Fair Housing Brings Change To Property Descriptions
It is the policy of the NYC Housing Authority to provide equal housing opportunities for all qualified applicants and residents.
In New York City, there should be no housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, familial status, marital status, partnership status, military status, disability, lawful occupation, lawful source of income, alienage or citizenship status, or on the grounds that a person is a victim of domestic violence, dating violence or stalking. These laws are extremely important & I have been able to fall back on them many times over the years when working with owners. For example, an owner once told me that she didn't want me to rent her apartment to any Koreans. She said that she, herself, was Korean, so what she was doing wasn't illegal! She "loves the Korean people" but didn't want any of them living in her apartment. I was shocked! I thought that kind of stuff only happened in bad Lifetime movies, not in real life! But I digress...
Despite at least two or three hours of Fair Housing Training that NYC brokers must take each year, evidently some members of the brokerage community have not figured out that saying "Family Friendly" in a property description is ILLEGAL.
We learned in Fair Housing that by saying "Family-Friendly," we are discriminating - for example, we may accidentally be discriminating against a single person who happens to want a huge apartment in a building with a playroom. So any mention of "child," "children," or "family-sized apartments" are violations of Fair Housing Law.
We also can not list school districts in property descriptions. Customers need to check www.nyc.gov for more information.
Likewise, saying "Fabulous Bachelor/Bachelorette Pad" is illegal. What if a family of four wanted to live in an open loft with outdoor space, a wet bar and a hot tub?
Today we received a new list of over 200 banned words, sayings and descriptions that can no longer go into any property ads. Most of them were self explanatory...
But there were some things in the list that caught me off guard. We can't say "No Students," "Board approval required," "Shares," "Walking distance," or "Working."
This creates some frustration. I have had several listings in co-op buildings that don't allow students. You must be a working professional to live in the building. They want the person living in the apartment to be able to afford the apartment on their own. No co-signers or guarantors are allowed. "Board approval is required." Now I will field an extra 50 phone calls from people who don't qualify for the building. Even though my description says "no guarantors or co-signers," students who have their own money call anyway, thinking that they can just hand over a lump sum of money to avoid the guarantor / co-signer rule. Not in this building, sorry to waste your time!
Additionally, there are many buildings and private owners that don't allow "shares" - two unrelated people to live in the same apartment. So no more advertising tiny fifth floor walk up one bedrooms with a wall up in the living room to create a 2nd bedroom as "perfect for shares." Too bad I can't just say "perfect for two people who want to be room-mates" - "people" is on the list also (as are "couples.")
Then there becomes "walking distance," which we can no longer use. By saying "walking distance," I would be discriminating against those who are unable to walk. Hopefully I can still use "close proximity" to public transportation.
The buzzword that really made me crazy, though was "No Smokers". Since when did smokers become a protected class according to fair housing rules?
In case you're wondering some other words we can't use:
"Nanny's Room" (implies children)
"quiet tenants"
"quiet neighborhood"
"secure"
Now more than ever there is more pressure on the apartment seeker to really read between the lines.
You'd be surprised how many buyers and renters ask "what is the ethnic makeup of the building?" My response: "there's a great mix of studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms and combination of larger units in this building, so you a great cross-section of the population." When pressed by customers who are annoyed that I dodged their question, I encourage them to walk around the block and neighborhood, sit in the lobby or wait by the subway if they want to get a feel for the area.
Thank you for not asking me whether the neighborhood is "safe." My response will be for you to please "visit www.nyc.gov" where you can view the local precinct's crime statistics.
Fair Housing Laws are extremely, extremely necessary, but at times I wonder if maybe the pendulum has swung a bit too far?
Comments (26)
Who precisely created this list and what makes you think that it reflects the anti-discrimination laws? My guess would be that the the lawyer who drafted this list was more concerned about legal liability for agent's LIES than for discrimination. If the broker doesn't provide information, then the broker won't provide mis-information.
Posted by Anonymous | March 11, 2009 9:31 AM
I thought it was silly when I went to the fair housing law seminar, as required, and I think it is even sillier to see how they expanded it.
Soon, we wont be able to talk at all.
Posted by Noah | March 11, 2009 9:37 AM
Can you publish the whole list? This seems a bit ridiculous.
