You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 5:56 a.m.

Government sues owners of Ypsilanti Township apartment complex, alleging Fair Housing Act violations

By Lee Higgins

The federal government has filed a lawsuit against the owners of an Ypsilanti Township apartment complex, alleging they discriminated against prospective tenants who had children.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is suing Gerald A. Brown and Shirley L. Brown, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination, including based upon familial status.

According to the lawsuit, the Browns own a 13-unit complex on North Harris Road and turned away a pregnant woman who inquired in February 2009 about a one-bedroom apartment there. The woman subsequently filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan, which sent people out who pretended to be prospective tenants and inquired about renting at the complex.

The suit alleges that those "testers" found that Gerald Brown engaged in discriminatory practices against families with children.

The Browns couldn't be reached for comment.

According to the lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Detroit, the pregnant woman initially inquired about the apartment after seeing a newspaper advertisement.

She spoke with Gerald Brown on the telephone when he asked who the apartment was for, the lawsuit says. When she explained it was for her and the baby she was expecting, Brown allegedly told her she would need a 2-bedroom unit because a single bedroom would not be enough. The suit also claims he told her that a larger unit wouldn't be available for a long time.

In addition, the suit alleges that Brown said he couldn't rent to her because "she had a child on the way" and there is no play area for children.

Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at


no flamers!

Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:04 p.m.

My principle points, in response to those troubled by my earlier posts are simply that: 1) a landlord should be able to reject renters based the family size because the damage and wear and tear on a unit is directly proportional to the number of users, 2) single mothers are disproportionately represented in low income (and therefore don't make rent payments timely) and cause more damage to rental units simply because of the children, and 3) people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them because it isn't fair to net-taxpayers to pay to raise the children of others. In response to Meg's criticism that my post was not cited (didn't know citing was required in a post!), I have spent 3 minutes and found dozens of articles supporting my original contention that single mothers are disproportionately represented as low income and &quot;more likely than not&quot; to remain &quot;married to the state&quot; for a lengthy period. Once such cite is below. I am very surprised that these statements have provoked such a reaction as it seems to be common knowledge. And again, I don't intent to say &quot;all&quot; or &quot;nearly all&quot; single mothers have these characteristics. My point is, from the landlord's perspective, that there are good renters and bad renters and picking a bad renter (or having the federal government impose a bad renter on you) creates a bad business that won't last. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> &quot;According to a study by Harvard's David Ellwood, about half of the new entrants to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) ...are on (AFDC) for much longer--on average, almost seven years. More than any other single factor, marital status determines whether a woman entering AFDC will become a long-term recipient. Forty percent of never-married mothers will receive AFDC for 10 years or more, compared to 14 percent of divorced mothers.&quot;


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.

YEAH and try to get childsupport from a SOLDIER in the servcie of uncle sam..


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:22 a.m.

Ha ha ha..some naive people better get used to women in poverty, having babies. yes, that's right..the way this culture is going, there will be more, not less poverty.Do you seriously think women are going to stop having babies? Gee, don't suppose that a landlord would think of their rental as a support and a safe place for a woman, not just a business for themselves. Why do you assume this&quot;trashing&quot; of the place is done by the female renter. Don't suppose a boyfriend or significant other could have a part in that it's the female's fault-she's trying to make a life for herself, set herself up in a place...and the guy can't find work, he shows up often,they argue,fight-yeah folks-can be a bad scene. But how does a landlord feel he can predict what will occurr with a particular renter....if the female took action it means she is looking after herself and felt something was not right.......this should be investigated.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.

The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division will try to negotiate in a manner that will try to force the Browns to enter a consent judgment on the DOJ's terms. If they refuse they will easily spend tens of thousands in legal fees to defend the suit. Sad day for the Browns who do not appear to be blatant civil rights violators but rather may have misunderstood their obligations under federal equal housing laws.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 11:10 p.m.

I believe Ann needs to close this comment section. You accept noflamers statements?.. not respectful or constructive!!

Life in Ypsi

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.

