• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters

CMPancake said:
The bullet is the more humane measure I have in mind for landlords.
Click to expand...

I'm going to tap into my vast powers of insight and say you've had a negative experience with a landlord at some point in your past.

No, don't act impressed. I had to work for these skills.
 
Lovebug said:
It is a two edged sword, isn't it?
On one hand we have this guy
who's trying to do the right thing. Not sure if he is an exception or the norm.
This

should put everyone's mind at ease.
Click to expand...

Why would government funded housing be exempt from a government written law? Why do we constantly let our government exempt themselves from so many of the laws they inflict upon us?
 
aociswundumho said:
Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters - CNN


From the land of fruits and nuts:



Unbelievable.



Note that two of these problems have been caused directly by government - mass incarceration due to the democratic drug war, and all of the government zoning and regulation in California which prevents new housing units from being built. The lesson, as always, is that the problems caused by government intervention into the economy will always be met with even more government intervention into the economy.

This idiotic ordinance passed by idiotic leftists is similar to the "ban the box" law, which prohibited employers from asking about your criminal record on job applications.
That law resulted in an increase of racial discrimination.


Are leftists incapable of learning from their past mistakes? Or perhaps they do learn, but pass laws like this knowing it will make things worse? They're either stupid or evil, take your pick.
Click to expand...

Oh, the state. It's so stupid...
 
notquiteright said:
No it's a product of our puritan code... religion driving politics.... :peace
Click to expand...

You could use that as a possible explanation as to how the drug war started, but it does not explain why the drug war keeps going on year after year with no end in sight.

Democracy is about voters, and when voters get together and organize and vote the same way on some specific set of issues that's called a special interest group, and such groups are entirely consistent with democracy. The drug war keeps going because so many special interest groups benefit from it.

There is nothing anti-democratic about the drug war. Although the beginning of the drug war is generally considered to be when the CSA was passed into law in 1970, it actually goes back way farther than that. If something can survive 75 years in a democratic country, then it's consistent with democracy.
 
aociswundumho said:
You could use that as a possible explanation as to how the drug war started, but it does not explain why the drug war keeps going on year after year with no end in sight. Democracy is about voters, and when voters get together and organize and vote the same way on some specific set of issues that's called a special interest group, and such groups are entirely consistent with democracy. The drug war keeps going because so many special interest groups benefit from it.
There is nothing anti-democratic about the drug war. Although the beginning of the drug war is generally considered to be when the CSA was passed into law in 1970, it actually goes back way farther than that. If something can survive 75 years in a democratic country, then it's consistent with democracy.
Click to expand...

You are rather narrow in your analysis. Many not so democratic countries have a war on drugs, have special interest groups benefitting from keeping the 'war' going.

Don't confuse capitalism with democracy. Special interest groups getting a benefit from something is found in most countries to include dictatorships and whatever you want to call Russia. The tide is turning on how the people view mass incarceration for simple possession or first time convictions. No matter the political system, if something survives 75 years in a country it is consistent with that society... :peace
 
charliebrown said:
Why would government funded housing be exempt from a government written law? Why do we constantly let our government exempt themselves from so many of the laws they inflict upon us?
Click to expand...

I'd wager the Republican dominated federal government wrote a law demanding any housing receiving federal tax money HAS to check in order to receive that money. If someone in federally funded housing is convicted of a felony they are kicked out of public housing.

If you bother to read the entire article you'd see landlords do have exemptions as well. But I get the anti-government knee jerk reaction... :peace
 
aociswundumho said:
Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters - CNN


From the land of fruits and nuts:



Unbelievable.



Note that two of these problems have been caused directly by government - mass incarceration due to the democratic drug war, and all of the government zoning and regulation in California which prevents new housing units from being built. The lesson, as always, is that the problems caused by government intervention into the economy will always be met with even more government intervention into the economy.

This idiotic ordinance passed by idiotic leftists is similar to the "ban the box" law, which prohibited employers from asking about your criminal record on job applications.
That law resulted in an increase of racial discrimination.


Are leftists incapable of learning from their past mistakes? Or perhaps they do learn, but pass laws like this knowing it will make things worse? They're either stupid or evil, take your pick.
Click to expand...

There goes the neighborhood!

Wait a minute, we're talking about Oakland
 
aociswundumho said:
Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters - CNN


From the land of fruits and nuts:



Unbelievable.



