As successful property managers, we quickly learn the importance of streamlining our policies and procedures, by establishing methods to save both time and effort. The profit margin in this business is tight, and if we fail to employ standardization and time-saving strategies, we’ll never succeed. I’ve noticed the average burnout time for most new property managers seems to be about 2 years. That’s how long it takes to realize it’s not a money-making business, unless we have policies and procedures in place that make the job doable.
The finishing touches have been applied, and it’s ready to go! A brand new class entitled “What’s New in Fair Housing: Cases, Settlements & Trends for Property Managers” is the result of many months of research, analysis, and compilation of information about the steadily-evolving trends and cases around the Federal Fair Housing Act, today. As a property manager, you’re undoubtedly aware of the huge impact this body of law has on our industry. Still, you may find yourself confused about such things as
- The differences between a “service animal,” “therapy animal,” “companion animal,” and “assistance animal.”
- What you can and cannot ask a prospective resident about his or her disability.
- Whether you could be held liable for a discriminatory statement made by someone else.
- Whether you can continue to use the same tenant qualification criteria you’ve always used, without risking a fair housing claim.
This course was designed as a 3-hour program, but can be extended to as many as 6 hours, depending on the needs of your organization. Believe me, there’s plenty of information to fill the time!
Not only will this class be an eye-opener for all who attend, you’ll actually take away some very practical tools for use in your day-to-day business – stuff you can put to work for your company right away!
Want more information? Ask away, by leaving a comment below!
Hot off the presses! The U.S. Department of Justice just announced a settlement with a Reno, NV apartment complex regarding the management’s treatment of residents with assistance animals. From the DOJ’s press release:
“The department’s complaint had alleged that the owners, employees and management company of Rosewood Park Apartments violated the Fair Housing Act by limiting individuals with certain assistance animals to a particular section of Rosewood Park Apartments; subjecting such individuals to pet fees; requiring assistance animals to be licensed or certified; and barring companion or uncertified service dogs altogether.”
The settlement in this case was $127,500, payable to a family who was denied housing (because of their assistance animal), Continue reading
Just today, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued its “final rule” on disparate impact under the federal Fair Housing Act.
This final rule responds to a heated battle between housing providers (broadly defined to include all parties involved in selling, renting, insuring, lending, and zoning of residential property in the U.S.) and fair housing advocates that ended up in front of the Supreme Court last year. (Just this month, the case was withdrawn, presumably in response to HUD’s published position on the issue.)
What is “Disparate Impact?”
Section 100.500(a) provides that a “discriminatory effect” occurs where a facially neutral practice actually or predictably results in a discriminatory effect on a group of persons protected by the Act (that is, has a disparate impact), or on the community as a whole on the basis of a protected characteristic (perpetuation of segregation). Any facially neutral action, e.g., laws, rules, decisions, standards, policies, practices, or procedures, including those that allow for discretion or the use of subjective criteria, may result in a discriminatory effect actionable under the Fair Housing Act and this rule. For examples of court decisions regarding policies or practices that may have a discriminatory effect, please see the preamble to the proposed rule at 76 FR 70924-25.
Simply stated, disparate impact occurs when a housing provider’s policies or actions, although neutral and non-discriminatory on their face, serve to disproportionately negatively impact a protected class of individuals, as defined under the Fair Housing Act. Continue reading
Many of our tenants (and owners, too!) have been going through some tough economic conditions in the last few years. It’s no surprise that incidences of domestic violence tend to increase when a family is suffering economic hardship. Studies show that domestic violence is three times more likely to occur when couples are experiencing high levels of economic strain. Continue reading
Rottweilers, Shepherds, and Pitbulls, Oh My!
The subject of today’s post was inspired by a recent class on accommodating the needs of residents with disabilities. As professional property managers, we know the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA) requires us to make reasonable accommodations for renters with physical or mental disabilities. Often times, these requests revolve around assistance animals (note: the term “assistance animal” is synonymous with “companion animal,” “service animal,” “therapy animal,” etc.) It is widely known within the property management industry that accommodating such requests is generally considered “reasonable,” under FFHA.
What happens when the animal is a “dangerous breed” of dog?
Stories relating to incidents of deadly animal attacks on humans make national news on a fairly regular basis. As many of us know, some insurance companies keep lists of dog breeds they consider “dangerous,” Continue reading
In the area of screening tenants for residential rental properties, property managers often like to think of themselves as great judges of character. After all, as a property manager, you deal with prospective tenants from all walks of life, don’t you? A few years in the business is likely to give us the feeling that we instinctively know who’s going to be a good tenant, and who isn’t.
Once upon a time…
A few days ago, I participated in a discussion around security deposits. The issue at hand was whether a landlord (property manager) could increase a security deposit for a single tenant, and not run afoul of fair housing laws. I maintain that YES, in Nevada, you can charge different deposit amounts for different tenants.
This question comes up frequently, and the response might surprise you.
“Can a landlord refuse to rent to a convicted sex offender, and can a homeowners association have rules and regulations prohibiting owner/landlords from renting to sex offenders?”
Thoughts on Tenant Selection
Last week, my blog addressed a few of the more common questions raised by Nevada Property Managers. This week, I’ll address a couple of questions received from a California landlord, as they pertain to managing residential rental property throughout the USA.
I am a landlord renting out a single detached home in California. I have received 5 applications to rent in the last couple of weeks, and I have two questions about the rental process. Continue reading