So basically they're saying that if a white heterosexual male is the first to apply, then all the rules are out and they're ok with folks being discriminated against

Special move-in deals based on tenant's employers is discrimination.

@1 yea, we get it, you're a troll. Now fuck off.

@1, no, they are saying that landlords can't give special deals to tech workers, starbucks corporate, etc. This is because by offering a deal to a specific group you are also saying "if you aren't in this group, you need to pay the "normal" rate, which is more expensive". Those deals are total horseshit, and you should not get any assistance based on your line of occupation. Assistance should be assessed based on need, which is based on hard facts like a person's income and dependents. And, there is no such thing as discrimination against white males.

@3 No seriously, read the article. It specifically says that the new rule can ignored but only if the person being favored is part of a protected class. So that sounds like bias

@4 Again, read the fucking article. If a restaraunt simply refuses to serve white males that's not discrimination?

"The legislation exempts landlords from this rule if choosing someone other than the first qualified renter would "affirmatively further fair housing.""

I agree that the First in Time provision - especially with its exception to promote ("further") fair housing - is problematic, despite its good intentions. Everything else about this seems quite reasonable. I'm especially glad that move-in deals for employees of certain corporations will be banned.

@6 I did "read the fucking article" and nowhere in it is there a discussion of restaurants prohibiting white males, so I'm not even going to comment. As for the quote you provide, the supreme court just ruled in favor of affirmative action practices with the UT case, and this is pretty similar. You don't have an argument that anyone but Trump and his Trumpies would support. I am a white male. I have never, and will never be discriminated against in any way that even approaches what most non-white males will face on a daily basis. It's called white male privilege, and it exists.

*or anyone who is anything other than white and male, for that matter.

wow. while I don't think these breaks should be illegal, i can see the problem. Employment is not a protected class, but it could possibly further the societal well being to discourage such discrimination. But note, discrimination is not illegal unless it is a protected class.

But to say that landlords do not have a right to rent to who they think is best, be it job, demeanor, hours worked, hobbies and interests etc (4 kids who like to party versus a serious student who is at school all day for example) Of course ,race ,family status age are all protected, so fair enough.

But I just don't see how they can enforce or expect landlords to follow this rule. I mean, do they have to cancel advertising and refuse to talk to anyone else once they get one application? Then start all over if they don't qualify? Are we going to have a mad scramble to be first on any apartment that comes up? That is ridiculous.

The "first in time" provision seems very problematic. Rental housing is not like retail, where anyone who walks in and seemingly can pay the listed price for an item gets it. There is a lot more to a tenant than their income and even their credit score.

Often we will get several applicants all with similar credentials. In my experience the most valuable information about a prospective tenant is the credit score and what a prior landlord says. It may take a couple of days to get in touch with the prior landlord - Am I supposed to just take the first one who appears "kind of" qualified instead of trying to collect the information that will really help me to make a good decision? If we are forced to make decisions based on the information that a tenant can provide up front (income and credit scores) this will overwhelmingly favor applicants with more money. I've had a number of occasions where the person with the lower income or a problematic credit report turned out to be a great tenant (and got the apartment based on their references). They would have no chance under a strict "fist-in-time" policy. .

Oops. Make that "first-in-time." A "fist-in-time" policy would be a whole different idea. And nice job not linking to the text of the proposed ordinance. That is just lazy reporting.

@10 -
It's worse than you thought. After you make an offer to the first person on the list (and if you need additional information from them, they have 72 hours to get it to you), they have 48 hours to decide. THEN you can go to the next one. This is going to result in unnecessary vacancies as it will take literally weeks in some cases to get a place rented. See text of bill here:

http://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationD…

The result of this is that landlords are going to start requiring near-perfect credit scores and high salaries as qualifications - it will be too expensive to take a chance on "qualifying" someone who may not work out and having to start over.

@11 I agree with #11 The first in line rule is going a bit too far.

@14

it will take literally weeks in some cases to get a place rented

This is what we call "entirely normal in the rental property business." Better than normal, actually.

There's a reason a tenant is required to give notice before moving out, you know.

This has been a time honored tradition in Seattle. We've always given deals to Boing employees. Now its just a different huge company.

@14 - of course the reason they give notice is to allow you to find a new tenant. But consider that if you don't know a tenant is moving out until 20 days before (the required notice on a month-to-month tenancy), and it takes a couple of weeks to decide on a candidate, it is very possible that you will not have the vacancy filled until after the first and end up eating a month's rent. This makes month-to-month tenancies even less palatable.

@11 says
"As a landlord, I have a right to rent to the person..."

No, Mr Capitalist Pig Landlord, you have no rights at all except to obey The Will of the People, which is what you will learn at the re-education camp.

(That's a joke but actually true in mind of Ms. Groover & her associates on City Council.)

Some days I wish we could just go back to the "good old days" of fighting with stone knives and shattered animal femurs over who got to inhabit the cave - certainly couldn't have been less fair than our current system.

@11 How much flexibility do you have to say who and who is not "qualified"? Are you able to say that if someone trashed their previous apartment that they aren't "qualified"?

It seems to me that allowing certain members of protected classes to jump the line is less about "righting a structural wrong" and instead replacing one structural wrong with another. The whole purpose of protected class legislation is to *stop* discrimination and favored treatment on the basis of those classes. (By the way, every human being is a member of one or more protected classes. "African American" isn't the protected class; "race" is, and we all belong to one or more races.) Herbold is saying it's ok to discriminate based on race (or other protected classes).

I can get behind the general thrust of the amendment -- to correct historical injustice -- but to claim it's correcting a *structural* wrong, without acknowledging its explicit bias, is a bit intellectually dishonest. I would favor a requirement that the landlord report to all tenant applicants when they decided to use this rule as a reason for the denial of their applications.