FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — A bill that will undo efforts in Kentucky’s two largest cities to ban landlords from discriminating against renters who use federal housing vouchers has been restored after Republican lawmakers quickly overrode the Democratic governor’s veto. The override votes completed work on the bill Wednesday. The lopsided override votes in the House and Senate came a day after Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the legislation. It was Beshear’s first veto of this year’s legislative session. But more are expected amid policy clashes between the Democratic governor and the GOP legislative supermajorities.
Low income housing areas are notoriously dangerous. Why should anyone be forced to rent their own private property out to someone on government assistance?
Why aren’t we just letting people die in the gutter, am I right?
Why should you be allowed to buy up low income neighborhood properties and hold them hostage? Your private property is guaranteed by state protection and it can be taken away by the state!
That would be awful! Luckily, no one is forced to rent to anyone, and you can live there yourself, thereby bringing up the income levels (you do have a job, right?) and therefore the safety.
You have mistaken correlation and causation, electing to reinforce the cause
The article didn’t have a lot of detail on specifically what exactly want going to be allowed. I realize it would have prevented discrimination but specially in what way.
What do you mean? It’s: landlords cannot discriminate against renters using housing vouchers. As in: landlords cannot deny renters just because of they’re paying rent with vouchers.
In most states a landlord can choose if they want to accept a certain form of payment. Mainly my question was., did a landlord have to accept the renter who was on assistance or could they just say no not going to going to accept those on assistance.
But thank you for the clarification.
I have lived in a complex that took section 8 and…im sorry…but I understand why landlords wouldn’t want to be part of that. It was a crime infested shithole. I was robbed at gunpoint on the side of my building. My apartment was broken into twice. None of the pizza places would deliver there and pizza hut actually told us it was because they had had 3 different drivers raped in a single year. In the 6 years I was stuck there there were several shootings in the parking lot. And thats just the major shit. There was of course the constant basic vandalism. Broken windows, slashed tires. Packages almost never actually lasting if you were dumb enough to order to your apt. Shit like that.
I lived nextdoor to a massive section 8 apartment and never had any problems fwiw. Sucks that you had a hard time but it’s definitely a ymmv thing.
Just because someone is using a voucher doesn’t mean they’re going to attract crime. Where I lived, it was mostly immigrants that were new to the country.
Not saying all people on section 8 are criminals of course. And not saying every single section 8 complex turns out like the one I lived in. But, honestly, when stories like mine are somewhat common…if you were a landlord…would you roll the dice on your complex becoming the one famous for no pizza delivery due to all the rape?
No none of that is the reason why, it’s just because they and you are racist! /s
Funny part is I can guarantee I’m going to here that for pointing this out lol
Such as you and the previous commenter? With zero prompting?
That’s because Republicans CARE about the Working Class!
Fuck the poor, right? Lemme go back to loving my neighbor. Assholes.
If you want to buy a house and rent it out to people on assistance nothing is stopping you. You are free to care about the poor
What a shitty libertarian attitude.
I was simply responding to the comment of “let me go back to loving my neighbor”. Nothing is stopping him from loving his neighbor or of renting to someone.
“You are free to care about the poor” is a typical libertarian phrase that implies that it is not the government’s duty to ensure the poor are cared for, which it is.
That person shouldn’t have to even consider renting out a house to people on assistance because there are huge corporations that own hundreds or even thousands of rental properties that should be required to do so by the government. They are free to care about the poor too. They don’t, so they should be forced to.
Very well said, Flying Squid. Thank you.
Shocked I say, shocked
I live in kentucky. have all my life.
the kentucky democratic party will never make issues like this an issue to fundraise or encourage people to run for office. it’s embarrassing.
