NYC Council bill would prevent landlords from banning tenants based on criminal history, except…
You know how the sentence is going to end. …except registrants.
A New York City Councilman, Keith Powers, sponsored the “Fair Chance for Housing Act,” that would prohibit landlords from excluding most potential tenants with a criminal history, or even asking whether they have a criminal history. The city’s housing crisis has led to unprecedented homelessness and a major contributor to the problem is that people with criminal histories have been excluded from housing.
The bill has 29 co-sponsors and significant public support. Advocates think it is likely to pass. Unfortunately, as with most criminal justice legislation, the Act would expressly exclude people required to register as sex offenders.
For more information about the act and the criminal justice agency that is advocating for it’s passage, visit https://www.fairchancehousing.org, educate them about the facts vs. myths about recidivism and ask that they not throw our population under the bus.
So if they cannot ask, you guessed, the exception is, there will most likely be a question on the application “Have you ever been convicted of a sex offense”. Problem with this is, even if you get off the registry, you would still have to answer yes as you had been in the past.
Basically, even after someone successfully gets removed from the registry, you will still face hurtles. Some things will change but those who “Need to know” will make sure others still know. And you can be comforted in the fact that the Courts have said it is ok, because, “It is NOT punishment”.
Isn’t housing a basic right? Oh yeah, we don’t seem to have any rights. * Que the sad funeral march music.
What hypocrites. This exclusion is becoming as standard on contracts as the “acts of God” exclusion.
When confronted with the truth and facts they choose to discriminate by believing the lie.
When you use the words “don’t discriminate” and “except for” in the same sentence, “except for” negates everything in front of it.
People can’t be this ignorant but they can certainly be this spiteful. Government gives this type of behavior a wink and a nod with their stance of this is not punishment.
What next? Is there an Area 52 in the planning where all registered people are “encouraged” and “welcomed” to go? Think Australia about 250 years ago.
DMC
The difference is, they gave them an entire island (Although it belonged to the indigenous people). And it took 150 years or more in the U.S , but even slaves eventually got their freedom. I hope it does not take us 150 years or being sent off to a volcanic island. I do not want to take a lava bath.
Not exacly Jack. They still can’t do a criminal background check even for sex offenders. However…………this is from the NYC council website:
“This section also does not prohibit inquiries into the NY sex offender registry, but requires that the landlord, owner, agents and brokers provide the applicant written notice about the inquiry, and a reasonable amount of time, not more than 3 days, to withdraw the application.”
That statement is absurd. We can’t check your criminal background, but we can check the registry, which results from a criminal conviction. Have all these councilors gotten lobotomies???
To be clear, the coalition started out the campaign adamant that there should be no carveouts, but have since caved to political pressure. They have been “educated” by Restorative Action Alliance and others, and even invited us to participate in a “debunking debate” which can be found on YouTube. We continue to call out the problems with exclusion, though our population is the first to get thrown under the bus when the advocacy gets hard. We are continuing to build our numbers and power to make our voices heard and combat this “friendly fire”.
Amber – can you please share the link to the YouTube debate so we can see it and give our members talking points when contacting the Coalition and the sponsors?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qIv2bppA-ZA
Although all presenters are important, you can spool up to about 24 minutes for Amber’s sex offender discussion.
The “Fair Chance for Housing Act” is fair to everyone except….(fill in the blank).
i don’t understand why you post articles like this we all know that every law passed to help former criminals excludes RSO’s every time i don’t think that we want it rubbed in our face on a day to day basis. how about we post the ones that help us? Oh wait that never happens =)
So that members like YOU can contact the group that’s advocating for the law at; https://www.fairchancehousing.org, educate them about the facts vs. myths about recidivism and ask that they not throw our population under the bus.
If YOU don’t know what’s being considered, YOU can’t act on it. Remember, we are an advocacy group. When we share news, good or bad, it’s intended to inform our membership about what laws are being considered. From there, it’s up to the readers to act on it if they want. If the information bothers you or you only want us to post information that will make you feel good, you’re clearly in the wrong place.
FYI when you go their website you cannot just e-mail them directly you have to be a citizen of NY(which i am not) so clicking on that link does not help
No hope
If not for F.A.C, we might all be wearing ankle monitors. Although it seems we lose a lot, even minor wins can keep away something worse. And, if there were not numerous lawsuits being filed all through the year, many of us wouldn’t even be able to live where we do reside.
Additionally, if lawsuits were not filed, no telling what those in power could get away with.
Peace
Dear john,
Thank you for emailing your Council Member about Fair Chance for Housing!
Your message is on its way to Mayor Eric Adams and Council Member Farah Louis.
Follow us! On Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/fairhousing_nyc/ and Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/fairhousing_nyc
Thank you again for your support!
I would much rather have a murderer or armed home invader living next door than someone who got caught in an illegal sting. Does that sound crazy? Well it is but that is what we are seeing and hearing nowadays. I guess there is no IQ test to become a politician…only find a subject that voters can be fooled about and then swear to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there just a publicized case in NYC that the Supreme Court would not fully address involving a person who couldn’t even be released from prison due to his inability to find housing in the city as a result of the residency restrictions? I 100% believe banning the box should equally apply to ALL past criminal offenses but for it to be of any matter one would have to also ban the residency restrictions. I understand dealing with one thing at a time is a necessary approach. But as far as arguing to keep the box for sexual offenses, maybe just point out to those defending the box that an offender living or applying to live in the city wouldn’t pass muster of residency restrictions anyway. With so few places people can live in the city, what’s the point to the added box for previous offenses?
If they are stating that felons should have a chance at housing then how can they pick and choose? I smell a legal challenge.
Anonymous
One of my neighbors once told me “I would rather have Hitler AND Charles Mason living next to me than having you live near me”. I told her “I can dig them both up and plant them in your yard if you want”. She ran inside out of frustration because she lost the debate that should not have ever happened. I think it was a draw though.