There is no law that says a child has to have a seperate room. Nor are there any laws that says children have to be seperated based on gender. However, there are occupancy standards for square footage. I'm amazed how many people have made assumptions towards this woman soley on the fact that she's pregnant. While there may be other housing complexes in the area, perhaps this one was more affordable and that's why she applied. By some of the posters logic in these comments I wonder if they would also support evicting a single woman who's already renting and ends up pregnant? I sympathize with landlords that have tenants tear up their property or don't pay rent. However, one can't just assume that's the case with every single mother or any other demographic for that matter. If a landlord is concerned about this they have the ability to run credit checks, have income requirements (in some cities) and ask for a cosigner. I have seen college students do far more damage to property than I have children. I'd guess the biggest difference is that their mom and dad pay the rent and a hefty security deposit.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 8:19 p.m.

Many years ago, I worked for a large apartment community in Ypsilanti. My job? I worked full-time preparing legal notices for eviction proceedings. I attended court dates with the management company lawyer where, much of the time, renters showed up and suddenly had the money to pay the rent. Several months later, the process would begin again with the same tenants Eviction proceedings are a long and arduous process. Landlords have to spend money to evict and lose money while the rent is not being paid. On top of that, the tenants that were eventually evicted left the rentals in terrible shape much of the time. Another expense for the landlord. It has been my experience that landlords don't care who they rent to as long as the rent is paid and the unit is being cared for properly by the tenant.

John B.

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.

And your point would be....?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.

I would like to remind people that this woman was pregnant, which means that an infant doesn't need a play area. You can't compare an infant to a 5 year old. This child wouldn't even be walking for almost a year. I hope these landlords learn a lesson, along with many of the commentors. You can't discriminate, bottomline.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

What is most scary is how twill68 has the highest in votes. It is a sad day when people promote and support discrimination.

Joe Kidd

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 5:54 p.m.

This is a good discussion with interesting comments on both sides of the issue. What I wonder is, do the federal anti discrimination laws require landlords to pretty much rent to whoever applies? What are valid reasons to refuse tenancy and to what extent do landlords have to prove their position that it is valid to refuse an applicant? For example, if a person is unemployed, is that sufficient? What if aid to dependent children payments cover the rent? Is it okay for a landlord to refuse a potential tenant if a prior landlord describes the renter as a bad tenant? Or if a prior landlord is owed several months of rent? What if prior landlords will not release information on their tenants? I can see that landlords get the shaft often, but on the other hand I prefer to see our neighborhoods appear to be segregated rather than non segregated due to racial discrimination. I think we still have too much of that.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.

You can deny based on credit, past renting experiences, background check, etc.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.

OK I used to live there for 5 years and those apartments are no place to have kids. The Browns are very nice and good people. While that apartment complex is a great place to live it is not a good place to live with kids.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.

Well that's good, because square footage wise, infants don't take up much room. And since they're not allowed to drive, the location of the parking lot is irrelevant, too. I don't know what your concept of mobility is for an infant, but they don't get around much in the first year. Rental contracts go for one year or less, so it's highly plausible that the woman would have rented elsewhere if the apartment was indeed &quot;too small&quot; or the parking lot was troublesome once the baby began to move around. It isn't up to the landlord (or anyone else) to determine that an apartment is &quot;too small&quot; for a woman and an infant. It's the woman's job to decide whether she can make a small apartment work. You may think the apartment is too small, and the landlord may think the apartment is too small, but that's just opinion. It can't serve as the landlord's basis for rejecting a rental application. Further, it's the mother's responsibility to manage the risk posed by the parking lot. But then again, it's also her responsibility to manage the risk posed by the stove, the refrigerator, the toilet, the sink, the bathtub, the garbage disposal, the electrical outlets, the corner of the kitchen counter, the cabinets, the doors and the windows. None of these risks justify rejecting this woman's rental application.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:16 a.m.

YpsiLivin I did not say it is up to the Browns to decide what is in the baby's best interest now did I? I said that is it no place to have kids. Square footage wise those apartments are small and the is a very small yard. Not to mention the location of the parking lot.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 7:42 p.m.

Josh, it isn't up to the landlord to decide what's in the best interest of the baby. That's the mother's job.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.

Then, they should change their apartment complex to an adult housing center.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.

