>

Right? It's not like Alameda County is full of reasonably priced rentals from people just supplementing their income, it's mostly super expensive "luxury" rentals that are drastically overpriced and super undertaxed due to prop 13.
I’m glad that there is an exception for those who have certain convictions for sex offenses and are required to comply with the conditions of being on the sex offender registry. >

Your comment made me think:  Is there a time limit on being on that registry, or are you on for life once you’re on?  
I know a person who got put on it because he essentially got tricked by a girl on tinder who lied about her age, her parents found out about her Tinder, and it became a whole issue (if we’re to believe his story, but who knows).  
Assuming his story is true (which, again, not gunna make a claim on that one way or another), that’s pretty much fucking him for life over something that’s not really his fault necessarily.  
I know that’s not the case for the majority of the people on it, but this is just a thought that crossed my mind with this article+your comment. >

That's the point of the registry.  To keep punishing people forever because society believes that the crime is too heinous to ever forgive (which tbh, it usually is).  My problem with it has always been that not all of the crimes that you can be added to it for are completely unforgivable.  Politicians like to add to it to gain political brownie points with their bloodthirsty base. >

The funny thing about the registry is that in this case, it completely undermines itself. If the idea (in theory) is that these people who committed these types of crimes are so dangerous (yet allowed to be out of prison) that the public has a need/right to know where they live, if these people can’t get a place to live because of their background, and end up being homeless without an address, then nobody really knows where they live so it ends up being a waste of everyone’s time and energy and doesn’t keep anybody safe. >

Why would I want to sell my house to a pedo when my neighbours who have looked out for me (he stopped someone from breaking into my house while I was away) has a 7yr? >

So instead that pedo camps out in a nearby park with no support system to keep from re-offending. >

Where in my comment did I state they shouldn’t have support? I don’t see how them moving into an area by themselves any different from your statement other than the fact they have somewhere to take a victim. >

Oy …it’s because if the person thinks “welp my life is over might as well commit again and go back to prison”. Leave someone with no options then they have nothing to lose >

Yeah, which is why I believe when you get out of certain prisons you should be sent to neighbourhoods run by support services until your back on your feet. Like there’s no point in being oh he’s gotten a nice house and seems to be doing well, that person has no one around them who understands what they have gone through, but with that said I’m a hypocrite who believes some crimes should have the death penalty. >

I would agree on the death penalty if we shifted the weight of evidence needed to do so. Many people plead guilty or are convicted for a variety of reasons that sometimes mean that haven’t committed the crime. The US is BIG on throwing people into prison and makes expensive to defend oneself. >

This is such a misleading headline. The regulations only apply to unincorporated Alameda County. Any units within a city are covered by city law, and two of the 14 cities in Alameda County already ban the box (Oakland and Berkeley). >

I understand the good intention but this sounds like people are going to be judged by their appearance and not by the credit and background check. >

That already happens. Try getting a house with a neck tattoo >

Neck tattoos are a pretty clear sign of poor judgment in general, whether or not that's resulted in criminal activity those usually aren't people you want as renters. >

Are you from 1955? I have a neck tattoo and I'm a public school teacher and have never been arrested. But clearly I have poor judgment. >

More like lucky you chose an industry where no one wants to work.
They still have a no exposed tattoo policy at our local school district but could see that changing as they become more desperate for staff.
Edit: I see you were hired THEN got your neck tattoo...good call >

Or maybe exposed tattoos don't mean shit about a person's quality. I know loads of people with visible tattoos that are wonderful. And almost every shitbag I know is tattoo free. >

"Quality" isn't the right measure, and stop trying to confuse the issue - we're specifically talking about face/neck tattoos here, not a butterfly above the ankle. It's no secret how society treats people with face and neck tattoos. The people getting them are either dumb enough to be unaware, or are aware and make their lives more difficult on purpose.
Either way that's someone with shitty judgment, even if they're a nice person. >

