Should rental housing discriminate against RSOs?

[ha98ed14]

A family in our complex was just kicked out (3 days to leave notice) because the "dad" was a registered sex offender. I guess he was not officially on the lease, but had lived there for some time, longer than I have and I have been here 3 years.

They were evicted because a new woman (a mom) who recently moved in did a search online for RSOs and found the guy and then noticed a clause in her lease that said that no RSOs or people with felony drug convictions would be allowed to live in the complex. FWIW, those are new rules. Leases signed before Aug 09 don't have that clause. I believe the management company put it in there so that they could evict people who committed crimes while living in their rentals, not to evict people with criminal records who were already living here. But based on this clause, the mom said, "He goes or I go!" The management company kicked him out, and I guess the whole family decided to move.

On one hand, I am glad he is gone. Another part of me thinks, "Well, they gotta live somewhere?" But truthfully, I never felt like I was in danger because his act was with a child under 14, and DD does not go anywhere by herself. But I know I would feel differently if I planned to live here when DD was 8 or 10.

So what do you think?

[vonfirmath]

In most places I have lived (rented) having someone regularly living in the house who was not on the lease would get you kicked out.

[AnnieW625]

I would want him gone too, esp. if there are lots of children in the complex. We lucked out when we bought our place because we never looked at the RSO list when we were looking to buy our home (we didn't have a kid then), but the nearest one is about a mile from us and I stay clear of his home (it's on our walking route) unless DH is with us. We have <less than 10 in a 3 mile radius of us so that's a good thing. Since we have a kid now I'll definitely know to look at the RSO list for any house we are considering in the future.

[MamaMolly]

In most places I have lived (rented) having someone regularly living in the house who was not on the lease would get you kicked out.

:yeahthat: Yup, most places don't allow for someone to live there who is not on the lease. And the fact that he was there so long works against him. Can't claim it was a temporary thing.

I don't know what is worse. The ones you know about, or the ones you don't. I don't blame the other mother in the least for bringing it to the attention of the management company, though.

[ha98ed14]

In most places I have lived (rented) having someone regularly living in the house who was not on the lease would get you kicked out.

Yeah, they seem to be cracking down on that more. In the last month, they have forced out two families for having too many people living in an apartment. One family had 2 kids with one on the way and was in a one bedroom. The other family had one child and the wife was pregnant and they told her she had to move once the baby was born. According to the Fair Housing Law, you are allowed to have 3 people in a 1 bedroom and 5 people in a 2 bedroom. Anymore than that, and the landlord can kick you out.

It didn't use to be like that when I first moved here. It was mostly single people, retired, or DINKS. But since the recession, it has been a lot more families with children, and then some of those doubled up. It's really kind of sad. I have the feeling more evictions are coming.

[gatorsmom]

I guess he was not officially on the lease, but had lived there for some time, longer than I have and I have been here 3 years.




I know NOTHING about registered sex offenders and wouldn't have a problem renting to one. However, the above quote is the thing that stood out to me. I haven't read the other replies yet, but if I was the landlord and found out there were people "unofficially" living at my rental unit, I'd be angry. They need to be on the lease- and we can certainly discuss adding them- but they can't be living there unofficially. Many leases and landlords have the same requirements for a whole bunch of good reasons. Maybe the landlord knew he'd unofficially been living there and finally got tired of warning them.

[ha98ed14]

Maybe the landlord knew he'd unofficially been living there and finally got tired of warning them.

Our "landlord" is an on site manager who lives in the complex and has an office open during business hours. I think the reason this guy got away with living here is because there was a lot of turnover in the managers for about a year. The management company never knew who was living there legit and who was doubling up because the manager kept changing.

In this case, I am 100% sure than the mom in my complex brought it to their attention that the man was an RSO and then the manager looked and didn't see him on the lease and then told him he had to leave.

But that's not my question. My question is, "Do you think people ought to be kicked out of their rental housing when other people discover they are RSOs?" I'm not sure what I think, so I wanted to know what you all thought.

[gatorsmom]

My question is, "Do you think people ought to be kicked out of their rental housing when other people discover they are RSOs?" I'm not sure what I think, so I wanted to know what you all thought.

I think it depends on what the law says. And it depends on the type of sex crime they committed. That is something I'd ask in the interview process, if I could legally. Which, again, I have no experience with. I don't think it's anyone else's business, and if a tenant discovered her neighber was an RSO, no, I wouldn't evict him to make her happy. It IS something I'd want to know ahead of time, however, but we do criminal background checks for that reason. No, if that guy had been legally on that lease and hadn't been causing any RSO-related trouble, absolutely NOT, I wouldn't evict him. People make mistakes and the only way to make them responsible citizens again is by giving them another chance. jmho

[JustMe]

I don't know anything about the legality of the situation, but I wonder if it is relevant that this is an apartment complex, presumably with lots of children around, as opposed to a free standing house that is somewhat separate from where families with children live...I could be really wrong about this, but I think I have heard that there can be rules against RSOs living near parks or other places where there are lots of children? As I said, I may be really off base, but I thought I had heard that somewhere.

[alexsmommy]

I have a lot of feelings about this whole topic that I will leave alone here - but I do think this is the catch-22 for RSO's who want to do the right thing. If they disclose that they are a RSO then they are more often than not denied tenacy. So they feel a need to not to disclose, which makes one suspicious of the intention behind the deceit. They are already limited (from what I recall) based on offense - ie can't live a certain distance within a school - which in my town (which is very compact) b/w public and private schools already leaves a tricky map for choosing places to apply. Again, I'm talking about someone who is rehabilitating and is trying to do what the law requires.
Also, though I in NO WAY think this is the majority of cases - some RSO's got that title due to statatory issues - so a 19 y/o dating a 15 y/o whose parents convict. I don't think the dating age difference is right, but feels very different to me than a rapist or a pedophile.