Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

trimolius t1_ja9pcn2 wrote

Reply to comment by Middle-Example6618 in “lawyers, law students, or anyone working for a law firm not allowed.” by gooserider

Is that true? That doesn’t seem like it could possibly be true.

26

Middle-Example6618 t1_ja9r6pk wrote

If it's a two family, and you live in the other unit, you arent subject to the restriction of the Fair Housing Act. You can also refuse to rent to anyone with kids.

So, in essense, yes.

94

username_elephant t1_jacb8d9 wrote

Of course, the same does not apply to large building's where the owner simply occupies a single unit out of many. So it's not just about owner occupancy.

−6

Middle-Example6618 t1_jacdfjc wrote

Of course, thats what I said. Now you explain the same thing and claim you were correcting me?

Wow, you can read! Good Show Son! GOLD STAR.

−4

username_elephant t1_jae6hhb wrote

Where, in the post I replied to, did you say anything about any owner occupied buildings other than 2 unit buildings? You literally only talk about exactly 2 units. I was just saying the part you left unsaid. And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you.

But thanks for taking the opportunity to be an asshole to someone. Making the internet better one comment at a time...

1

stevied05 t1_ja9rejw wrote

Lawyer here. It’s somewhat true, actually. There are limitations for 4 or 2 units or less, but there are still some rights that remain as discrimination, like discriminating based on race.

Check out the chart on page 120

84

trimolius t1_ja9soau wrote

Interesting. This seems incredibly random. Own a two family? Discriminate against everyone, it’s no problem. 3 decker? Nope. Also if kids bother you, feel free to discriminate, as long as you’re elderly.

39

stevied05 t1_ja9szsr wrote

It’s very, very strange. MA otherwise has among the tenant friendliest laws in the country.

29

trimolius t1_ja9t93p wrote

That’s what I’ve always heard so I’m surprised this never came up in conversation!

6

poillord t1_jab4xou wrote

You heard wrong, though everyone seems to say it around here. Massachusetts is much more landlord friendly than the rest of New England, though less so than the south.

2

trimolius t1_jabhvhm wrote

If you feel like elaborating I’m interested to know in what other ways it’s less tenant friendly than the rest of New England!

6

GoatNumber12 t1_jadf93p wrote

Isn't this pretty standard though? That is what I learned in property when we briefly read about red lining and Shelley.

I know MA has tenant friendly laws, and compared to that its real weird. But compared to the national standard allowing that type of discrimination is par for the course.

1

poillord t1_jab4rb5 wrote

No it doesnt, it’s mid in terms of the bias, and much more landlord friendly than the rest of New England. That’s just something people say assuming Massachusetts’s liberal reputation without knowing how the laws vary.

−2

stevied05 t1_jabicd5 wrote

Are you a lawyer? Cause you’re wrong. I litigate in housing court in MA all the time and it’s super tenant friendly….

21

sdzk t1_jaa5n2z wrote

4 units or less and you live there

2

shapesize t1_jacjk2l wrote

In the full text section about not renting to families, why is it illegal for them to advertise no kids or refuse to show? It seems like a waste of everyone’s time to not put that in an ad, have to show it, just to be rejected (legally) if you like it. Am I misunderstanding that?

1

IDCFFSGTFO t1_jacajtm wrote

You know we once fought a war because people really didn't want soldiers living in their houses.

3

hamakabi t1_jacijpg wrote

nah, we once fought a war because Americans didn't want to pay taxes.

1