Yeah so because society is stupid and judges people with neck tattoos, I shouldn't have got one? No fuck that. Poor judgment would be letting bullshit like stuck up pieces of shit like you keep me from doing something that makes me happy. Go back to the 50s you dinosaur. >

But you knew society was stupid when you got it, and chose to make your life harder. I don't know what to say to that, aside from that if I was a landlord I wouldn't want someone with your judgment as a tenant. >

How have I made my life harder? I still work where I was working when I got the tattoo. Had no problem getting a place to live. What exactly is harder? Some old asshole might not hire me somewhere I don't want to work anyway? >

Never forget the time someone I wanted to rent from asked me to explain a speeding warning I'd gotten six years prior >

"I was...speeding to make sure rent got paid on time." >

Man that view in the thumbnail from the East Bay looking at SF r/cityporn >

Tack it onto rent as a cost of doing business.  Then watch people complain about prices. >

Exactly -- the first person who gets assaulted or raped because there was a hardened criminal living next door to them is going to sue the complex for millions for failing to keep out known criminals.  The increased insurance premiums to cover these cases are just going to get tacked onto the rent city-wide. >

This is stupid... When I used to rent I purposely only looked at people who did background checks ... It let me feel safe knowing johnny thugsss next door wasn't in and out of prison for breaking and entering... fuck that noise >

God you’re afraid of your own shadow aren’t you >

I’d be more concerned with repeat arrests/convictions for assault, vandalism and theft, and gang affiliated felonies. As a tenant, I can look up sex offenders, and can’t do anything about new neighbors. So I can move if I am concerned about anyone. The screening process can be a benefit to everyone in the building. Might not be a popular thought though. I think most people that have served time are fine, but there is a percent whose bad judgement continues and after living in places where drug sales, theft and drama impacts our ability to sleep, work and feel safe, I’d rather not have to increase the odds. Or at least be aware. >

This all the way. It's one thing to grow up in a middle class suburb and talk about how crime should be handled, but it's a whole different story when you're living in a community where the crime's actually happening.
I was lucky enough that I could leave my old apartment where people were shooting right outside my window and trying to steal from my car, but many people are stuck in places like this and landlords need tools to keep some order in their properties. >

I guess California really only wants big corporations in charge of rental housing; those are the only people who'll be able to handle the added risk. >

Risk pertains to people’s ability to pay, you can still check that via employment, paystubs, credit check, and references. That someone got caught with some weed 17 years ago has nothing to do with their financial situation today.
What you are advocating is that it should... affect their financial situation, and their ability to secure housing.
It shouldn’t. If they can pay, they can pay. All someone should need to prove is that they can pay, it is a business transaction, they are buying something, you don’t have any right to know everything about them just like the grocery store can’t run a criminal background check when someone buys milk.
People have a right to privacy, and dignity. >

The grocery store doesnt have to worry about what the buyer does with the milk after buying it. A landlord is taking on an inherent risk of the tenant misusing or damaging their property. I agree with the sentiment behind the bill, but your comparison isn't valid. One is a single time transaction, and the other involves loaning property.
If I'm not mistaken, a background check doesn't just come back with "yup, they're a criminal". It shows what their crimes were. So, in your example, the many landlords are going to see a 17 year old weed conviction, and not care. Yes, people have a right to privacy, but if a landlord is entrusting a large investment to a tenant, they also have a right to know if the person they're bringing on has made poor decisions in the past.
Maybe a compromise where landlord background checks only go back ~5 years, and only show major/violent offenses? >

That’s what deposits are for. And you know it.
No, you don’t have a right to people’s private information.
By your logic there is conceivably no limit to the amount of personal information which could be required for any financial transaction, people have a right to privacy.
It may be that deposits will need to be larger fir the increased risk, but I would prefer that to the slippery slope of violating people’s rights and dignity every time they want to buy something. >



Criminal records are not private they are public.  You have no right to privacy in regards to crime.  


There is no limit to the amount of information personal or otherwise that a landlord can collect to make decisions.  


