I'm not decided on the topic being talked about, but just want to say that my parents in Milwaukee renting out a condominium have gotten burned from a string of 4 tenants. Flat out didn't make payments, didn't respect the rules (i.e. rules of condominium association, which puts the owner in trouble), intentionally ruined the place on last day out, literally, with a sledgehammer, and basically ended up costing money. And my parents are by no means rich... the $800/month for a 3-bedbroom place was their primary means of income.

They're finally having better luck now that this time that they requested credit reports, actually exhaustively followed through on references, etc.

Don't know what the answer is -- maybe the regulations should selectively be applied to those who rent out multiple properties?

I don't think landlords screen tenants out of malice, and I know a bunch of landlords who have related their challenges to me. But environments like this are to unlawful bias what standing water is to mosquitos. It sort of can't help but creep in, and without some objective standard, there's no way to keep it from turning into a plague.

>maybe the regulations should selectively be applied to those who rent out multiple properties

I think they do.

I talked to someone about renting once, I thought we'd agreed to go ahead, the next day they called and said, essentially, they'd decided to rent to someone they preferred better who expressed interest after me. Casually, as though it wasn't a slap in the face.

I concluded that I'm probably stuck renting from an impersonal corporate landlord that runs apartment complexes, but that seems more expensive.

At least in the US, I think people that are renting out part of the building they live in have, legally, a higher degree of latitude in terms of discrimination. It is kind of like a job interview. Or considering someone as a roommate.

> I go to rent a car, they have to rent me the car if it's available

I don’t think they have to rent you anything if they don’t feel like it. They can wait for safer looking driver just fine. It’s just they don’t, because it doesn’t make sense for them from business perspective, but they very much could do that.

And here I think that if Alamo started turning down drivers with reservations at the rental counter on sight, and those drivers were even slightly disproportionately Black, Alamo would be in a world of hurt.

If they had no reason to turn down drivers other than their race, sure, but that's because it's illegal (on top of being morally repugnant). They can turn down drivers for other reasons just fine, though, even if they are disproportionately black. For example, I'm told that voter ID laws are wrong, because black people are less likely to have ID (presumably driver's license). Alamo is perfectly able to turn down drivers without driver licenses, even if they are disproportionately black.

My point is that the expectation is so strong that, absent something on your driving record to prevent it, you'll get a rental no matter what you look like as long as you have a reservation (which you'll get sight unseen).

That is not true of apartment renting; in fact, I'd argue, it's distinctively untrue of renting. Thus, my rebuttal to Rayiner.

This is much more true of rental companies that work at a scale close to Alamo. If you pass a background check and have a deposit you get a spot.

This is less true of mom and pop rentals. This is probably less true of mom and pop anything.

I think you're right that intuition based decisions make it easier for racism to creep in and are harder to diagnose and fix than process based decisions.

But this problem with renting is probably more true of hiring and firing and more impactful. Should we apply the same rules to hiring and firing?

At first blush, it sounds crazy. I don't know how to make it workable. But in the large, tech industry hiring is super bigoted! The problem you'd be correcting is very real.