Nanny`s Iron Boot
Although most people are aware that real estate is an industry heavily regulated at all levels of government, most people are unaware of just how heavily regulated, and of the Byzantine maze that Realtors must navigate to accomplish their tasks. Racial matters, in particular, make virtually every action subject to government scrutiny, and one misstep can cost the poor real estate schlub his livelihood or worse-violations of the Fair Housing Act are actually matters of criminal law, and it is possible to go to jail!
As you are all aware, I work in the rental business, and not a day passes that I don`t have a prospective tenant ask ``what kind of neighborhood is this?`` or ``is this safe for a single female?`` Our orders from On High (meaning, ultimately, from the Commission) are to be evasive. If that fails, we are to formally state that, in the interest of the questioner`s own good, we can`t answer. When THAT fails we may then be more truthful and say it is a matter of law.
The point is, we are supposed to take the heat for government edicts. Not content with circumscribing our abilities to inform (I can`t tell you how many hours I`ve wasted showing a young professional a completely unsuitable property because I cannot tell her it`s Crack-land, and how much abuse I`ve had heaped on me by said professional for not ``doing my job`` by telling them) the wise regulators and administrators of Housing and Urban Development, of the Missouri Real Estate Commission, etc. make us hide their dirty work. THEY don`t want to take the heat for these crazy laws they create and enforce, so they want us to keep their secret while making fools of ourselves. When I am finally forced to tell people that I can`t answer their questions because of the Law, they are generally shocked, never having dreamed that the government could so restrict their freedom to information in this manner! We are prohibited about discussing race, crime rates, sexual makeup, if there are a lot of children in a building, the number of elderly, section 8 tenants, if there are churches of a certain denomination nearby, etc. We are supposed to lie to these people, and smile while doing so, to protect a bunch of sniveling bureaucrats. It chafes!
Often we find ourselves in a catch 22, trapped between contradictory laws and regulations. For example, when a tenant is set out of a property after an eviction, we have to give them access to their possessions for at least 48 hours by Missouri law. Now, the City of St. Louis didn`t like seeing debris strewn about the curb (which is where their property has to be set for them to have access without trespassing) so they passed an ordinance saying that no debris may be left on the curb. What are we to do? The State says we have to put the stuff on the curb, and the City says we can`t. As is generally the case, building inspectors usually do not enforce this provision, but the contradiction remains, enshrined into law and at the ready to be used against someone.
Now, we have encountered a maddening situation which illustrates my point perfectly; we had a four-family building with a Section 8 tenant who never paid her portion of the rent. With late fees she owed over $2000, and had no intention of ever paying. Furthermore, she had at least 10 people living in a property intended for four, and they were causing all sorts of trouble. We received a ``cease and desist`` order from the City Counselor`s Office, demanding we remove these problem tenants or the City would condemn the property and board the building. Now, when the City tells us to do something, we try our best to accommodate them, so we sent a notice to vacate to the tenant. She laughed at this, and went on her merry way, so we filed for eviction.
When a tenant is evicted they get kicked off of the Section 8 program, and this woman never believed we would carry out our threat. When the court issued their judgment, this woman vowed revenge to my coworker, and surprise, surprise, we received a complaint from the Missouri Human Rights Commission.
The Commission alleges that we evicted this woman because she is black. We were forced to waste time answering their complaint. The other tenants in the building are black, but that didn`t seem to matter. We sent this crusading do-gooder at the MHRC a rent-roll showing how far behind on rent the woman was. We sent a copy of the calls to service at that address by the police, and what they were for. We sent a copy of the cease-and-desist order from the City Counselor`s Office, and even had a personal note from the officer who had issued the order.
None of this apparently mattered to this enforcement agent who had swallowed our evictee`s tale of woe; he/she (this person has one of those gender neutral names) demanded that we provide a list of ALL tenants we have ever evicted under similar circumstances-and that we include the race of each evictee.
The Federal Fair-Housing Act does not allow us to take race into consideration in any manner, and we do not note the race of our tenants on any documents we generate in compliance with Federal Law. That fact seems lost on this crusader at the MHRC; he/she is demanding this information anyway. We cannot, and will not, comply with this request. Federal Law trumps State, but they can both beat us like a drum if they so desire.
So my company has had to waste time and money answering a clearly bogus charge, one we have already answered in a more than satisfactory manner. That one freeloader can cause all of this trouble by alleging racism illustrates perfectly the insanity that the Nanny State has created. (Of course, we will not be reimbursed for our time and trouble.) A sensible bureaucracy would understand the vacuity of the charge, and dismissed the matter out of hand.
