Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 6, 2018, 10:19 AM
Town Square
Menlo Park bans landlords from discriminating against rent subsidy recipients
Original post made on Jul 6, 2018
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 6, 2018, 10:19 AM
Comments (4)
a resident of Menlo Park: Felton Gables
on Jul 6, 2018 at 12:43 pm
The statement that landlords can increase rent as often or as much is not in fact true. They cannot increase rent more than the lowest priced rental unit in the building. This could lead to rental increases being levied at a higher rent than would otherwise happen for long term tenants if landlords are made to increase their workload to do business with the housing rules. It will help some and could hurt many.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jul 6, 2018 at 8:38 pm
I have had family members accept Section 8 vouchers in the past. They were guaranteed that if the tenant damaged the property it would be covered by the program. In fact the tenants did do several thousands of dollars of structural and cosmetic damage all documented with before and after pictures. When they submitted the claim it was denied and they were out the cost of the repairs. That is why I would never accept Section 8 vouchers. It is not the people it is the program that does not meet it's commitments and poses too big of a risk.
This is not an isolated issue, I know two other people who have stopped accepting Section 8 in the past 10 years because of similar issues. They need to fix the program before they can expect people to want to accept Section 8 vouchers
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 8, 2018 at 9:13 am
I own rental property in California. I have a condo in the East Bay and I used to rent to Section 8 tenants because Alameda County stood behind the damages caused by the tenants. Then Alameda County changed its policy. The problem with Section 8 tenants is that they not held accountable for the damages they cause.
So what if you win a case in court and BTW Alameda County hands down judgments based on not who is at fault but rather that the Landlord can afford it. And in those rare instance where the Landlord wins then the problem is collecting on the judgement. Good Luck with that. So after one substantial loss I did not accept any more Section 8 tenants. The only thing that keeps tenants from wrecking your place is a deposit equal to 2 months rent. Now they have a stake in the game.
I think the Council really blundered on that one. It makes as much sense as Prop 47.
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Jul 8, 2018 at 9:20 am
Also, the prohibition of discrimination based on income is a joke. If the income stream is illegal or at risk, like a day trader, the landlord can't be expected to assume that risk. I have rented to just about anyone who had a paycheck and whose income was at least 3x the rent. But I would never rent to anyone whom can not verify a legitimate source of income or whose income is at risk.
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.