Should you be Required to Accept All Emotional Support Animals?

Updated 2/8/17: Effective Jan. 15th, properties in the City of Seattle, Washington are prohibited from charging pet rent. Click here for more information.

The term “emotional support animal” has always produced mixed opinions, with some property managers claiming that it’s a loophole term to get applicants’ pets accepted, while others cite federal law concerning tenants with disabilities. Whether your pet policy attracts applicants out of the 79 million households that own cats and dogs or prohibits residents from having their own big red dog, California property managers might be required to allow tenants to have emotional support animals, regardless of their pet policy.

Property Managers
safe rental properties

Creating Kid-Safe Rental Properties

Making sure your property is safe for children is a top priority. While kid safety certainly attracts new family residents, reinforcing your child safety standards protects your current family residents as well. By focusing on 3 key areas on your property, you’ll be happy to know your community is in tip-top shape.

Legislation Property Managers
new rental housing laws for 2016

2016 Multifamily Housing Legislative Changes

With 2016 already here, new legislation has accompanied the New Year. Keep up to date with the new changes taking effect in California, and some potential legislation from across the nation that could impact your state in the New Year.

CALIFORNIA:

New Protected Classes (SB 600)

This legislation adds citizenship, primary language, and immigration status to the list of protected classes from discrimination. However, this bill does not require the provision of services or documents to be in any other language than English.

Legislation Property Managers Resident screening Tenant Screening
Texas Department of Housing

Housing Policies Challenged: Disparate Impact Supreme Court’s Ruling on 6/25/15

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., decided by the Supreme Court last Thursday, held that lawsuits can challenge housing policies or practices based on their disparate impact. Subject to restrictions discussed below, the Court found that housing discrimination claims can be based on the discriminatory effect of a law or practice without needing to show intent to discriminate. While the Supreme Court had not yet weighed in on this question, the Court’s decision matches the nine federal courts of appeals that have considered the question, which may limit the decision’s consequences. The 5-4 decision included a majority opinion by Justice Kennedy and dissents by Justices Thomas and Alito.

Legislation