Submitted by gooserider t3_11dn08w in boston
Comments
Middle-Example6618 t1_ja9ma6p wrote
If it is an owner occupied building there are no protected classes, you can just be that guy.
trimolius t1_ja9pcn2 wrote
Is that true? That doesn’t seem like it could possibly be true.
Middle-Example6618 t1_ja9r6pk wrote
If it's a two family, and you live in the other unit, you arent subject to the restriction of the Fair Housing Act. You can also refuse to rent to anyone with kids.
So, in essense, yes.
trimolius t1_ja9sd14 wrote
TIL!
username_elephant t1_jacb8d9 wrote
Of course, the same does not apply to large building's where the owner simply occupies a single unit out of many. So it's not just about owner occupancy.
Middle-Example6618 t1_jacdfjc wrote
Of course, thats what I said. Now you explain the same thing and claim you were correcting me?
Wow, you can read! Good Show Son! GOLD STAR.
username_elephant t1_jae6hhb wrote
Where, in the post I replied to, did you say anything about any owner occupied buildings other than 2 unit buildings? You literally only talk about exactly 2 units. I was just saying the part you left unsaid. And I certainly wasn't trying to correct you.
But thanks for taking the opportunity to be an asshole to someone. Making the internet better one comment at a time...
stevied05 t1_ja9rejw wrote
Lawyer here. It’s somewhat true, actually. There are limitations for 4 or 2 units or less, but there are still some rights that remain as discrimination, like discriminating based on race.
trimolius t1_ja9soau wrote
Interesting. This seems incredibly random. Own a two family? Discriminate against everyone, it’s no problem. 3 decker? Nope. Also if kids bother you, feel free to discriminate, as long as you’re elderly.
stevied05 t1_ja9szsr wrote
It’s very, very strange. MA otherwise has among the tenant friendliest laws in the country.
trimolius t1_ja9t93p wrote
That’s what I’ve always heard so I’m surprised this never came up in conversation!
poillord t1_jab4xou wrote
You heard wrong, though everyone seems to say it around here. Massachusetts is much more landlord friendly than the rest of New England, though less so than the south.
trimolius t1_jabhvhm wrote
If you feel like elaborating I’m interested to know in what other ways it’s less tenant friendly than the rest of New England!
GoatNumber12 t1_jadf93p wrote
Isn't this pretty standard though? That is what I learned in property when we briefly read about red lining and Shelley.
I know MA has tenant friendly laws, and compared to that its real weird. But compared to the national standard allowing that type of discrimination is par for the course.
poillord t1_jab4rb5 wrote
No it doesnt, it’s mid in terms of the bias, and much more landlord friendly than the rest of New England. That’s just something people say assuming Massachusetts’s liberal reputation without knowing how the laws vary.
stevied05 t1_jabicd5 wrote
Are you a lawyer? Cause you’re wrong. I litigate in housing court in MA all the time and it’s super tenant friendly….
MoeBlacksBack t1_jad284z wrote
Landlord here and this attorney is 💯
sdzk t1_jaa5n2z wrote
4 units or less and you live there
shapesize t1_jacjk2l wrote
In the full text section about not renting to families, why is it illegal for them to advertise no kids or refuse to show? It seems like a waste of everyone’s time to not put that in an ad, have to show it, just to be rejected (legally) if you like it. Am I misunderstanding that?
IDCFFSGTFO t1_jacajtm wrote
You know we once fought a war because people really didn't want soldiers living in their houses.
hamakabi t1_jacijpg wrote
nah, we once fought a war because Americans didn't want to pay taxes.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_jaczq55 wrote
I mean yes we also didn't want to pay for the Seven Years War/French and Indian War even though George Washington personally started it.
charons-voyage t1_ja9rbug wrote
Is this just stuff you say since you know there are no lawyers in your building? 😂
Rabl t1_ja9wqwj wrote
Employment isn't, but family status is. "Single occupancy only" is frequently used as an example of things that it is illegal to say in a rental ad.
alittlebitchicago t1_jaaj0ez wrote
Never met a landlord who actually cared. I haven’t rented in a while, so maybe they’ve gotten stricter about these things, but I remember being in college hearing that our application was denied because the property was not available to students. Super bogus, like at least we’re not going to color all over the walls with crayons and tear up the yard.
and_dont_blink t1_jab3x3o wrote
Judging by a couple of apartments I saw last year, we'll not only color over the walls in crayons and tear up the yard we'll do even worse.
