Comments

1
How about we just expunge their records? Hell, get rid of all records. No youth jail! No more cops!
2
I see they're hanging the sex offenders out to dry. They know that they don't want to get the Mommy Blogs of Seattle angry with them. (The Mommy blogs love to be angry about stuff)

We apparently have lots of sex offenders in our neighborhood, which doesn't bother me. But it's one of the reasons why I quit nextdoor and left all my neighborhood Facebook pages. That's all they want to talk about. That and density and the police. Based on those pages, I wouldn't want to have a potluck with any of my neighbors.
3
Seems like background of prison is reasonable to look into.
4
Or they could move someplace not as impossible for ordinary people to live in without stressing day in and day out about the basics of life
5

How about the city require the YIMBY's and socialists to take in all the junkies and sex offenders. Come on, SJW's, do you support equity or don't you?
6

As a former/recovering landlord myself, I'm disappointed that one serious potential issue not raised in this article is that if the tenant that you accept to live in your building despite the known criminal record, including maybe a violent crime such as rape, child molestation, and/or murder, goes and rapes, attacks, murders, whatevers another tenant or family member or guest, guaranteed the guest will sue the landlord for having allowed a known violent ex-con on the property. This same thing has happened to employers - being sued by an employee who was attacked/raped by a fellow employee who had a known criminal record.

So while yes, people who have served their time deserve a chance at a fresh start and a place to live, if landlords are going to be forced by law to accept a risky/potentially dangerous and violent tenant they would otherwise not have accepted, landlords should be shielded by law from potential lawsuits associated with the risk they were forced to take. If taking on that risk is a question of fairness re the dignity and rights of the ex-con, it's also a question of fairness that the landlord not be punished for their good deed.

7
What if they're convicted of sexual assault, should it be easier for them to get housing?

I mean, Criminals Are All Good until they commit a crime that you're worried you could be a victim of.
8
@5 I'm all in favor of that, with one slight change. Us Socialist SJWs would love to do that, and if we can just have the power to foreclose on any rental property we want, and the city pass an income tax on any corporation doing business in the city to pay for it. Taking from the rich, to give to the poor, is the core of our morality.
9
Good point @#6.

But this shifts more risk toward non-criminal tenants- who are often average whites. Again, working class whites thrown under the bus for PoC and guilt-ridden, virtue-signaling upper-class whites- the Democratic parties constituency.

It remains a fact that "PoC" commit more violent crimes than whites and Asians and predate on whites and Asians at a high rate. Especially violent crimes, like rape. This will only make it easier for them to commit crimes, and will squeeze the white working class yet again. The result being, again, white genocide.

10
I think this is in theory a good idea but given how terribly Seattle manages its meager resources to help people find affordable housing who qualify, I'm more than a little concerned that underpaid staff and bureaucratic lapses are going to lead to something tragic happening. The city will be on the hook, yes, but the damage will have been done. The likelihood may be low statistically speaking, so I'm hopeful this is just gaming out a worst case scenario.

More though my concern is more about practice, given again how the city performs its duties around these services already (which is to say slowly and badly). This policy is based on tort law cases, which is by no means any real world example of how this is going to work. This seems like a black box attempt at something there's no real structure for and may not even be meaningful in its on the ground impact.

11
@8 Hey look another SJW that wants to help, as long as they aren't actually affected.
12
Um, Tiwaz buddy, I sure as hell made no mention of race in my post, nor, trust me, do I give a shit about the race of the parties involved. When I was a landlord, I tried to screen out people that were bad news ie loud, partiers, generally irresponsible folks, people that would potentially wreck the place that I'd worked so hard to fix up and make appealing, people who would try to stiff me on the rent, etc. That's what landlords focus on. Where I live (Maine), the population is literally nearly 100% white, and I can tell you, I was burned over and over again. Ripped off. Place trashed. Yes, even by white people!

My post, again, was about people who own a building and have several tenants and the risk you as the landlord are being made to take in potentially putting your tenants, their kids, family members, friends, pets, guests at risk in knowingly renting to a rapist, murderer, child molester, thief, etc. I don't know many people who would be okay with living literally next door to, for example, a child sex offender, or just a general rapist, especially if they themselves had been raped or molested. And if god forbid something awful does ensue, the victim will seek counsel - we do live in about the most litigious country on the planet - and guaranteed, counsel will automatically name the landlord in the lawsuit for having rented to an ex-con with a known violent background. The landlord, who was forced by law to rent to the perpetrator, would then have to hire their own attorney to try to defend themselves. Something like that could easily be completely financially ruinous. It's again, a simple question of fairness - landlords should be shielded by law from any lawsuits brought about as a result of the law that required them to rent to the ex-con. So long as the place had adequate door and window locks - barring stuff like that, without such a law, there is no way in hell any landlord can reasonably be expected to take on the potential catastrophic risk.

I do feel for the folks that are trying to turn their lives around, if that is what they are trying to do. Recidivism rates, however, are sadly, notoriously high (a quick internet check just now says that 56% on average are re-arrested within one year of release, 67.8% within 3 years, 76% within 5 years). It's tragic - sickening. But I do not want to be brought down along with them, just because I was kind enough/naive enough to rent to them.



Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.