Skip to main content

View Diary: The price of doing bidness (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The BIG apartment complexes in Utah (9+ / 0-)

    get away with charging the poor a non-refundable $25/adult fee for APPLYING for an apartment or $50 per couple.

    This is lower-income housing for hecks sake.

    I watched a disabled couple lose $150 in these application fees, $50 paid to three different complexes.  All three rejected their application.

    My reaction?

    Who needs the apartment complex.  Just open an office, pretend to have an apartment complex, and charge low-income people the application fee all day.  Nice little profitable cottage industry for the SNAKES IN THE GRASS legally gouging the poor.

    America jumped the tracks in the 1980s.

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Sun May 05, 2013 at 08:53:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's pretty much (3+ / 0-)

      standard practice and has been for years--across the board, whether for the better-off or the poor who want or need to rent.

      a non-refundable $25/adult fee for APPLYING for an apartment or $50 per couple.
      Again, though, it's not the same thing as requiring someone insure something they don't own as a condition of rental.

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Sun May 05, 2013 at 08:58:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a disgusting policy, cost of doing business. (3+ / 0-)

        The insurance requirement shouldn't hold up in court.  The renter has no vested interest in the property renter is renting.

        Calling it "renters insurance" makes no sense.  Renters insurance used to be for renters contents.

        Begs the question:  Why tie a renter via an insurance policy to the property being rented?

        And:  Why didn't owner(s) hide this fee into the rent?

        Will renter face liability if they damage the property?

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:05:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          War on Error, Involuntary Exile

          Renters insurance still is for renters contents. I just looked at my policy--it's standard fare, stuff I own that's housed in the address on my policy is all that is covered. Period.

          Begs the question:  Why tie a renter via an insurance policy to the property being rented?

          And:  Why didn't owner(s) hide this fee into the rent?

          Because nobody knew better than to question it, apparently. Or else it's a giant misunderstanding here.
          The insurance requirement shouldn't hold up in court.  The renter has no vested interest in the property renter is renting.
          Exactly. Man, I'd be all over that like a bad suit if that ever came up in a lease I was considering. That's nuts!

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:13:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site