eyephone said:Perspective said:eatthis said:Perspective said:What's shocking is that this violates federal law. Advertising for housing isn't supposed to target certain demographics, but many Irvine builders' ads clearly target certain demographics.
Maybe all the pictures of happy couple are discriminating against single folks. Or, all the pictures of happy families are discrimination against childless couples. Com' on now!
Well, you can mock the law, but you're right. Family status is a protected class in this context just like race.
"The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.) make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act."
Well maybe you should take them to court. But I think possibly it may be considered frivolous or a bad faith lawsuit.
Is it reasonable to have every ethencity on a home builders webpage or advertisement? It's all subjective if you think a certain race is targeted.
If the advertisement said, we have a special loan home buying program from China to Irvine, then I would say that's discriminatory.
Perspective said:eyephone said:Perspective said:eatthis said:Perspective said:What's shocking is that this violates federal law. Advertising for housing isn't supposed to target certain demographics, but many Irvine builders' ads clearly target certain demographics.
Maybe all the pictures of happy couple are discriminating against single folks. Or, all the pictures of happy families are discrimination against childless couples. Com' on now!
Well, you can mock the law, but you're right. Family status is a protected class in this context just like race.
"The provisions of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600, et seq.) make it unlawful to discriminate in the sale, rental, and financing of housing, and in the provision of brokerage and appraisal services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), as amended, makes it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling, that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. However, the prohibitions of the act regarding familial status do not apply with respect to housing for older persons, as defined in section 807(b) of the act."
Well maybe you should take them to court. But I think possibly it may be considered frivolous or a bad faith lawsuit.
Is it reasonable to have every ethencity on a home builders webpage or advertisement? It's all subjective if you think a certain race is targeted.
If the advertisement said, we have a special loan home buying program from China to Irvine, then I would say that's discriminatory.
It wasn't a frivolous claim in this case which proceeded beyond preliminary judgment (and likely resulted in settlement):
"Plaintiffs, African-American persons, looking for housing in the New York metropolitan area, filed suit against defendant, a newspaper publisher, for publishing real estate advertisements featuring models of whom virtually none were African-American, and ads violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.S. ? 3601 et. seq. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that defendant's publication of ads in which the models of potential customers were always white and the few African-American models represented service employees violated ? 3604(c), which prohibited the publication real estate advertisements for the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicated any preference based on race. Affirming the lower court's refusal to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim, the court held that plaintiffs' complaint could be fairly read to allege a violation of ? 3604(c), stating a claim for which relief could be granted. Applying the ordinary reader test, the court found that a trier of fact could have plausibly concluded that the ads with models of a particular race could be read as indicating a racial preference so that plaintiffs' complaint could not be dismissed." 923 F.2d 995; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 1017; 18 Media L. Rep. 1666.
Perspective said:"Likely resulted in a settlement" idk
What is it that you don't know?
eyephone said:Perspective said:"Likely resulted in a settlement" idk
What is it that you don't know?
What's the exact name of the case?
Bullsback said:Here is a question for you, how is it that the builders pay different incentives to agents based upon where the buyer came from. For example, I have heard some builders are paying a higher commission for foreign buyers (as well as giving a pretty large stipend to cover the travel related expenses of the foreign buyer). All foreign buyers are treated equally, but isn't that ultimately discriminating (especially on the commission side) to a particular buyer?
I presume they would argue it is to cover the increased costs related to being the agent for a foreign buyer (i.e., agent themselves, could theoretically be from another country and thus have to incur additional expenses on there own side). In reality, I presume not many of the agents are actually traveling and are locally based with connections to various foreign markets. Just curious.
Note: This is in no way related to LaCressa. I did hear some developments in BP do it and I presume if they do it, others do as well.
MFWIC said:So much discussion about possible discrimination based on the housing act, is anyone even remotely serious about starting a lawsuit? Or just practicing for the debate club?
paperboyNC said:Compare Cressa at 2800-3000 sqft to a nearby 3,000 sqft floorplan and tell me which one you'd prefer
irviniteeee said:paperboyNC said:Compare Cressa at 2800-3000 sqft to a nearby 3,000 sqft floorplan and tell me which one you'd prefer
I would prefer the second one, hands down. I'm assuming it's Baker Ranch (which I have a soft spot for).
AW said:The 2nd one secondary rooms are tiny
Cressa, because it's Irvine![]()
The I-R-V said:Here's a gamechanger:
There is a light at the corner of Portola Springs and Mojeska. Will the street, Portola Springs, continue into the development overlooking Legato and the cul-de-sacs of Cressa?
It looks like it leads to the new homes possibly being developed even higher up the hill.
Who wants road traffic right above your home? Anyone know?