But an agency like the Missouri Human Rights Commission doesn`t exist to use common sense-it exists to spend taxpayer`s money. They have to make a ``federal case`` out of even the most ridiculous allegations to justify their budget, lest it be cut next year. Also, a human rights commission is bound to attract moonbat lefties, people who ``want to make a difference``, people who think that ``the poor`` are always mistreated by evil capitalists, and must be protected. Of course, real estate is almost exclusively an industry of small entrepreneurs, people with few (or no) employees, but that doesn`t matter to those who have set changing the world as their life`s work; they will happily destroy innocent businessmen to institute what they think of as justice. The facts don`t enter into things!
So the wheels of the bureaucratic machine are running over my employer, and the outcome is in doubt. I would not be surprised if we lose this thing, and end up having to appeal to the courts. We`ll win in the end, but who will pay for all this?
Real estate and the Health-Care industry are in the same regulatory boat, and the answer the Democrats offer-especially Hillary-is even more of the same. Do we want somebody like this dimwit from the MHRC to be deciding our medical fate? That is what we will have if we further empower the government over health-care. Good people will tire of the B.S. and leave the health-care industry in droves, rather than suffer from the stupidity of bureaucratic dictatorship. What that will mean is that health care will have to be rationed, and it will take a year to get an appendictomy. Enjoy!
The only reason the Real-Estate industry puts up with all of this is that there are huge amounts of money involved (which is, of course, the justification used to regulate the industry in the first place). The money is still worth the aggravation. There will come a point, however, when the bubble will burst and it will no longer be worth doing. Then, if the regulators and do-gooders are true to form, they will try a Hillarycare move on the industry-and that will be the end of the U.S. economy. Real estate is one of the prime movers of our modern economy, and a collapse will mean depression. The government has been playing a very dangerous game for years; eventually they are going to pay the price.
At any rate, I`ll keep you, the wise and noble readers of Birdblog, posted as to what happens.
As you are all aware, I work in the rental business, and not a day passes that I don`t have a prospective tenant ask ``what kind of neighborhood is this?`` or ``is this safe for a single female?`` Our orders from On High (meaning, ultimately, from the Commission) are to be evasive. If that fails, we are to formally state that, in the interest of the questioner`s own good, we can`t answer. When THAT fails we may then be more truthful and say it is a matter of law.
The point is, we are supposed to take the heat for government edicts. Not content with circumscribing our abilities to inform (I can`t tell you how many hours I`ve wasted showing a young professional a completely unsuitable property because I cannot tell her it`s Crack-land, and how much abuse I`ve had heaped on me by said professional for not ``doing my job`` by telling them) the wise regulators and administrators of Housing and Urban Development, of the Missouri Real Estate Commission, etc. make us hide their dirty work. THEY don`t want to take the heat for these crazy laws they create and enforce, so they want us to keep their secret while making fools of ourselves. When I am finally forced to tell people that I can`t answer their questions because of the Law, they are generally shocked, never having dreamed that the government could so restrict their freedom to information in this manner! We are prohibited about discussing race, crime rates, sexual makeup, if there are a lot of children in a building, the number of elderly, section 8 tenants, if there are churches of a certain denomination nearby, etc. We are supposed to lie to these people, and smile while doing so, to protect a bunch of sniveling bureaucrats. It chafes!
Often we find ourselves in a catch 22, trapped between contradictory laws and regulations. For example, when a tenant is set out of a property after an eviction, we have to give them access to their possessions for at least 48 hours by Missouri law. Now, the City of St. Louis didn`t like seeing debris strewn about the curb (which is where their property has to be set for them to have access without trespassing) so they passed an ordinance saying that no debris may be left on the curb. What are we to do? The State says we have to put the stuff on the curb, and the City says we can`t. As is generally the case, building inspectors usually do not enforce this provision, but the contradiction remains, enshrined into law and at the ready to be used against someone.
Now, we have encountered a maddening situation which illustrates my point perfectly; we had a four-family building with a Section 8 tenant who never paid her portion of the rent. With late fees she owed over $2000, and had no intention of ever paying. Furthermore, she had at least 10 people living in a property intended for four, and they were causing all sorts of trouble. We received a ``cease and desist`` order from the City Counselor`s Office, demanding we remove these problem tenants or the City would condemn the property and board the building. Now, when the City tells us to do something, we try our best to accommodate them, so we sent a notice to vacate to the tenant. She laughed at this, and went on her merry way, so we filed for eviction.
When a tenant is evicted they get kicked off of the Section 8 program, and this woman never believed we would carry out our threat. When the court issued their judgment, this woman vowed revenge to my coworker, and surprise, surprise, we received a complaint from the Missouri Human Rights Commission.
The Commission alleges that we evicted this woman because she is black. We were forced to waste time answering their complaint. The other tenants in the building are black, but that didn`t seem to matter. We sent this crusading do-gooder at the MHRC a rent-roll showing how far behind on rent the woman was. We sent a copy of the calls to service at that address by the police, and what they were for. We sent a copy of the cease-and-desist order from the City Counselor`s Office, and even had a personal note from the officer who had issued the order.
None of this apparently mattered to this enforcement agent who had swallowed our evictee`s tale of woe; he/she (this person has one of those gender neutral names) demanded that we provide a list of ALL tenants we have ever evicted under similar circumstances-and that we include the race of each evictee.
The Federal Fair-Housing Act does not allow us to take race into consideration in any manner, and we do not note the race of our tenants on any documents we generate in compliance with Federal Law. That fact seems lost on this crusader at the MHRC; he/she is demanding this information anyway. We cannot, and will not, comply with this request. Federal Law trumps State, but they can both beat us like a drum if they so desire.
So my company has had to waste time and money answering a clearly bogus charge, one we have already answered in a more than satisfactory manner. That one freeloader can cause all of this trouble by alleging racism illustrates perfectly the insanity that the Nanny State has created. (Of course, we will not be reimbursed for our time and trouble.) A sensible bureaucracy would understand the vacuity of the charge, and dismissed the matter out of hand.
But an agency like the Missouri Human Rights Commission doesn`t exist to use common sense-it exists to spend taxpayer`s money. They have to make a ``federal case`` out of even the most ridiculous allegations to justify their budget, lest it be cut next year. Also, a human rights commission is bound to attract moonbat lefties, people who ``want to make a difference``, people who think that ``the poor`` are always mistreated by evil capitalists, and must be protected. Of course, real estate is almost exclusively an industry of small entrepreneurs, people with few (or no) employees, but that doesn`t matter to those who have set changing the world as their life`s work; they will happily destroy innocent businessmen to institute what they think of as justice. The facts don`t enter into things!
So the wheels of the bureaucratic machine are running over my employer, and the outcome is in doubt. I would not be surprised if we lose this thing, and end up having to appeal to the courts. We`ll win in the end, but who will pay for all this?
Real estate and the Health-Care industry are in the same regulatory boat, and the answer the Democrats offer-especially Hillary-is even more of the same. Do we want somebody like this dimwit from the MHRC to be deciding our medical fate? That is what we will have if we further empower the government over health-care. Good people will tire of the B.S. and leave the health-care industry in droves, rather than suffer from the stupidity of bureaucratic dictatorship. What that will mean is that health care will have to be rationed, and it will take a year to get an appendictomy. Enjoy!
The only reason the Real-Estate industry puts up with all of this is that there are huge amounts of money involved (which is, of course, the justification used to regulate the industry in the first place). The money is still worth the aggravation. There will come a point, however, when the bubble will burst and it will no longer be worth doing. Then, if the regulators and do-gooders are true to form, they will try a Hillarycare move on the industry-and that will be the end of the U.S. economy. Real estate is one of the prime movers of our modern economy, and a collapse will mean depression. The government has been playing a very dangerous game for years; eventually they are going to pay the price.
At any rate, I`ll keep you, the wise and noble readers of Birdblog, posted as to what happens.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 7:13 AM
3 Comments:
Government regulation of private industry almost always leads to such situations. Try to tell a liberal that, though!
Dear Tim: What a nightmare. It used to be that a man had little or no contact with the federal government outside of mail delivery. Now the thing is ubiquitous, its tentacles reaching into every crevice of our economy. There is no relief, as even the Republicans have morphed into ‘Democrat Lite.’ History is not kind concerning nations that allow the government to metastasize as ours has.
In chapter 9 of Gibbon we find the following: “The possession and the enjoyment of property are the pledges which bind a civilised people to an improved country." And thus what of its opposite? What does one say that we have allowed the creation of an entire class of people---Democrats all---who are wards of the state and who are absolutely worthless. They contribute nothing yet feel themselves entitled to your property.
This is the end result of $1,000,000,000,000 of waste from the Great Society. And now the government promises more and more intrusion---health care for one. We can assume that the ‘noisome minions’ of our increasingly socialized government will be making pests of themselves just like that despicable little minion did to you.
So very true, AOW!
Great point with Mr. Gibbon there, Mike! Very appropriate to our current situation! (I started Decline and Fall but, like many, fell by the wayside after several chapters.)
Post a Comment
<< Home