Deposits and other forms of landlord insurance is there to average out the risk.  If you force landlords to make decisions without the additional information you force them to increase deposits on people who have no criminal record in order to cover the ones with the really bad ones. >

Great. Landlords can't do anything to stop the guy with 15 B&E and 4 assault convictions from moving in and committing more crimes. >

I’d like to tell you about how difficult it is for me to rent or buy a home with a felony from a stupid thing I did at 18, when I’m now 26 with an education and career and not even a parking ticket to my name in almost 10 years >

Problem is without that check people can't tell your "stupid thing at 18" that might be had some pot from my cousins "stupid thing at 18" which was B&E + Assault with intent to do great bodily harm
If your thing is the first one, I dont care, if its the second one, i definately care. 
The correct answer here is
1) this shit should be a federal database to look people up, not hire some shady company
2) there should be points where your thing drops off. Your pot maybe 1-2 years. That B&E, lets do 10-15 or something. >

It's called getting your records expunged. If you ever did something stupid when you were younger you can get it taken off. >

Except that that depends on conditions such as what jurisdiction you are in, your skin colour, whos doing the expunging, etc, etc. If you have to apply to get it taken off, that means someone is approving it, it can not be arbitrary else like anything else in the criminal justice system, the rich white guy gets slap on the wrist while poor black guy gets the max.
Edit: lot of people here who think the justice system is totally fair I guess. >

Quite a bit of it has to do with WHAT you are trying to expunge. How many offenses you have committed, and if you are a repeat offender. Not everything in the world is built around race and keeping one or more races below others. The USA is not as hateful as you seem to think it is my guy. >

clemency is different than getting a record expunged for old or dismissed cases. >

Yup. Problem with that statement though.
In Florida, you can only get your record expunged if you were not convicted. So if you got found guilty either by trial or plea for that dumb thing you did when you were young, you have to go in front of the clemency board and get a full pardon, which in Florida, removes the conviction.
Now that the conviction is gone, you can then ask for an expungement.
So you are right that clemency is a different thing, but clemency is required, so if the clemency process is racist, that means the expungement process is racist. >

California has to be the worst state.  Crazy place, crazy politicians… >

FYI, in places like Canada or most of the world a criminal background check for work only happens in rare situations like if you are working with kids and that is just to look for sex offenders. Or maybe if you want to become a cop (which has high standards including having a degree). 
It would never even cross our minds to do it for housing.
The entire concept of blackballing someone for life just because of a criminal conviction is unheard of. If they have paid their debt to society it is done. Let them move on with life.
The only reason America continues down this path is to keep the prison labourer population strong. Currently, that is around 800,000 ~~slaves~~ workers strong. >

It’s not at all rare in many countries. Many occupations and business activities require such certificates and usually those are more thorough than the joke American background check. 
For safety relevant occupation it’s almost always a must, such as teaching, police, security, army, etc. Same for working for the government, they usually require it. Recently, even non-governmental bodies and agreements like cybersecurity insurance „require“ or encourage background checks for critical functions. 
Just for illustration: all EU member states by law must compile and compile international background checks for citizens with more than one European citizenship. There’s a pan-European online service for that „rarity“. >

One more blow at the apartment manager who has to referee drama among tenants and worry about liability. >

So what. All landlords are evil. >

Legalities aside, if I were a landlord there is one thing I would want to see over all else, on the spot right then and there... The interior of their car. That would tell me all I need to know about how they will treat my property. Empty bottles, fast food wrappers, and the aroma of sour milk mixed with b.o.—nah, you can keep shopping. >

What, you don’t rent to women? >

I am SO glad I am no longer a landlord....Banning criminal background checks....what a great idea.....NOT. >

Most landlords have zero clue how to run a business professionally and come across as morons. Leave it to professionals. >

I can't wait for the fallout. If you can't eliminate risk landlords are going to price it in for everyone or just get out of the market. >

Because landlords don’t already charge the absolute most they can get away with?