Reader comments
Cities looking at incentives for landlords to curb crime

"Housing is not a right, it's a privilege," says Paul Smith.

This exemplifies the very essence of what is wrong with America; the attitude that basic human rights (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) are a privilege not a right.

All this does is shuffle the criminal element around, it does not address the root cause of criminal behavior.

On the first page the article states "...Good Landlord program participants agree not to rent to anyone who was charged with committing ..... crimes". Charging someone with a crime does not mean they are guilty of any crime. Either someone has their facts wrong here or someone's rights are being violated.

The second page says Sandy is considering how to handle "convicted criminals". Sandy appears to have it right, but I can't help but wonder about criminals being persecuted after they have paid their debt to society. If they are still a danger to society why are released in the first place? Is the judicial system such a sham that cities must deal with their mistakes long after the problem should have been previously dealt with? Perhaps prosecutors should stop trying to pad their conviction rates by plea bargaining with dangerous criminals.

"Criminals will still be able to rent in certain places. They pay more, but hopefully that gives them incentive to change."

Umm, tell me, how does changing your behavior amend your existing criminal record? It's the record the landlords are going to go off of, not your current behavior. I detest these programs and I hope that sooner or later the governments that implement them (and the landlords who act as their willing agents) get sued and have to pay big bucks.

Ironically, smokers used to complain of being treated like criminals--now the criminals can complain of being treated like smokers!

If you treat the problem, I.E. crime prevention in our elementary and middle schools by teaching kids what's against the law before they start breaking it, you might have better results. Discriminating against someone who has committed a crime 10-15 years ago but has done nothing illegal since isn't going to do a bit of good, it will hinder their recovery and reintegration into society.

Make it illegal to rent to illegal aliens... this would curb crime and drugs that are being distributed directly from the Mexican drug cartels.

I own rentals in Midvale. When you get a high concentration of low cost rentals in an area, the landlords need to be careful not to rent to the criminal element if they are in an area that has not already been trashed. In addition to the West Jordan suggestions, I also added to my contracts the requirement for all school age youth to attend school as required by the Jordan School District. Some may not think that is fair, but it is necessary if the community as to survive, and the property values maintained. I have enforced it more than once.

The problem is that some landlords don't pay attention and then cry about it when they are the guilty ones allowing the neighborhood to be trashed by the criminal element. It needs to be stopped with the little things like teenagers hanging in the neighborhood and stealing from the neighbors. Criminals andbad elemement don't buy the houses/condos in these areas, they are unable to get credit and they need to be able to quickly move on, and so the percentage of rentals increases as property value decreases.

What's next, let's bar criminals from buying food and clothes. If all the criminals were naked living in the woods eating berries we would all be safer... This kind of program and law should be unconstitutional. I'm for an open discussion and knowing were people with past problems reside, but irregardless of past behavior food, clothing, housing and employment ought to be available to all people. And what a better way to enforce an unethical law than having landlords enforce it instead of the law enforcement agency. Why don't we go back to the middle ages of lords and serfs.

Credit checks. Background checks. Housing is not a right, it's a privelege".

I wonder if Paul Smith and his ilk have ever faced homelessness? What he's really saying if you're imperfect, you don't deserve to be a first class citizen.

People make mistakes. And, as has been noted, being "charged" with a crime is different than being "convicted" of a crime.

I thought that a criminal has already done their time in jail plus have fines to pay, now it continues when their out. If they have to pay more to live somewhere else according to the article, how would they pay? Sounds like we might end up with more homeless people which generally equates to more crime.

What's the matter with keeping sex offenders and other riff raff out of apartment complexes? Who wants to live next door to a rapist or child molester? I don't see anything wrong with keeping those people out.