Chirpmunkz t1_jab5mi4 wrote
My partner and I once had a landlord ask if we were married and wouldn’t rent to unmarried couples
cuttydiamond t1_jac5dr7 wrote
My wife’s parents own a 3 family in Southie and they had a lawyer for a tenant once. She sued them because her apartment had bed bugs. She brought the bed bugs back from a trip somewhere.
They forbade lawyers after that too.
KeikoToo t1_jacccjf wrote
Sooo.... who won?
cuttydiamond t1_jaccxjw wrote
It’s a long story but basically they had to counter sue and then did mediation. In the end they had to pay for bed bug remediation and she lost her security deposit.
hamakabi t1_jachsx3 wrote
a lawyer won
SpookZero t1_jabe4jm wrote
So check this out: that’s actually not true. I had always thought it was, too. It turns out that you can’t discriminate against lawful sources of income. If people can’t prove their income (i.e. servers, bartenders) then that’s a different matter.
Budge1025 t1_ja9l7rg wrote
I hope everyone looking at this listing sees this as a massive red flag...clearly the lister has had legal problems and wants tenants without that kind of knowledge base to avoid litigation.
camlaw63 t1_jabf6u4 wrote
Lawyer here, there are tenants out there, who know more about tenant landlord laws and I do. In fact, there are professional tenants who game the system to the point where they never pay rent.
IDCFFSGTFO t1_jacawsa wrote
>professional tenants... never pay rent.
Squatters? My dad had a squatting situation one time in Quincy. So my dad, my uncle, my dad's army buddy and me went over there and removed him. Guy called the cops, Quincy PD told him to get fucked. I think my dad's veteran status and the fact that this dude was a visible scumbag helped a lot.
I really don't know the legality of what happened that day, all I know is we never saw that asshole again.
dante662 t1_jace0la wrote
So yeah, the issue is sometimes the PD will say "it's a civil matter". All the tenant needs to do is flash a fake lease paper and scream "illegal eviction" as loud as they can...and they basically get to live for free in your home until you can get the court to order them removed.
​
And while they live there, paying no rent...you are legally required to keep the house in working order. It's fucking awful. It's at the point where if someone breaks into your home you'd be better off doing what you did than calling the police for help.
camlaw63 t1_jae5lq3 wrote
No, I’m not talking about squatters I’m talking about people who seem like they’re legitimate tenants. And then they find a small defect in the apartments, they call inspectional services, they withhold rents. They make life miserable for the landlord. Think Pacific Heights, not that extreme but you get the general idea.
Once the landlord gets rid of them, they just move onto the next property.
BsFan t1_ja9qodi wrote
Or he just has a fuck lawyers mentality, which is understandable
SpindriftRascal t1_ja9u6j6 wrote
Remember that the next time you need one, and don’t call for the help.
Anustart15 t1_jaabllu wrote
Based on the opinions of a few of my lawyer friends, lawyers also have a "fuck lawyers" attitude, so I don't think they would mind
nateisic t1_jaawoe8 wrote
I think they mean that in a different way.....unless it's a divorce lawyer.
Its-Finrot t1_jac4fk0 wrote
Did Bob Loblaw tell you that?
BsFan t1_ja9ujeb wrote
I've got a great lawyer, I was more making a joke.
SpindriftRascal t1_ja9whk8 wrote
Got it. Perhaps I was a bit defensive. I’d say it’s better than being offensive, but the jury’s out on that. Who am I to judge?
some1saveusnow t1_jabci8y wrote
Love that this sub is ACAB but pro lawyer. It’s basically the politically liberal - socially conservative trope
MitchReinhardt t1_jabdo4h wrote
It really is hilarious. Reddit at its best
downwardspiralstairs t1_ja9w0ov wrote
Someone got sued and lost
TheSausageKing t1_jab4818 wrote
If a lawyer is suing you, even if you win, you lose.
downwardspiralstairs t1_jac5rd4 wrote
Since it is a basement apartment I bet the utilities are not split and the landlord had to eat the utility bills for a lease period because someone knew the law.
willzyx01 t1_ja9rmvr wrote
law students?
Joke's on them. I'm a pre-law.
