San Antonio Apartments Banning Tattoos?!?!?!?!?! WTMFF!!!

[aquaphase]

http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.as ... 02ab8a7ab1

Gilbert Carrillo thinks tattoos are an artform. He's been to tattoo conventions and one of his tattoos was featured in a magazine. "Ever since I was 18, to now, 25, bit by bit, covering up here, covering up there."

But last month, Carrillo's tattoos kept him and his wife, Melissa, from moving into an apartment complex called the Villas at Medical Center. "We liked the apartment, we brought them a check for the deposit and a check for the application fee," says Melissa.
Later, Gilbert went by to look at the apartment wearing a short sleeve shirt. The next day, the Carrillos were told they didn't qualify to live there, because the tattoos on Gilbert's arms violated the policy on personal appearance.

"For them to be so judgmental on a person's appearance, and for them to judge someone based on them having a tattoo is just ridiculous, you know," says Melissa.

The Carrillos were also upset that the manager refused to refund their full $70 application fee. But mostly, they feel the policy is discriminatory.
So the Trouble Shooters went to the Villas at Medical Center to hear their side of it.

The manager, Daisy Salazar, said she wasn't allowed to talk to us. "We have our own lawyers, I can't speak to anyone," said Salazar.
But we didn't give up. We contacted one of the owners of the apartments: A southern California doctor named Edward Frankel.
Frankel e-mailed us a statement saying his apartment complexes do, in fact, "reject prospective tenants who have... tattoos exposed on the neck, head, hands and wrists, or large tattoos that cover over 40% of the lower or upper arm."

Frankel says, "We do not discriminate. The above applies to persons of any race, color, gender, etc."

Frankel, and his partners, have purchased numerous upscale apartment complexes in San Antonio and Dallas, where they've also banned pierced eyebrows and tongues. Tenants can't have more than one nose piercing, or more than five earrings.

Local fair housing officials say the rules may be unusual, but they are not illegal.

"Refusing to rent to somebody because they have tattoos may be unfair, but it's not discrimination under the fair housing act, unless the tattoos are specific to the person's religion or national origin," says Sandy Tamez of the San Antonio Fair Housing Council.

After the Trouble Shooters started looking into the case, the apartment complex refunded the Carrillos' full application fee.

But the couple is still angry that a landlord would consider body art to be the mark of a bad tenant.

[monet2u]

everyone knows tats are a clear indicator of your evilness.

that guy is obv the devil.

[katie]

that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. how is that NOT discriminatory? it's saying, "we don't like the look of you, you can't live here." he should make up a religion like pastafarianism and say his god tells him to get tattoos.

[NerfHerder]

It IS discriminatory but goddammit it's being elevated to the same level as like racism or sexism.

When people start being allowed to be equal based on CHOICES, them gays are going to be able to marry and then we're FUCKED.

-edit- Holy shit, I'm using this for a column idea eventually. THANKS GUYS.

[monet2u]

not if they fire you first.

[Irock]

Ug. Doesn't it seem that there's something inherently discriminator about having an "appearance clause" in a lease agreement anyway? Would it be acceptable for them to turn people away because they had a bad perm by choice? It's ridiculous.

i "I'm sorry ma'am, section 4.2.64.9 clearly states, 'no uggos.'" rock

[aquaphase]

Fair Housing Act? http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights.cfm

No one may take any of the following actions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap:

# Refuse to rent or sell housing
# Refuse to negotiate for housing
# Make housing unavailable
# etc.
# Read the link

The Fair Housing Act doesn't say anything about tattoos. Notice that the apartment complex makes an exemption for tattoos that are religious, and in compliance with the law.

Could a really ugly or misspelled tattoo be considered a disability? Hmm...

[squeezle]

you could make an argument for discrimination based on color(s)

[monet2u]

come on, no one really wants to live next to the devil, I don't care what you say.

[Irock]

I still think they could sue. Even if the fair housing act doesn't cover it I think you could make an arguement that the first amendment does.

[ifihadahifi]

I still think they could sue. Even if the fair housing act doesn't cover it I think you could make an arguement that the first amendment does.

It wouldn't even be considered on that premise. Your first amendment rights are very, very limited.

[aquaphase]

I still think they could sue. Even if the fair housing act doesn't cover it I think you could make an arguement that the first amendment does.

The first amendment really isn't applicable here. This is a potential transaction between two private parties, and "expression" really doesn't come into play in the eyes of the law. I'm pretty sure they have a case with the fair housing act (the entire reason regulatory statutes like these were set up), but it'll be interesting to see if it goes anywhere.

Hell, back in the 80's, before many of the housing statutes were in place, apartments could do all sort of wild things. Here in Dallas, there is an odd apartment community near the SMU campus that is called "The Village." For the longest time the entire area was "child-free." Even in cases where a woman would get pregnant, the apartments of the Village would terminate her lease. Damn crazy stuff that the Fair Housing Act put away with.

[katie]

you could make an argument for discrimination based on color(s)

the most clever.

[mere1975]

Here in Dallas, there is an odd apartment community near the SMU campus that is called "The Village." For the longest time the entire area was "child-free." Even in cases where a woman would get pregnant, the apartments of the Village would terminate her lease.

It's true! My old homeowner's association docs from sometime in the 1980s were a little more forgiving. They specified that we were not allowed to have children between 18 mos. and 18 years of age live there for more than 2 weeks at a time. We all just told the new neighbors it wasn't binding, but it was pretty funny to read. . .

- Mere "allowed for the jetset single dad to have visitation rights after he came out of the closet, got a divorce and moved to Oak Lawn, I guess" 1975

[ifihadahifi]

Ugh. My dad lived in apartments that had the "no children" clause. I always felt sickened when we had to sneak in and out during visitation.

Talk about rejection issues.