Note that two of these problems have been caused directly by government - mass incarceration due to the democratic drug war, and all of the government zoning and regulation in California which prevents new housing units from being built. The lesson, as always, is that the problems caused by government intervention into the economy will always be met with even more government intervention into the economy.

This idiotic ordinance passed by idiotic leftists is similar to the "ban the box" law, which prohibited employers from asking about your criminal record on job applications.
That law resulted in an increase of racial discrimination.


Are leftists incapable of learning from their past mistakes? Or perhaps they do learn, but pass laws like this knowing it will make things worse? They're either stupid or evil, take your pick.
Click to expand...

Leftists may support Oakland's transformation from law and order into a city fashioned more like Detroit after the white flight devastated its economy.
 
Phys251 said:
To play devil's advocate, where are people with a criminal record supposed to live?
Click to expand...

A criminal background check does not deny them a roof. All it does is let the landlord weigh if it was recent enough or bad enough to rent to them.
 
Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States is equitable and cost effective.

We subscribe to Capitalism and that means Capital must circulate for it to function effectively and in a manner analogous to this observation:

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

Aristotle
Click to expand...
 
notquiteright said:
I'd wager the Republican dominated federal government wrote a law demanding any housing receiving federal tax money HAS to check in order to receive that money. If someone in federally funded housing is convicted of a felony they are kicked out of public housing.

If you bother to read the entire article you'd see landlords do have exemptions as well. But I get the anti-government knee jerk reaction... :peace
Click to expand...

Thanks. If both government housing and landlord housing are exempt from the law, who exactly is left renting?

You should check the records for specific laws, assuming all laws were written by REP is a knee jerk reaction as well.
 
chuckiechan said:
A criminal background check does not deny them a roof. All it does is let the landlord weigh if it was recent enough or bad enough to rent to them.
Click to expand...

Which denies them a place to sleep. It's already hard enough for people who have done their time to get back to a normal life without being denied housing.
 
charliebrown said:
Thanks. If both government housing and landlord housing are exempt from the law, who exactly is left renting? You should check the records for specific laws, assuming all laws were written by REP is a knee jerk reaction as well.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the article. Single family dwelling and government housing are exempt. ALL landlords can credit check and sex offender check.

You should read about topics you comment on... :peace
 
Phys251 said:
Which denies them a place to sleep. It's already hard enough for people who have done their time to get back to a normal life without being denied housing.
Click to expand...

I believe it ultimately comes down to whether one views the justice system as a justice system or as a punishment system. The former is interested in security and rehabilitation. The latter is a means of self worth and hate.
 
aociswundumho said:
Oakland is the first California city to ban criminal background checks on renters - CNN


From the land of fruits and nuts:



Unbelievable.



Note that two of these problems have been caused directly by government - mass incarceration due to the democratic drug war, and all of the government zoning and regulation in California which prevents new housing units from being built. The lesson, as always, is that the problems caused by government intervention into the economy will always be met with even more government intervention into the economy.

This idiotic ordinance passed by idiotic leftists is similar to the "ban the box" law, which prohibited employers from asking about your criminal record on job applications.
That law resulted in an increase of racial discrimination.


Are leftists incapable of learning from their past mistakes? Or perhaps they do learn, but pass laws like this knowing it will make things worse? They're either stupid or evil, take your pick.
Click to expand...

Like most all liberal policies, their hearts are in the right places but their policies backfire and don't do as intended. This will make renting not worth the risk, decreasing the number of rentals and thereby having less places to rent overall, hurting not only the ex-cons but all of the poor. Renting is already a big risk as it is, this will sour people from wanting to rent even more.
 
Phys251 said:
Which denies them a place to sleep. It's already hard enough for people who have done their time to get back to a normal life without being denied housing.
Click to expand...

They only need a 7' by 3' section of your floor.
 
ecofarm said:
I believe it ultimately comes down to whether one views the justice system as a justice system or as a punishment system. The former is interested in security and rehabilitation. The latter is a means of self worth and hate.
Click to expand...

An excellent comment that is worthy of its own discussion.

Confusing being tough on crime with reducing crime is a common mistake that the authoritarians make.
 
Samwise said:
They only need a 7' by 3' section of your floor.
Click to expand...

Conflating public and private space is hateful here and in regard to immigration. The public space is not your ****ing bedroom.
 
