Submitted by The_other_one_2275 t3_12639pa in CambridgeMA
commentsOnPizza t1_je7fw83 wrote
I'm not sure why you started with "job". It sounds like this is just about the fact that you have kids.
Typically, landlords don't want kids in an apartment because nearly all of our housing hasn't been de-leaded. If a kid moves in, the landlord is required to remediate the lead paint in the unit at their expense. Lead paint removal might cost $10,000, the landlord has to pay your moving costs due to the remediation work, they lose any rent while the remediation work is happening, and they have to pay for your accommodations (hotel or whatnot) above what the rent is (so if the rent is $2,000 and the hotel is $3,000, you pay the hotel $2,000 and the landlord pays $1,000).
It isn't legal to discriminate against people with kids under six, but there is a huge incentive to do it.
Somerville's Tenant's Handbook (https://s3.amazonaws.com/somervillema.gov.if-us-east-1/s3fs-public/tenants-helper-handbook.pdf) is probably a good place to start.
It sounds like the brokers aren't asking about kids and you're just bringing it up. Why? They ask about your job and your response is, "I'm starting grad school, my wife works full time, and we have two kids that require expensive de-leading if you rent to me." I'm sure you're not phrasing it like that, but it seems like you're steering the conversation that way (from the way your post is phrased). You don't have to lie. You can just not bring it up and if they ask kinda deflect the issue or change the subject.
> Also, feels like they are discriminating against me, being a grad student.
Ok, this is back to the job. Landlords aren't allowed to discriminate based on source of income in Massachusetts. However, they can decide to go with a tenant with more income. I don't know what your wife's job is, but it might not be as high as others who are looking at places. It's not just proving that you can pay the rent (which can never actually be proven since circumstances change). Someone else might seem more likely to be able to pay the rent because they have a higher income. Often landlords like to see 3-4x the rent as income.
If you're applying to cheaper places, they probably have a huge stack of applicants. I'm guessing if you looked at the Zinc Apartments or something like that, you would have less trouble. The problem is that new buildings are expensive in Cambridge - a 2-bed place there is $4,300-4,600/mo. If you're looking at places at $2,800, there's going to be a ton of competition. It's hard to know whether it's discrimination or random.
You can create a complaint with MCAD, but I've heard that they're pretty backed up.
If the issue isn't cost, the new professionally managed buildings won't have lead issues (since they were built after lead paint was made illegal). If cost is an issue, maybe don't bring up kids until after a lease is signed. However, I should note that if the landlord has to de-lead the unit, you probably won't be able to move in on time. Once the existing tenant moves out, they'll have to remove the lead. I don't know how long that will take, but it will likely require you to move into some temporary housing until your unit is available - just so that you plan for that.
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_je9lg00 wrote
There is not a single landlord that would say that they know lead exists. You also sign things saying that you understand that the landlord has no idea if lead exists.
CobaltCaterpillar t1_jego45w wrote
When I first rented, i was SO naive on this issue. I eventually talked with a lead inspector, and it was eye opening. What I learned:
(1) BASICALLY ALL houses/units that are sufficiently old and haven't been remediated have lead. I naively thought that any lead issues would be solved in a big remodel. NOPE! The older a house is, the probability of it having some lead approaches 100%.
(2) For example, original windows are one of the most problematic/dangerous (opening/closing window or doors grinds lead paint -> lead paint dust contaminating all the surfaces/wood around it).
(3) Buyers, real estate people etc... view a positive lead test as a scarlet letter. NO ONE TESTS FOR LEAD because NO ONE WANTS A POSITIVE TEST ON THE PERMANENT RECORD. People take no test to mean may not have lead, but it's closer to the opposite!
(4) It's not obvious where lead is or isn't until you get an inspector and they use the scanner.
(5) The way lead home tests seem to happen is that a kid will have elevated lead on a routine blood test, THEN the home will get inspected, and then a remediation process starts.
(6) Real estate agents etc... will straight up lie to you.
(7) Sellers won't accept your home bid etc... unless you waive your right to test for lead before closing. (Even though that's illegal.)
(8) Most everyone seems to ignore or pooh pooh the issue.
(9) I'm not an expert. Everything above may have serious errors (i.e. go talk to a real expert, not me)!
The_other_one_2275 OP t1_je89kj9 wrote
Thanks. I am not offering the info about kids. They always ask “how many people and what do they do for work”. So I’m forced to say two are kids. I do understand the lead issue but my kids are older than 6.
pelican_chorus t1_je9rl5i wrote
Note the landlord is not required to immediately de-lead the house. Rather, the only have to if the tenant asks them to.
Plenty of people who are on good terms with their landlords and are not too worried about lead operate under a "don't ask don't tell" policy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments