Emily Stephenson couldn’t find a place to live for four and a half weeks. It wasn’t due to a lack of trying or a lack of finances or a lack of availability. Stephenson had one problem: She was lacking a marriage license.
Little-known to residents in the bountiful land we know as Utah County, many apartment complexes, privately owned condominiums, duplexes and other rental properties have problems with people renting from them that are not legally married, which is otherwise known as cohabiting. Stephenson was looking for a nice, affordable place to live with her boyfriend while they were both attending school and working. She was shocked at the responses she received.
“I called places on Craigslist, and when they found out we weren’t married, they said ‘No,'” Stephenson said. “If I can pay and be a good tenant and can keep the place clean, then I don’t know what the big deal is.”
Well, apparently Stephenson isn’t alone in her thinking. According to recent statistics, 60 percent of couples live together before legally getting married. And in many states, couples are considered legally married after living together for long enough under certain “common law” contingencies.
I decided to undergo an experiment to discover the reason behind the discrimination of cohabiting couples. I called 15 different housing developments including apartment complexes, duplexes, condos, townhouses and basically anything that offered “married” housing for students and non-students.
The responses I received from these establishments and their landlords were similar to Stephenson’s dilemma. Of these establishments, about half didn’t even respond to my inquiry if tenants actually needed to be married. And 50 percent of the ones that did respond said “No.”
I asked for specific reasons for their policies or guidelines on denying couples that aren’t legally married. One apartment complex responded that it was because of the “BYU Honor Code.” Yet, another apartment had previously informed me that the BYU Honor Code did not require married couples or non-BYU students that were living off campus to abide by their housing standards. The inconsistencies in their responses seemed startling.
Further research proved that it is not illegal to live together as boyfriend and girlfriend in Utah. The only states that legally penalize cohabitation are Mississippi, Virginia, Florida and Michigan. So, it seemed that if there were no legal issues regarding the matter and half of these residences that denied cohabitation were not BYU housing, then Stephenson was justified in feeling discriminated against.
“Maybe in this culture, people don’t condone my behavior, but I don’t know if that is right,” Stephenson said.
Although I have moral and religious views that disagree with people cohabiting, I also hold moral and religious views that say it is wrong to shun someone because they don’t live the way that you prefer. It doesn’t seem right for someone to be denied a living space simply based on the fact that they don’t have your same standards. They aren’t making you cohabit and their “lifestyle” isn’t rubbing off on you just because they happen to rent your basement apartment!
Now, legally, if an apartment or townhouse is privately owned, the landlord does have the right to choose or deny whomever they want. And it does appear that being “single” isn’t one of the categories that is lawfully protected against discrimination.
“As a land lord you have rights too,” said John Spencer. “You can choose to rent to those you choose as long as you don’t discriminate based on age, religion, race, genetic background, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or disability. You’re OK not to rent to someone if you prefer married couples. Being single is not protected.”
But, it sure does seem completely wrong and judgmental.
“I think it doesn’t matter,” said Sierra Branscomb. “As long as the rent is being paid and all other agreements of the rental contract are being upheld (no smoking, no pets, etc.) then what difference does it really make between a couple who is co-habitating and a couple that the state recognizes by a piece of paper as legally married?”
So, whether someone is legally married and paying their rent on time or still boyfriend and girlfriend and paying their rent on time, it shouldn’t make a difference. But, sadly and unfortunately for Stephenson, it does to some in Utah County.
I ran into this same problem when I first started looking for housing. Coming from Maine, having female roommates is not unusual (even some public universities have co-ed bathrooms). So after finding an apartment on craigslist and contacting the owner I filled out an online application for the location. I was shocked when Armstrong Property Management (APM) contacted me the next day telling me they could not rent to me because I was a male and the other two roommates were female (keep in mind this was private non-BYU contracted housing). When I confronted APM on gender discrimination and asked if they had any specific policies in place, the girl on the phone uncomfortably laughed and said “discriminate, against men?” Yes, discrimination against men is possible, and gender discrimination in housing is wrong and illegal. As a libertarian I subscribe to a life of “live and let live”.
For the record it *is* legal to not ask two girls to share a room (or even an apartment) with a libertarian guy.
Laws for Roommates and Shared Housing (courtesy of Craigslist)
What Ben doesn’t mention here is that college dorms *ask* their residents what kind of roommates they would like to have:
tidy or clean?
female or male?
If a girl is sharing a bathroom with a guy in Maine, it’s because she *chose* that. So, in this case, the landlords are actually “discriminating” more, not less.
The definition of “discrimination” is not necessarily “mean”, “illegal”, and “totally wrong.” In your case, Ben, it meant “common sensitivity.”
Proposing the other side of the argument, I own a couple rental units after living in a Triplex as our first home, and now a duplex we live in; I also know quite a lot of other Landlords. From my perspective, it has absolutely nothing to do with “morality” that we may prefer renting to married couples than unmarried couples or roommates. More so, it brings up the issue of renting an entire unit, verses co-signing and subletting limitations and stresses.
Renting out an entire unit with married cosigners is in most (not all) cases easier and more secure. It is less likely for the occupants to change significantly during the lease term.
Renting to co-signing unmarried couples brings up a few issues that most small landlords don’t want to deal with. Some issues we fear are the couple breaking up, who stays? If you have a good rental property, chances are they’ll want to stay. What if both fight to stay, and now you’re in the middle of their personal battle! Do you pick one, or do you terminate the lease for both of them? It is a good position to be in. I realize the same exact issues are possible in cases of divorce, since married couples also break up; but I hope you can see the perspective that married couples are far more likely to stay together. I have experienced this myself when I rented to a couple that was in every definition cohabitating (married minus the license) and did not expect to run into these issues, and I want to avoid it happening again as much as I’m able to.
Renting to a single individual as the sole occupant brings up a concern for lack of control on future occupancy. When leasing a unit, a landlord has the chance to screen all occupants. If a sole occupant is signed on a lease, it is a very uncomfortable situation for a landlord if that tenant invites another occupant to live with them (whether romantic or platonic) that you as a landlord would not approve. Do you prevent it? Do you terminate the lease? Even if the landlord likes the tenant, but not the new occupant, chances are any attempt to use their authority over the occupancy of the house will result in poor relations between landlord and tenant. I do think it’s fair and a basic right that a landlord should have authority on who lives in their house! This happened to a neighbor of mine: they rented to a very nice single mother of two kids. Within a few months of moving in, her new boyfriend moved in with his two very large and aggressive dogs, multiple cats, and he and his family (who visited often) smoked constantly. There was clearly outlined no pets and no smoking in the lease agreement. The process of then trying to evict an occupant that isn’t even on the lease caused a lot of stress for everyone. For myself, I own a legal duplex that has two separate structures; I live in own home and rent the other home. It really matters to me who I rent to, they live in very close proximity to me and the quality of renter has an affect on my quality of life. A lot of my friends own houses with accessory or mother-in-law apartments, their tenants literally live in their home, so risking additional occupants not screened or selected by you is not a situation we want to leave ourselves vulnerable to.
Renting to roommates brings up a somewhat similar concern depending on the lease setup. If all occupants are co-signers, what happens when one moves out, does the landlord find a new occupant and do the roommates have input (and the leasing process is TIME CONSUMING!! high turnover is NOT ideal), or do the remaining occupants find a new tenant, and what approval process does the landlord have? If one occupant is the primary signer who holds the lease, are the rest considered subletting and that primary signer is financially responsible for all rent and collects it from the subletters… Does the landlord approve all subletters, but it’s the tenants’ responsibility to list and process their subleases? Even if the tenant does handle most of the process and gets the landlord approval, why would a landlord choose this rental situation when they can instead have one lease agreement, no subletting, with married co-signers that pay the same amount in rent? From my perspective, there is only more time and stress involved for the landlord, and no added benefit.
Landlords that voluntarily rent out single rooms for rent to non-married roommates (subletting where they choose each occupant) often charge a premium price per room and therefore the additional time and stress of subletting is made up for by the additional rental income. It seems a lot to ask a landlord to honor the lower price of an entire unit but also ask them to take on the additional stresses, commitments, and risks of subletting, and then turn around and point the finger of “discrimination” when they don’t want to.
The non-marital occupancy for renters is, in my opinion, far from a debate on morality. It is a topic of risk assessment. Non-married renters tend to pose a stronger risk of high turnover, stress, and potentially failure to comply such as additional non-qualified occupants. These are not just what-if scenarios, I’ve seen and experienced these personally, and the above are just two examples of many. And I’m fully aware that the same risks are inherent in ANY occupant, including married couples, but the risk is lower. I know I may not be eloquent in my argument, I’m not a content writer or debater. I’m just a simple, small landlord with many landlord friend and would like for this other point of view to be considered.