Discrimination is a Property Right (and a Necessity)

A  Washington state court recently struck down a Seattle ordinance that forced landlords to rent to the next tenant in line if that individual met the landlord’s minimum standards. In short, once the landlord set minimum standards, he could not discriminate on the basis of anything else. The Washington court ruled that this constituted a “taking,” and therefore deprived the landlord of his property. Seattle property owners will now have more freedom in choosing a tenant–to discriminate.

To discriminate is to recognize that two or more things are not the same, and to then treat them differently. Despite the conventional wisdom that discrimination is inherently evil, we each discriminate in countless ways every day. We discriminate when we go to one restaurant or grocer rather than another. We discriminate when we choose our friends and lovers. We discriminate every time we make a choice.

The right to property means the freedom to create, use, keep, trade, and dispose of material values. That includes the freedom to choose the terms and conditions by which we will trade with others or allow them to use our property. If we choose terms and conditions that are irrational, others are free to refrain from dealing us.

Landlords must discriminate if they wish to remain in business. Simply because someone can pay the rent does not mean that they will be a good tenant. (I speak from experience–I have been a landlord for ten years.) An adequate income does not guarantee that an individual will take care of a property or be responsible. I have turned down qualified tenants because they were late to an appointment. If someone can’t keep an appointment, that is a good sign that they won’t pay the rent on time, regardless of their income and qualifications.

The overturned Seattle ordinance would have made such actions illegal. I would have been forced to rent to individuals who thought nothing of wasting my time and breaking their promises. If I lived in Seattle, I would have been saddled with unwanted tenants. I would have been prevented from using and trading my property as I judge best.