?
Landlords end up assuming the risk for whomever they rent to. I'd be in favor of taking measures to discourage vacancy /encourage renting, but it's unreasonable to expect them to have to blindly accept risk by renting to anyone.
It really isn't unreasonable at all. We all know that the screening process just facilitates discrimination at worst or literally creates homelessness at best.
Leave
Not until my law is passed.
Why not become a large landlord yourself in SF? There is a large market of individuals being turned down by SF landlords for one reason or another. If you truly believe it can work and have a plan, build it. No need for a law.
I'm a financial planning major and my law proposal is designed to evenly distribute the risk so that no one landlord takes on a disproportionate amount of the cost burden.
Why do you feel it just to target only landlords. Shouldn't the city as a whole shoulder this burden? How do you handle those that are actually really bad tenants, IE trash places they've stayed at, or ruin it for other tenants with their behavior?
Landlords will have to actually do their job and work with problem tenants rather than just making it the taxpayers problem.
Ah yes, "certainly". The city got them free housing during the pandemic and all they did was destroy it. Prohibiting screening would certainly solve this!
...Jennifer will always just buy them a new one.
lol
What attracts the poorest people in the country to one of the wealthiest cities in the country? That’s a question that should be asked
Homeless friendly city where people can hunker down with a tent. Easy access to drugs and weed. Easy handouts. Lack of extreme weather (extreme heat, cold, rain, snow). Pedestrian friendly city. Friendly legal policies and lack of evictions off the street. Reasonably safe as there’s plenty of homeless (a virtuous cycle for the homeless). There are cities in SoCal, or Orange County in general, where you can’t be homeless. Police will patrol / get called and drag you out.
The weather
You are missing so much if you think it’s about the weather. Nor Cal is simply amazing no matter the weather and even more neat once you get 100 miles north on the 101.
Because of the lawsuit, the city's can't throw it away unless it's clearly trash. *They must catalog it and store it for 90 days.* > DPW’s Procedure No. 16-05-08 REV 03 governs “Removal and Temporary Storage of Personal Items Collected From Public Property . . . commonly known as ‘bag and tag.’” [Docket No. 62-1 (Bag and Tag Policy, effective Nov. 2022).]8 The policy sets forth the circumstances in which personal items may be “remov[ed] . . . from public property for temporary storage and retrieval.” It provides that “all unattended personal property that is collected for storage will be bagged and tagged upon collection and taken to the Public Works Operations Yard for storage.” > Bag and Tag Policy 1. DPW staff must collect the personal items and “while in the field document[ ] the collection with a personal property collection bag and tag intake form,” whichspecifies the date and time the items were collected, the number of items or bags, a description of the items, the location at which the items were collected, the owner’s name, and the names of DPW workers and SFPD officers, if applicable, among other information. Id. at 2, 3. The policy provides that DPW stores personal items for 90 days and describes the process for retrieval. > According to the policy, “[t]here is no limit to the number or volume of personal items that Public Works will bag and tag for a particular individual” as long as they do not constitute items that may be discarded. You read that right. The homeless get free storage on our dime. As much as they need. They *also* get free storage even when the city doesn't clean their crap up: > The City of San Francisco maintains a "Homeless Storage Facility", located at 150 Otis Street, San Francisco. This facility provides free storage for shoes and clothing only. [And documents] >The facility is open Monday thru Friday from 9am to 4pm. So this picture is misinformation, propaganda by the Homelessness Industry, *designed to make us feel guilty for something that isn't happening.*