Fanfics t1_ja9z1fa wrote
This kid's gonna go far
calvinbsf t1_jaaxjsu wrote
With a thousand lies and a good disguise
IDCFFSGTFO t1_jacbhdl wrote
Hit em right between the eyes
InfiniteJessica t1_jaa2k3i wrote
Yeah, I graduated from law school in 2006. Didn’t pass the Massachusetts bar. Work in another field. If I didn’t already have a house, I’d be in there. 😁
phamio23 t1_jabjdgm wrote
What field did you end up going into? Asking because I’m in the same situation as you except I don’t have a house 😬.
InfiniteJessica t1_jac62w0 wrote
I was in sales before. So… sales! I’m looking at pivoting to non profits in my old age.
figmaxwell t1_jaazcmt wrote
Technically isn’t everyone who hasn’t gone to law school?
Left_Squash74 t1_jabbd0u wrote
I think "pre-law" exists because undergrad has become so expensive that many can only justify it if it is understood to be vocational, even though it isn't meant to be and that is the whole point of post-bachelor professional school.
sympathymaximum8182 t1_jac77f0 wrote
Pre-law has been around at least since the 80s, if not before.
notquitetoplan t1_jab105j wrote
Hi, Bill
wildfire_atomic t1_jaamy4w wrote
“We only want tenants who don’t understand their rights as a tenant”
Markymarcouscous t1_ja9n6ng wrote
Aren’t credit fees and application fees also illegal in ma
proactiveplatypus t1_ja9obz0 wrote
It’s a silly loophole, but I believe the fine print of the law is that landlords cannot charge an application fee/credit fee.
(This isn’t the actual law but: https://www.boston.gov/renting-boston)
A realtor is able to charge the fees.
Now why isn’t the $20 credit check fee folded into the broker’s fee? 🤷
sdzk t1_jaa6bxn wrote
Because my boss (owner of brokerage)then charges me… it’s pretty stupid
hmack1998 t1_jaba1hk wrote
They aren’t legal but also there’s no enforcement unfortunately so landlord could just say never mind if you don’t want to pay
drtywater t1_jack2dg wrote
Yes but its easy to work around. You just refund them if it doesn't go through and if they do proceed you just deduct from first months rent.
BostonBopper t1_jaaf9oe wrote
Guessing this is an illegal conversion?
northeast0 t1_jaao3m9 wrote
If I can’t view it in person now, I’m going to assume it’s some combination of illegal, moldy, or not the unit in the pictures
some1saveusnow t1_jabcd0a wrote
Law or law aspiring professionals have on occasion had some historical tendency to get lawyerly with their tenancy if they don’t like something that’s going on. It’s easier for landlords to avoid them in general but especially if they have personal experience with it going bad
MitchReinhardt t1_jabdyxa wrote
Right again. The stereotype is law students like to use the landlord/tenant relationship as practice.
some1saveusnow t1_jabe70d wrote
Exactly. I’ve had landlords and brokers tell me the practice thing verbatim
TotallyNotACatReally t1_ja9pesf wrote
don't be suspicious sound effect here
YourStonedNeighbor t1_jaa84ld wrote
reaper527 t1_ja9ncaw wrote
sounds like an invitation to get sued trying to pick a fight with lawyers.
like, even if careers aren't protected class, they'll find something else to nitpick on as a basis to go after the lister.
at the end of the day, i don't get why the owner would even care who's renting as long as they're
- paying their rent on time
- not damaging the property
- not doing anything illegal that's going to cause problems for the landlord
blabla1897 t1_ja9wgx1 wrote
I think the idea is if they are a lawyer and they don't adhere to rules #1-3 then the ensuing litigation or whatever is going to be much more of a pain
reaper527 t1_ja9xgys wrote
> I think the idea is if they are a lawyer and they don’t adhere to rules #1-3 then the ensuing litigation or whatever is going to be much more of a pain
I guess that makes sense, but what are the odds of a lawyer not following poi ts 1-3? Seems like something that would hurt their own professional reputation and career.
wishforagreatmistake t1_jaabr5a wrote
In theory, but in practice, the bar association PROBABLY isn't going to discipline them for being a deadbeat or a tenant from hell unless they either do something that makes the news or piss someone important off. The light most favorable to the landlord here is that they previously had a lawyer tenant who was an absolute nightmare and then did everything in their power to drag out the eviction process and fight a war of attrition.
nateisic t1_jaawzi3 wrote
Bingo
flyingmountain t1_jacrltp wrote
The landlord cares if their tenants are lawyers because they're doing illegal shit and don't want anyone to call them on it.
thedonregis t1_jaauk80 wrote
That’s a really efficient way to say “I’m going to violate all of your rights as a tenant” without actually saying it
1000thusername t1_jaad5lz wrote
How about health inspectors? Are they allowed to apply? Or code enforcement?