Bottom line -- there are laws about this. If you don't like the laws, we have a process to change them. When you violate them, the government has the duty to enforce them. Fair housing center has a rigorous, court approved, legal method for testing for compliance with housing laws. To all of you who say &quot;this is the landlord's right,&quot; the law and the courts say you're wrong. Don't blame the woman, FHC or the Feds for knowing the law and expecting the landlord to abide by it.

John B.

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.

All bigots deny discriminatory intent. It's SOP.

no flamers!

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.

i don't think it is so clear-cut that the landlord refused to abide by the law: the landlord denies a discriminatory intent and a refusal to rent and claims to have only indicated that his available 1-bedroom unit was too small for a mother with child and that there was no place for the child to play. Maybe that was pretext for a discriminatory intent...we don't know. I just don't think that a landlord of a 13-unit place can afford to litigate with the federal government (there goes his entire 3-year cash flow) over something that is not clear discrimination. As other pollsters have said, there is plenty of housing in this market. We can't afford this litigious response to minor disputes.

Gretchen Ridenour

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.

It seems to me that many people are in moral judgment of this woman and her right to rent an apartment for her and her baby. If she viewed the apt with Mr. Brown, decided it would work for her family, completed an application, has income, passed credit/reference/background checks, and was able to pay 1st month's rent and security deposit, then her marital status and parental status should bear no impact on her ability to rent the apartment. Shame on Mr. Brown if this was the case and he refused to rent to her.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

Josh, I lived with my family of four, including two children, in a 720 sq ft house in Seattle for two years. My friend lived with her husband and baby in a 340 sq ft studio in the East Village for three years. Other friends have lived in a 32 sq meter (approx 400 sq ft) with their family for years. This is what happens in large cities, and yet, surprisingly, the kids are fine. Who are you to judge any space as &quot;too small&quot; because a woman will live there with her child? Families live in small spaces all over the world. If you've really traveled as much as you think you have, I'm surprised you haven't realized that what is the norm in Ann Arbor, MI is not the norm the world over.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.

Meg I think you also have a problem understanding what you read. Did I say there should be no children raised in major cities? No I did not. I talked about the square footage. Have you seen this apartment complex, better yet have you lived there. Well I did for 5 years. While it was a nice place I moved a mile down the road where I now have more square footage and there is a big yard and you know what there are plenty of kids where I live now. Oh and I do get to travel both for my job and for pleasure.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 10:37 a.m.

So, Josh, should there be no children raised in major cities then? Surprising as you may find it, people do live outside of small Midwestern cities, and in those major cities, in the US and abroad, square footage isn't exactly luxurious. Travel -- or even reading -- outside of one's town is a beautiful thing.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 12:11 a.m.

HaeJee it is obvious that you do not know how to read. Did I say anything about bedrooms? Square footage wise these are very small as well as the location of the parking lot is not the best. The lack of square footage and lack of yard to play in is why it would be unfair to raise a child there.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:16 p.m.

Josh, everyone has different living standards. It is obvious that you don't have an infant. Our oldest daughter shared a bedroom with us for a year. Have you ever heard of co-sleeping? MANY parents do it.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

Maybe you should look at the size of the apartments and the complex in general before you pass judgment. I lived there for 5 years. There is no room to raise a child there.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:56 p.m.

Children may find a better home in an apartment with children's play areas, etc. They are a burden upon landlords because of damage, etc. , just as pets are. I believe that we have no housing shortages in Washtenaw County, so I'd simply advise her to go elsewhere. The apartment might have, and favor, a retiree or older adult population who aren't always happy with children. I personally wouldn't sue to go where I wasn't wanted.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:18 p.m.

You opinion doesn't align with the law (thank goodness). You can't discriminate someone for having a child. but great example comparing them to a pet! Not BTW: a newborn child won't need a play area for a few years.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.

As a person that knows this landlord and the apartments.This is not the 1st time he has not let someone move in.Out of the 13 units there is only 2 units that are 2 beds.This guy is not a slumlord he is just kind of picky.They are a older couple that are just tring to make a living providing a decent place to live.The rent`s are not to bad for the area it`s hard to find if you don`t know the area.Try to get a pizza delivered to one of the units.Not a bad thing never had a b&amp;e there.I think he should have offered her a spot on the waiting list for a 2 bed.That may have avoided all of this maybe.There is nothing there for a kid to do there.There is a parking lot with a small common area with a picnic table and a built in bbq pit like thing.It`s mostly single people that work every day or night.I know there is 1 married couple in there.What`s going to happen if they have a kid.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.

