![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
rigel.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_squareSince this seems to be of interest: Here's a placeholder to discuss the MA Fair Housing Statute, specifically as it applies to housing ads made in this area.
I'm posting this to give people a chance to discuss the merits and flaws in a place designed for it rather than on my housing post. To those who were offended by my indicating we were less interested in tenants with children, I apologize and have changed the wording. To those who felt it was fine, well, ok.
Either way, could this discussion happen here rather than on my housing post? I'd prefer people not pass my post by because they see a lot of comments and assume it's interest in the apartment rather than discussion of the statue.
Thanks!
I'm posting this to give people a chance to discuss the merits and flaws in a place designed for it rather than on my housing post. To those who were offended by my indicating we were less interested in tenants with children, I apologize and have changed the wording. To those who felt it was fine, well, ok.
Either way, could this discussion happen here rather than on my housing post? I'd prefer people not pass my post by because they see a lot of comments and assume it's interest in the apartment rather than discussion of the statue.
Thanks!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:06 pm (UTC)But it's true, the code just mentions discriminatory advertising. Other people's thoughts?
Re: Yes, the should not only be able, they are allowed to do so.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:07 pm (UTC)As a landlord (if I meet the criteria for not small owned etc.) then I must rent to families, and if there is lead in my apartment I must pay to have it removed and pay for them to be housed elsewhere while I do so.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:08 pm (UTC)I love how it's perfectly okay to say "no pets," but say "no children" and it's OMG notify the authorities! time.
Kids will do more damage to an apartment/home/residence than any animal could ever hope to.
I'm just tired of people with pets having such a hard time finding places to live, while people with children cannot be discriminated against in that way.
Of course, I also once lived in an apartment downstairs from an apartment with two pre-teen girls who used to rollerskate on the hardwood floors up there...I know what it sounded like, and can only imagine what those floors looked like!
Re: Yes, the should not only be able, they are allowed to do so.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:10 pm (UTC)It probably is a good thing for you.
I was fine with your wording. I didn't think it was a problem.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:11 pm (UTC)Write to your state rep and/or contact pet owner groups to lobby the state legislature.
I do resent having to put up with other people's kids...
Date: 2009-07-09 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:20 pm (UTC)Note: IANAL, Also, I'm applying logic to law, take that as you will.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:21 pm (UTC)But, being someone who could not be around children and stay sane (my life style does not facilitate child-friendliness), I was not offended at all.
Your best bet is to leave out the "no children" part, giving a chance for those who do have children to respond (as is the intent of the law), but obviously select the roommate who would be more comfortable. It's a little redundant, but a good way to stay out of discriminatory trouble.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:22 pm (UTC)"Licensed real estate brokers, managing agents, lessees, sub-lessees, or assignees of such dwellings, commercial space or land are covered by M.G.L. c 151B, s.4" (emphasis mine)
You, as I understand it, are a lessee. Therefore the law does indeed include you, if I read it correctly.
Members of this, or any, community are free to debate ad infinitum the abstract question of "should a person be allowed to say 'no kids' in a roommate-seeking post?" However, as a matter of actual codified state law, the fact is that such a statement is illegal. Think it should be legal? Fine, you're entitled to hold that opinion. But as with anything else, deliberately breaking the law as an attempt to make a statement is, well, a suboptimal way of getting your message across. If you want the law changed, talk to your duly elected governmental representative.
(n.b.: I understand that the OP is not "deliberately breaking the law as an attempt to make a statement." I put that in there to make my position crystal clear.)
The law against housing discrimination based on family status did not come into existence in a vacuum. It was crafted due to a perceived need for such laws: partly because of the lead-paint issue, partly because of the sheer shortage of living space in the Boston area, and partly because there will always be assholes in our world.
I agree with the other posters who say that kids can damage a home just as much as, or more than, a cat or dog; and therefore it seems silly, by some lights, to ban discrimination based on kids but allow discrimination based on pets. However, as others have pointed out, children are generally regarded as human beings, who have more rights than animals. A child grows up to be a taxpayer, a contributing member of society, and, one hopes, a person who knows better than to pee on the rug. A dog, not so much. And in any case, that's a straw man. The question of whether "no pets" is discriminatory according to law is irrelevant to the discussion of whether "no kids" is discriminatory according to law.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:25 pm (UTC)That being said, I think in a roommate situation it is perfectly OK to indicate whether or not children are welcome. For landlords, there's that pesky legal thing. (EDIT: Although it seems that, according to a previous comment, it is also a pesky legal thing for you! Sad.)
I would kill for childfree housing. I just can't stand the noise, and I'd pay extra to avoid it. (I feel the same way about incessant dog barking too.)
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:27 pm (UTC)Easier to do what everybody is already doing.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:32 pm (UTC)Re: Easier to do what everybody is already doing.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:36 pm (UTC)Of course, a person with kids is astronomically unlikely to answer an ad of type "room available in multiple-person apartment" anyway, so it's largely moot.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:37 pm (UTC)Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:38 pm (UTC)MGL ch 151b sec 4 para 6 (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/151b-4.htm) says:
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:44 pm (UTC)Its not just about the damage
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:46 pm (UTC)that kind of cuts down on couples, families, communes, and the like... in a fair, and hopefully legal fashion.
#
Have you considered calling 311?
Date: 2009-07-09 05:48 pm (UTC)Re: Easier to do what everybody is already doing.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:51 pm (UTC)uhhh... I apologized and said the room was taken.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:53 pm (UTC)OTOH, since I like apartments with hardwood floors, that would seem to make that argument effect me less, and it doesn't...
no subject
Date: 2009-07-09 05:54 pm (UTC)It might have something to do with the fact that you can't really unload a child on someone if you're looking for an apartment.
Re: Easier to do what everybody is already doing.
Date: 2009-07-09 05:57 pm (UTC)I understand that saying 2 people is tricky because a couple might want to rent just one BR, but 4?