The_Big_Sad_69420 t1_jaaubmr wrote
$1500 for basement studio, fuck meee
Coggs362 t1_jaaxknq wrote
Beacon street? Basement studio? Anybody else thinking rat infestation?
modernhomeowner t1_ja9o3sh wrote
I saw a post in r/solar recently, where a person was signing into a long-term solar agreement, was happy and wanted to sign the agreement, everyone cautioning not to as it was long-term and the person said they wanted it to be short term and said "I'm a lawyer, I know how to work the system to get out of it." And listed a bunch of abusive practices of filing false complaints with the BBB and Attorney General to get the company to cave. So, the poster could have some shady housing issues or had an issue with a tenant abusing the legal system to get their way.
popornrm t1_jabn28s wrote
MA is incredibly tenant friendly and a lot of owners don’t want to deal with threats of litigation or drawn out issues where they need to get a lawyer. MOST non corporate unit owners don’t rent to them. I wouldn’t advertise it though
g00ber88 t1_jaa3z7t wrote
Everything about this listing (except the listed rent price) is so awful it feels like it has to be a joke
GM_Pax t1_jaa4h79 wrote
... yeah, that's highly sus.
Ctmanx t1_jaayjxh wrote
We’ve rented to a couple law students and lawyers. One was a great tenant. The others were massive Karens who delighted in being as difficult as possible purely for the sake of showing you they know they have the right to be a pain in the ass. So I could imagine a landlord getting fed up with them.
But it could also be something totally different than you are all imagining. If a Judge or law professor owned an apartment they might be trying to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
some1saveusnow t1_jabcy91 wrote
Hopefully everyone wondering about this makes it down to this comment. This is what landlords around here are actually worried about when they’re trying to ward off law professionals as tenants
ginns32 t1_jacrbac wrote
I don't think this would create a conflict. We've had judges that had to recuse themselves from certain cases due to a conflict and it just gets sent to a different judge. If it was student and they were renting from a professor they could probably take a different class if it ended up being their professor. I think the chances would be small though.
beeinabearcostume t1_jaaj7k3 wrote
There was an apartment in Kenmore Square I looked at about a decade ago that also had that stipulation. Red flag if you ask me
Meatloafchallenge t1_jab0m04 wrote
I lived in a 1-bed on Kirkland st in Cambridge with a no lawyer policy. The building had a live in super who was pretty annoying. He 100% didn’t want tenants who knew their rights. He took a liking to me but if he didn’t like you it was a much different experience
comment_moderately t1_jab34c2 wrote
Great publicity, really appreciate the address. Please post the followup article after next week's inspection.
Anyway, they've updated the posting, it now just reads:
$1495 studio in Back Bay available 9/1/23
Basement level
Laundry off-site 13 min walk, one tandem off-street parking space is
available for $250 per month, street parking is available, pets are not
allowed, hardwood floors
Asking 12 month rental term
Single occupancy only
Video tour is available
shelley1005 t1_ja9v1ab wrote
Having to pay half the broker fee is illegal. Seems they want people who don't know their rights and they can scare them to keep quiet and just accept it.
PM_ME_BURNED_TOAST t1_jaab2j9 wrote
Why would that be illegal? Assuming it’s a broker renting it out. 99% of rentals require a deposit. They are choosing it to be half the fee as the deposit.
AceHunter98 t1_jaawusc wrote
Oof they got rid of the lawyer part and the brokers fee in the description
[deleted] t1_jada0ma wrote
[deleted]
popornrm t1_jabkpl0 wrote
There’s a lot of people that do this because they don’t want to deal with threats of litigation.
Pancakes000z t1_jacgjtv wrote
Probably owned by Fairfield Realty. They have tons of cheap studios in Back Bay but they’re kind of slummy and breaking the law (for example, you leave trash out in the hallways on trash day, they don’t provide bins outside). They must not want to deal with people reporting them.