Posted by Be | March 11, 2009 9:52 AM
I was quite sympathetic up until the very last sentence. This kind of nonsense is the inevitable consequence of a government entity put in charge of dictating to an owner on what grounds he must accept or deny tenants. It's *his* damn building. If he wants to rent only to one-eyed WWII veterans with Swedish ancestry, that is his moral right. You may not like his choices, you may think his choices will in fact lose him money, and you may be correct, but you (and all the little "fair housing" bureaucrats) are morally irrelevant because you don't own it.
There is a word for a system of nominal private propoerty but in which real power over it has been transferred to government bureaucrats in service of a supposed higher purpose: fascism.
Posted by Eric Dennis | March 11, 2009 10:04 AM
Insanity! While I don't agree with Mr. Dennis that people should be allowed to discriminate at will, there is no reason to hamstring sellers and their agents to such a degree.
Noah: Do you think this will have any impact on sales activity in the city, and how might it impact certain neighborhoods or property types?
Posted by OT | March 11, 2009 10:20 AM
honestly, NO. How are they going to enforce this and what will the penalty be? to edit the description?
You'll still see plenty of it. It may make the employing brokerage firm try to educate more on it, or add that task to a salaried employee's job list to monitor it and request changes. But doubtful this has any effect on anything. Just a good story mostly.
Posted by Noah | March 11, 2009 10:25 AM
If all listings simply contain pictures, floor plans, maps and financials, that solves most of the issues. We always scream over-the-top discrimination until we are discriminated against.
Posted by NotInterested | March 11, 2009 10:34 AM
Noah,
How about "pet friendly"? Is that description banned, too, as that discriminates against people without pets, lol?
These banned words just make more work for all of us looking for an apartment. We will have to contact a broker or owner instead of just reading an ad and eliminating an apartment as unsuitable.
I just love this new big brother philosophy ushered in by our new federal government. It is only going to get worse...
Posted by lisa | March 11, 2009 10:39 AM
These rules seem ridiculous; all they accomplish is to keep information from tenants.
Regardless of governmental efforts to interfere, private landlords can and will make sub silencio rental decisions based on impermissible factors.
Anti-discrimination laws in housing is a relic of the civil rights era, where such criteria were necessary because of widesprea abuses. Today, landlords are economically rational, and they will rent to tenants they perceive as "good risks" while avoiding those who, for whatever reason, seem "risky."
Welcome to the NYC nanny state.
Posted by Derek | March 11, 2009 12:01 PM
Toes, the more "Fair Housing Laws are extremely, extremely necessary" the more the pendulm swings "a bit too far". Get used to the new order and grow up.
Noah, Ive been reading your site for years now. This toes character is consistently irrelevant and often inaccurate.
Anyone else agree?
Posted by Anonymous | March 11, 2009 1:03 PM
Clarification: we can't say "no smokers" but we can say "building/owner has a no smoking policy." So there are ways to work around the buzzwords - it will just take more time/caution when writing a description to figure out what we can and can't say.
Posted by Toes | March 11, 2009 1:07 PM
To Anonymous at the top - you're probably right - the less we say in property descriptions, the less likely we are to get sued.
Posted by Toes | March 11, 2009 1:17 PM
To Anonymous who is bashing Toes, I for one enjoy her writing and I too have been reading for a long time.
If you have been reading for years, why are you still posting as Anonymous? I don't think anyone who can't identify themselves should have their comment taken seriously.
Posted by OT | March 11, 2009 2:19 PM
Hey OT this is "Anonymous the Toe Basher". You may enjoy Toes' posts but that doesent make them relevant.
And no one is "bashing" any one..its a blog..relax.
Posted by jim m | March 11, 2009 4:19 PM
Hi Anon / Jim M, my post was so irrelevent that two major news publications are writing stories on Fair Housing. Real estate agents are working harder than ever to abide by Fair Housing laws. The impact on the consumer is to be determined.
Posted by Toes | March 11, 2009 5:06 PM
I'm a huge fan of this site, and I enjoy Noah, Toes, and other contributors' insightful posts. Please continue blogging and keep up the good work. Thanks!
Posted by mc | March 11, 2009 5:48 PM
I too would like to know where this list comes from.
As an attorney I have been told many times over the years that something was illegal based upon somebody reading guidelines that had been published by a non-governmental entity. People need to remember that these are guidelines, you must refer to the applicable statute or underlying body of law.