They'll move. She was probably looking for something reasonable until she could afford a better, big place.

no flamers!

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 2:46 p.m.

to jrigglem: In response to your &quot;reply&quot; to my post, let me first say I did not write in my post, and did not intend for it to be inferred, that all single mothers as &quot;married to the sate.&quot; I qualified my post with &quot;statistically&quot; and by this meant more likely than not. I stand by that statement as it is true. But after reading your reply, which shows some justifiable indignation, I would have made more my original post more clear that I wasn't referring to all single mothers. But as a former landlord repeatedly burned by single mothers, my main point remains that landlords should be able to screen applicants based on the size of the family. Please understand the landlord's perspective--it is so difficult and costly to evict even for non-payment, and the eviction itself usually results in a trashed apartment, such that the landlord can't take a chance on bad tenants. And my experience, and the experience of the landlords I knew when in the field, is that single mothers are disproportionately bad tenants. More times than not (which doesn't mean all or even nearly all) their families grow even though their income does not, they pay late, they resist eviction with threats of litigation, they cause wear and tear on the unit from all kids, they often have other kids quasi-tenants because they babysit for a living, etc. There are plenty of stories, though, like yours, that do not fit this profile. But landlords are agents of the state looking to make the world better. They are trying to make the place cash-flow positive in this horrible market.


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 10:35 a.m.

If you're going to write a patent falsehood like &quot; a majority of single mothers are married to the state&quot;, please do cite your source. Wait, I'll save you the trouble --- 80% of single mothers are employed. US Census Bureau: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 11:08 p.m.

just because you used 1 word you feel like there was nothing wrong with what you typed,, u seem very narrow minded..


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:35 p.m.

So, you are openly admitting that you would, if you could, discriminate renting to single mothers. Your comment only justifies your prejudice. I can't disagree with your reasoning, but definitly disagree that discriminating based off profiling someone is wrong. Which is why I am thankful for the federal laws that protect us from discrimination. It helps a lot more than it hurts.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.

As long as the landlord/property owner isn't receiving compensation from the government, I think they have the right to rent to whomever they want - period. The government should have no business telling anyone who they can rent too, just like the government should have no business telling someone where they can live.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.

glimmertwin, these are good arguments as to why you have to be crazy or just plain mean to become a landlord. But the laws are there for good reason. People need a place to live.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.

GT, there was no mention in the story of two children. The prospective renter was a single woman who was pregnant. She was turned down by the landlord on ridiculous bases: what she really needed was a two-bedroom apartment. (Acccording to the landlord.) There was no playground for children at the complex. (None is required by law and infants don't play on playgrounds.) As for your arguments, infants don't destroy apartments, and any tenant can make apartment living unpleasant for the other tenants. What about the senior citizen who turns up the volume on his/her television from sunrise to sunset, or puts a pot on the stove and forgets about it? What about the single man who comes home drunk at 3:00 in the morning or smokes weed all weekend? What about the husband and wife who fight loudly every night? All of these people are fine, but the pregnant woman is an unacceptable risk? Please. Prospective landlords can run credit checks on prospective renters and make rental decisions based on facts. They just can't discriminate based on family status, which is what it looks like these people did. If that's not the case, then they should be able to come up with a plausible reason for not having rented to this woman, right?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.

I guess you also think it is right for real estate people to guide those of color to the &quot;right&quot; neighborhood?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.

YpsiLivin - Just curious. What do you think is &quot;acceptable risk&quot; for this landlord? What could they do to rent to this person even though they don't want too? Higher deposit? What protection do they have if she and her kids destroy the place or make it unpleasant for other tenants?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:41 p.m.