BostonDogMom t1_jadrkyg wrote
What about case managers or social workers with a strong knowledge of housing law? When moving out of my last place, my landlord asked if I was a lawyer based on the email I wrote.
spedmunki t1_ja9lm88 wrote
MuddyWaterTrees t1_jaa2obk wrote
Been the norm in Boston for a long time. Generally an unspoken rule. Not that I support it.
Drew_P_Nuts t1_jaa4ifd wrote
He could just hate lawyers
InfiniteJessica t1_jaafc7s wrote
Everyone hates lawyers until they need one.
some1saveusnow t1_jabd372 wrote
Also sounds like cops nowadays
fart_panic t1_jaasvvl wrote
I applied, let's see what happens
Majestic_Electric t1_jab7urz wrote
I think you just got scammed. 🙁
uhnonymuhs t1_jab1wfe wrote
FWIW the Copley Group has this policy as well
Majestic_Electric t1_jab7npf wrote
I find that price tag highly suspicious. No way are you going to find a decent apartment on Beacon Street for that cheap!
Maybe that’s why they don’t want to rent to a lawyer or law student…
bread_lady t1_jab9adx wrote
christ this is abominable
HazyDavey68 t1_jab9w06 wrote
How about the sibling or child of a lawyer?
JDSweetBeat t1_jabcrkl wrote
Landlords don't want tenants who know how to read law.
camlaw63 t1_jabeu1x wrote
If you click on the ad now, they removed that portion
Aside_No t1_jacbkay wrote
Lmao they don't usually SAY it like that. Fwiw though tons of landlords do this just don't advertise it. You can get blacklisted with some of these companies for even showing you know your rights.
[deleted] t1_jaaoohb wrote
[removed]
BlackmesaTBX t1_jaatflm wrote
Anyone who’s seen the business end of the family or civil court system embroiled in vexatious, frivolous litigation at the hands of maniacal, misandrist, judges and lecherous lawyers knows why.
theshoegazer t1_jaawf0t wrote
I came across a listing like that, and wasn't shocked until I saw where it was - right around the corner from Harvard Law. Maybe get to know the neighborhood and demographics before buying property there?
Toddfitz t1_jab6hns wrote
As a landlord I would rent to a lawyer…not a law student
Detectivepopcorn99 t1_jabdsws wrote
Guess they don’t like lawyers. If I didn’t like lawyers that much, I’d rent to them exclusively, then gouge the hell out of them for everything.
sympathymaximum8182 t1_jac6or2 wrote
The rents made me leave 30 years ago but this is insane.
philhpscs t1_jacalf0 wrote
I went to BU Law, now I wonder which one of my classmates was responsible for this.
MongoJazzy t1_jad9i0e wrote
my sincere condolences to you.
ginns32 t1_jacqw67 wrote
Looks like they might have removed that from the listing now.
PentonMitch99 t1_jacsulk wrote
I’m not a genius but sounds sus
[deleted] t1_jad9qne wrote
[deleted]
Ok_Low_1287 t1_jadppuw wrote
that must be a joke...
Jusmon1108 t1_jae7k80 wrote
Would it be illegal to do legal work in an illegal apartment? 🤔
ForwardBound t1_jack662 wrote
As a lawyer who (obviously) has had to work with other lawyers for a long time now, I'm going to say yeah, this landlord's preference is completely justified.
BrotherSensitive7876 t1_jae24mx wrote
Looked at the address on Maps and it says it's at a law firm.
BrotherSensitive7876 t1_jae2a86 wrote
Probably can't have law employees due to privacy or something
RhaenyrasUncle t1_jabhbag wrote
Y'all are looking at this wrong.
Landlord is using reverse psychology. He wants folks with money (lawyers) and folks whose parents have money (law students).
Landlord wants to be able to jack the rent without risk of losing his tenants.
ForwardBound t1_jacjsc2 wrote
This is actually a great apartment for a BigLaw lawyer who moved way outside the city during the pandemic and whose firm is now requiring them to have a space near the office in order to keep them nearby on night when they have to work late, so yeah, you might be right!
TheAVnerd t1_jaa2vl8 wrote
Doesn’t say anything about cops!
No_Stinking_Badges85 t1_jacl64p wrote
Lawyer: n. one skilled in the circumvention of the law and the abuse thereof.
75footubi t1_ja9ls2q wrote
Employment isn't a protected class for housing, but daaaammnnn 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