Fair housing and renewal incentives

MFE has a story on the reliable "balance new and existing residents" this month ( www.multifamilyexecutive.com/property-ma...ets-make-a-deal.aspx ). One thing that surprised me was this note:

"Another option is to sweeten the deal with free carpet shampooing or carport discounts. These promotions, however, can’t be divvied out to just a few. Fair housing laws mandate that occupants of similar units be accommodated in the same way."

Really? I understand fair housing as guidelines to avoid inconsistent treatment of protected classes. I wouldn't consider an existing resident to be a protected class. I would consider my understanding to be imperfect, however.

Hmm. I read that as more of a directive to ensure that "deal-sweeteners" are given to renewing residents on an equal basis not determined by membership in protected classes - not that you have to provide the same perks to renewing AND new residents, but that if you're giving one renewing resident a particular concession, you had better be offering it to other renewing residents also.

One of the biggest things to remember about Fair Housing is that just because you know you're not discriminating against a protected class doesn't mean that someone can't claim you are. No one knows your intentions. So in this case, say you offer a carpet cleaning to the resident in Apt. 101 (who happens to be a white male) because he's going on his third term, but you didn't offer one to Apt. 202 (who happens to be a hispanic female) because it's her first renewal. While you know you offered it to them for the reasons stated above, they may perceive it differently and have you investigated. If you keep good records and document your reasons for offering the carpet cleanings, then you should be fine. But it's one big headache that could be avoided if you simply follow the golden rule-offer the same thing to everyone!

Good point. The one thing I would add to that is that if you're, say, only doing free carpet cleanings for folks who're on their third renewal, and the folks who make it to a third renewal are predominantly members of dominant classes (i.e. white, male, straight, etc.) - then you've created a situation that is structurally discriminatory against protected classes. Intent in this case (and, to be honest, in most cases) is less important than effect.

I agree with Morgan that the key to these types of situations is documentation, and to provide even more structure, a company policy that defines resident renewal incentives. Consistency and documentation are key.