I can't speak for the &quot;testers&quot; as the story indicates. But a mother, no mention of a father, with 2 kids in my mind certainly is a risk for payment as well as damages. Why should a private property owner be liable to incur the possible risk? If the government is so concerned, let the government deal with it. If this landlord is discriminating on anything other than valid concern for financial reason, than I agree with you. But personal property is personal property. If the government doesn't like the way an individual handles their property, then let the government house those high risks.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.

So GT, just out of curiosity, why do you think these anti-discrimination laws came into being in the first place? How would you feel if you needed a place to live and no one would rent to you just because you were A instead of B, when neither A nor B have anything to do with how well you can pay the rent?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 2:40 p.m.

Oh, I see. So this is race-related. I thought it was about individuals protecting their personal property from an unsuitable tenant. At least, as they see unsuitable.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

Right is a very slippery slope. As Americans we should enjoy freedom from discriminatory practices. Bigots beware!

Steve McKeen

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.

I agree whole-heartedly. Then we can extend the same princples to restaurants and drinking fountains.

no flamers!

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:28 p.m.

As someone that has rented property to people that can't pay, and then destroy the unit by bringing more and more &quot;family&quot; into the unit (and no extra charge), I sympathize with the landlord. This is a good example of the federal government picking sides in a private matter. Statistically, this renter is very likely &quot;married to the state.&quot; That means we pay, she does not work or does not earn enough to support herself. But because there is no accountability, she will likely have more out-of-wedlock children, which we will also pay for. And the landlord has to rent to her, knowing all this. Knowing that she will likely not pay or not pay on time. That her family will continue to expand (increasing wear and tear on his property) and that he can't charge for this because that too would be illegal. So what happens when we have too much governmental intrusion in the landlord/tenant relationship? We drive landlords out of the market and the rental units fall apart and we all lose. Let this man decide at least how many people live in his unit--he has a rational reason to care about the number of people in his unit, just as we all care how many house guests we have stay over for a holiday weekend.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.

When the government takes a discrimination case, it IS serious offense. If people want to discriminate, then DON'T provide a service to the public. Simple as that. I am just blown away with your ivory tower perspective. It is horribe that you assume that she is a welfare mother, because she is single? You sound a little prejudice yourself.

Phil K.

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 4:05 p.m.

as they say on wikipedia [[citation needed]]. At the moment, your claim is that at least 51% of pregnant single women in Michigan are on welfare. Also, you seem to have wiffed on this part of the article: &quot;The woman subsequently filed a complaint with the Fair Housing Center of Southeastern Michigan, which sent people out who pretended to be prospective tenants and inquired about renting at the complex. The suit alleges that those &quot;testers&quot; found that Gerald Brown engaged in discriminatory practices against families with children.&quot; So it's not just this woman who was turned down. This doesn't appear to be a case of &quot;some unwed welfare mother who's probably gonna have like, 15 crack babies is mad because she can't get section 8, so she's gonna sue&quot;, this seems more like a case of &quot;landlord has a pattern of not renting to a particular group of people, a pattern that's clear enough to warrant a lawsuit.&quot; But who am I to get in the way of a perfectly good &quot;evil government&quot; rant.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.

Wow just wow! The thought process in this statement is mind blowing. So you are saying that every single mother is bound to be on welfare, wants to be on welfare and is also going to have more kids? &quot;Statistically&quot; of course. How do you know that she was living with the baby's father and things changed. Maybe he ended up cheating on her or beat her up. But because of your close mindedness you just assume that she had a child to live off the system and plans on having many more. I have a child, I am a single mother. When I got pregnant I didn't think things would end up the way they did. My childs father and I just could not longer get along after 2 years. It happens. I am unemployed and based on your assumption I am not looking for work. I am looking for full time work almost daily (I've tried daily, the job posting updates are few). I definitely don't want to be on welfare. It's rather embarrassing and to think anyone enjoys it, is rather ignorant thinking. I am educated, I have a bachelor's degree in Business, have been on several interviews and haven't gotten a job offer. Do I think having a child plays a role in that decision? Sometimes, but I move on and apply for other jobs. I also don't plan on getting pregnant just to keep my assistance from the state. In case you missed it the first time, I DON&quot;T WANT TO BE ON WELFARE! Instead of assuming and lumping all of us into this statistically proven scenario, maybe check all your facts.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 12:27 p.m.