I have studied the law and have never seen anything mentioned about "walking distance"...
Posted by Anonymous | March 11, 2009 10:04 PM
(hope this does not come through twice)
TOES -- nice relevant post ;-) but I think the real point is that firms are advised to avoid risk by withholding useful information *that is lawful*.
Take that Family Friendly thing, which is such an urban myth it should be on Snopes. When the Times ran an article with this same (mis) information, an HUD wrote a letter saying "Family Friendly" was NOT a Fair Housing no-no (as recounted by Doug Heddings with links): http://www.truegotham.com/archives/a-brokers-job-fair-housing-laws-too-strictly-interpreted.html
Dollars to donuts, "walking distance" is of the same validity, as suggested by your 10:04 PM Anon. Lawyers make money advising firms how not to get sued. Firms (should) make money by providing helpful and lawful info to clients. Common sense and client service suffer from the conflict.
If you want to have fun, ask an overly careful lawyer if you can refer to a neighborhood such as CHINAtown...
Posted by Sandy Mattingly | March 12, 2009 10:07 AM
oops - dropped a word: that should be "an HUD LAWYER wrote a letter saying ..."
Posted by Sandy Mattingly | March 12, 2009 11:36 AM
I've been reading about nyc real estate for 25 years, and find Toes to be the most amusing read ever. She may miss the mark from time to time, but that makes her more amusing IMO.
Posted by old timer | March 12, 2009 3:41 PM
Seems like with the results of the result major election, we should start rescinding all these devisive political correctness rules. Or do we have to wait until a Native American gets elected? That could take a while, an Indian might win first...
Posted by atomicno13 | March 16, 2009 5:47 PM
Ms. Toes, your feathers are rightly ruffled at the micro-micro management of language that makes it difficult to accurately describe what would appeal to and attract a tenant since they truly don't mean to "discriminate" as generally perceived. Only the most excruciatingly sensitive politically correct person would harbor those feelings.
But then you write: "The buzzword that really made me crazy, though was 'No Smokers'. Since when did smokers become a protected class according to fair housing rules?"
Regardless of your clarification of the FHA-approved use of "no smoking policy" it can't be ignorned that YOU took special and personal offense at not being able to say "No SMOKERS" on the grounds of CLASS. That is quite different than warning that a smoker can't SMOKE there. While smokers might not be a recognized class it's no different -- in terms of a certain legal lifestyle -- than saying "No gays" who are also not a federally recognized protected class.
You end: "Fair Housing Laws are extremely, extremely necessary, but at times I wonder if maybe the pendulum has swung a bit too far?"
Imagine that. Help it along some more why don't you.
Lastly, the biased hand you tip in conjunction with your last name leads me to ask if you're any relation to Richard Toes?
Posted by Audrey Silk | March 17, 2009 6:54 AM
These laws are not necessary for two reasons.
One. They remove the choice of the landlord to specify who he / she wants to do business with.
Two. By making words 'bad' there is an implication that the meaning of the words is bad. By reducing the words you can use, you make it very difficult to vocalise a different perspective.
Next step - Newspeak.
Posted by f0ul | March 17, 2009 8:23 AM
Real estate property ups and downs can bring chance in the country’s economy. Many real estate agents are serving the people in India, but people who really want online help, can visit this Indian property website and get to know about the current property rates.
http://www.onlineghar.com/
Posted by Realestate agents | May 20, 2009 3:30 AM
Hello all,
There is a lot of mention in this posting that is simply not the case. It's true that a lot of real estate brokers would prefer not use key "trigger" words that may cause the agent to be "investigated" by a fair housing organization. However, these are words that attract investigators to test your practices rather than words that are simply illegal to use in an ad. Yes! Some words and statements are illegal, but many of the things mentioned above are not. I.E. Family friendly is not illegal to place in an ad; however, a fair housing investigation might ensue to determine if you discriminate against gays, etc. Single individuals don't have any protection under federal nor NY laws. That's not what's meant by familial status.
Posted by Chip | June 5, 2009 12:37 AM
NO SMOKERS is my pet peeve. NO SMOKING is fine and dandy; but you have to have a huge pair to ask that someone not even be a smoker at all. (I had a landlord get all up in my face about smoking *at the curb* of the public sidewalk, telling me that smoke might blow in his house)
Posted by Kathleen | June 7, 2009 5:23 PM