Kick some butt, Bob.

And what happens when "gut check" becomes the Law of the Land?

This shit is what happens, that's what.

Exactly @2! No to the gut check. Not now, not ever. The gut check is used to discriminate. Period. If a person qualifies to rent, they qualify to rent. I find all discrimination enraging, who do people think they are? I am so sick of bigots, in all of their forms. Discriminating against people who serve this country, ostensibly so you can have the freedom you have to be a goddamn landlord, is particularly disgusting.

@3: You discriminate all the time, so do I, so does everyone. Judgement calls about whether or not to take on a long term business relationship is not inherently bad. How our laws are defined that manage this, provide for adjudication and redress, and make it so its worthwhile to be a landlord have to be addressed.

Landlords are not your adversary, same goes for your employer.

Prosecute them, don't just slap them on the wrist with 4 digit fines. If companies want to do business here, they have no choice but to follow state rules. End of story.

@2 gut check is not the law of the land. It was a bad choice of words by the judge making a clarifying statement during oral arguement. Everyone knows there are laws against housing discrimination.

@3 The management companies should have done an individual assessment as recommended by HUD. Essentially that is why the AG went after them. The HASH vouchers are for cronically homeless, usually with substance abuse problems and in need of supportive housing services. It is reasonable to deny an applicant with these characteristics if the landlord determines there is exsessive risk. But they should have taken the time to do an individualized assessment and take a comprehensive review of the applications. The interesting thing is Federal guidelines recommend individual assessments. Seattles ordinances effectively deny the landlord this opportunity to help individuals with prior issues.

@5 excessive punitive fines do not solve the overall problem. Until the AG made an issue of this, it was not against the law. The mgt companies were denying based on source of income which is legal, but currently being addressed in the state legislature. Landlords will not have a problem with reasonable source of income legislation.