I would love to know the occupancy rate of ypsilanti township. I see &quot;for rent&quot; signs everywhere. I won't comment on the Browns, or the alleged victim; but remember when people use to take care of their own problems. I'm sure a person of any ethnicity, sexual orientation, social economic background, etc. can find a place to live in Ypsilanti twp. I'm not making a judgement here, but I get tired of lawyers, judges, and government agencies being involved in everything.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.

You have to involve attorneys and sue to get justice, otherwise this couple would continue discriminating against people. I guess the people that fought for civil rights should have just accepted their lot in life?


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

I don't know what the occupancy rate of Ypsilanti Township is, but finding a place to live is a balance between what you want and what you can afford. Perhaps the apartment advertised was affordable to her. In any case, landlords can't refuse to rent to you because you have a child, or one on the way. Landlords are legitimately concerned about tenants paying the rent. How tenants afford the rent, provide daycare for their children, and where their babies sleep are irrelevant in the terms of a rental contract, and generally none of the landlord's business.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 12:18 p.m.

So, did the landlord ask the pregnant woman how she was going to pay for the apartment? If she works, she will have to abandon her new born to child care or is she going to stay at home and live off our tax dollars. Maybe rent payments were the issue instead of discrimination.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.

Nice, assuming she is on welfare because she is a single mother! Also, a nice mention about &quot;abandon&quot;ing her newborn. It must be tough, sitting on the sidelines judging us women on how we should raise our children!


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.

He's free to run a credit check on her (and many landlords do), but he isn't free to assume that she won't be able to pay her rent just because she's pregnant. It's none of your business (or the landlord's, or mine) whether she puts her baby in child care, by the way.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.

Plenty of single mothers have careers. Way to assume that because she is a single mother she is also lazy. What would you prefer that she do? Abandon the child to day care of live off of your tax dollars? Rent payments shouldn't be an issue until she doesn't come up with the payment. &gt;:(


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.

Here's a hint - not renting to a pregnant woman because you think she won't be able to make rent is..... discrimination!


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.

I am a little confused here: So does this guy have to rent to her but then also turn her in to Child Protective Services for not having a room for the kid later? If the other couples presented scenarios where they had children of different genders then did he have 3 bedroom units? Or does he have to rent to them and then turn them in for not having enough rooms for the kids? I get that we have laws and that housing needs to be fair. That being said, the scenario presented here does seem like a conflict in laws/regulations when it comes to housing kids. Also - really? 13 units? wow, that solves the problem! How do Senior's only complexes get away with their exclusivity?


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.

BECAUSE we only have ONE BEDROOM and No dishwasher......No playground .no diaper been... HMM years ago The ad in the paper read No kids or dogs wanted. On the subject of &quot;single mothers' on ADC ..the STATE get payed by the Fedreal goverment for every dollar they collected in childsupport...but even with hiring 10 ten more attorneis in the AG office ..they donot answer there mail or anything else....make the fathers join the JOBCORE+ army when they father children and not support them..quit blame the women...


Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 3:18 a.m.

Senior housing is exempted from age discrimination requirements if a specific percentage of units are designated for people over 55 years old. Also, there is no legal requirement for a child to have his or her own room, and apartment complex owners/managers are not mandated reporters.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 12:39 p.m.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's ok for her to live in a one bedroom apartment with her baby. It is my understanding that the rule is 2 people per room. And the baby wont need its own room for a number of years. It would be ridiculous to turn somebody in to CPS just because the baby shares a room. CPS has many more serious matters to deal with.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 10:43 a.m.

I think you should have some rights as landlords to rent to whom you desire.

David Briegel

Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.

I know, it must be tough to give up your right to discriminate. Golly geez.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.

That was the mentality in the 1950's, which is why this discrimination law exists. It must be nice to be in the majority population.


Wed, Aug 24, 2011 : 10:52 a.m.

As a landlord, you can write &quot;fair&quot; requirements of tenants including paying your rent on time, complying with noise and occupancy rules, etc. Renting &quot;to whom you desire&quot; could mean excluding perfectly good tenants simply because of their race, marital status, gender, height, weight or other random traits that have no bearing on whether or not the person would be a good tenant.