Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on As Usual, Props to Rep. Eric Pettigrew. And Surprise, Surprise: Props to Chopp!


"zoning laws are intended to define types of housing, not types of people"

Yeah, right. People in the burbs want big lots, big houses, and big garages for the architectural aesthetic of it. They're not zoned for density or for retail because people in the burbs like open spaces for family living. They have nothing against people who can't afford those extra costs to meet their housing/ transportation needs. They love diversity...

Posted by Trevor | January 16, 2008 5:32 PM

@1, people in the burbs? People in the city love that shit too otherwise why would most of the be SFH?

Posted by Andrew | January 16, 2008 5:52 PM

You ever tried to buy a house in a gated community?


Diversity? Nuh uh.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 16, 2008 6:04 PM

I think the current rules are fine personally. As a property owner I want the right to decide who I do and don't rent to. Only apartment complexes should have anti discrimination policies. However "Anti discrimination" policies shouldn't be a cover for valid reasons to deny rental or evict.

It sounds all "touchy feely" to be in favor of an anti-discrimination law for Section 8 applicants. However Section 8 applicants come in all kinds of flavors, many of whom ruin the living environment for those around them. Many need a helping hand and a way to be integrated into a community, however others manipulate the system, cause vandalism, don't care about themselves or their "home", and destroy the hard work of a landlord who tries making their rental property a decent place to live.

There is always another side of the story, and people who are trying to own a rental property to get ahead in the "game" have to deal with putting up with all the bullshit and baggage that a section 8 tenant brings with them.

The issue makes great political fodder, and sounds like a winner for a politician, at the expense of those who actually have to maintain the properties.

Just sayin...

Posted by Reality Check | January 16, 2008 6:40 PM

@Reality Check: Not sure if you're trying to be misleading or if you're misled yourself, but but you're entirely misrepresenting the impact of the the Section 8 bill. No landlord would be required to rent to anybody -- the bill would just say that a landlord can't discriminate based on Section 8 or any other lawful source of income. A landlord could (and would be wise to) still do credit checks, reference checks, etc., etc., and would be 100% protected if they choose not to rent to a Section 8 tenant on some other basis like a bad reference or the like. They just couldn't stereotype & discriminate and deny someone housing on that basis. This bill doesn't "force" a landlord to rent to anybody, any more than any other anti-racism laws "force" landlords to rent to any given applicant of color or the new gay-rights law "forces" employers to hire only gay people.

Also worth pointing to sloggers: although Rep. Pettigrew deserves thanks for working this bill, it's being driven by the Tenants Union of Washington State and other housing justice orgs. (See debate on MLK vs. Pres. Johnson for more info on the dynamic between community organizations and elected officials.)

Posted by Paulo Freire | January 17, 2008 9:04 AM

How are people using Section 8 ever going to get a leg up when people won't rent to them because of their biases? In my neighborhood, the beer bottles and noise are caused by full rent paying tenants, not people using section 8.

Posted by Marie Antionette | January 18, 2008 9:33 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).