Samwise said:
They only need a 7' by 3' section of your floor.
Click to expand...

Twenty-one square feet is barely enough space for a desk, let alone a tiny house.
 
Phys251 said:
An excellent comment that is worthy of its own discussion.

Confusing being tough on crime with reducing crime is a common mistake that the authoritarians make.
Click to expand...

Justice is what it makes it worthwhile to be a part of society. Justice is the justification of society itself. Justice is public safety (incarceration) and redemption (rehabilitation). If someone asks, "would you like to join our society, we provide security and redemption", my answer is yes. They have presented benefits that make it worth my while to be a part of the deal. If someone asks, "would you like to join our society, we punish people", my answer is no because punishment does not benefit me or society in any way, it's revenge. Punishment is not justice. Punishment does not make society worth being a part of. Punishment does not and cannot benefit any of us. Security and redemption is justice and it does benefit every one of us.

Some people need to stop viewing the justice system as a punishment system.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm split on this. On one hand I think home owners have the right to know if the criminally-inclined will be living in their place.

Buuuuuut....I also suspect that criminal background checks can lead to recidivism.
Click to expand...

Just put a time limit on it. Like credit ratings. Was your credit **** last year, I see it. Was your credit **** 7 years ago? I can't see it.
 
SkyChief said:
"Operation Peacemaker invites some of the most hardened youth into the fold: often teenage boys suspected of violent crimes but whom authorities don't have enough evidence to charge criminally.

These fellows must pledge to put their guns away for a more peaceful life. They are hooked up with mentors -- the reformed criminals-turned-city workers -- who offer advice, guidance and support to get jobs. If the fellows show good behavior after six months, they can earn a stipend of up to $1,000 a month."

Richmond, California: Paying kids not to kill - CNN

Hope this helps! :2wave:
Click to expand...



Yes, it does help. Thanks.

Your claims was:

“A nearby city of Richmond pays gang members a $1000/month stipend to NOT commit crimes!”

However, the following is an excerpt from the article in your link:

“Most earn about $300 to $750 a month. They can make money for up to nine months.”

That quote alone refutes that part of your claim. And, further clarifies the matter by giving a time limit to the stipend. It would be reasonable to expect that many would errantly assume from what you say that the recipients get the benefit for longer than 9 mos.

I can see where you think from the article it’s the city that is paying gang members, based on the following excerpt in your linked article:

“He bristles when asked whether it's a good idea to use tax dollars to pay people to stop committing violence. "That's nothing compared to the cost of gun violence in this city," Boggan says.”

The fact is, the office is funded by the city, but the stipend is funded by private donation per the following excerpt from the link given beneath. The excerpt is in the 12th paragraph:

“The city gave ONS $1.2 million for its operating budget last year, but the money for the stipends came from a handful of private donors, including the health care giant Kaiser Permanente.”

Did This City Bring Down Its Murder Rate by Paying People Not to Kill? – Mother Jones

There’s the argument, anyway, that it’s cheaper for local govt to work with gang members in this way, including paying them from tax payer dollars, to lower the cost of crime to both the taxpayer and direct loss to residents and others. Kaiser Permanente sees that for just the health cost.
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
Solution to what? Most of the "crimes" people are convicted of are cases where the "criminal" didn't harm anyone or damage anybody else's property, they are simply crimes against the state. In the end, the owner of the property should decide whom to rent to, using any criteria he desires.
Click to expand...



The effect of the law on the landlord is not knowing if the applicant has a CR and renting to more people with CR than before. It’s already illegal to deny an applicant for other than a serious crime or one that is indicative of a threat to other tenants or property. But, knowing someone has a CR, a landlord doesn’t have to give that as the reason for declining an applicant. There is certain criteria that can't be used to deny an app, like race. Or, a landlord just gives no reason at all. Take in multiple apps and say another applicant was given the rental is one way landlords can pick and choose for just about any reason that may otherwise be prohibited by law.

A criminal record is a helping hand to homelessness. Hence the likes of the Oakland law, where there are so many homeless people, to reduce the likelihood of homelessness due to criminal record. Therefore, the law is logical to that end. That is to say, more people with CR will get into rentals than before and not end up on the street. If you don’t think that will happen (I think that’s your claim by saying “idiotic ordinance”), then why and based on what evidence? Or, what is the alternative (competing solution)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom