Are These 'Dirty Words' to You?

I have a potentially controversial opinion of this: I think they're doing it on purpose. I think they know that some of the words are perfectly legitimate to abandon under Fair Housing, but that the absurdity of others (like "quiet") will push people into a discussion about Fair Housing. In a way, I believe they're using hyperbole to illustrate the ways in which Fair Housing constrains and constricts by deliberately going over-the-top in their choice of words to abolish from their advertising. The eventual goal of a statement like this is probably not to bring down Fair Housing altogether, but to create space for resistance and change by making the problem seem worse than it is.

A similar situation happened with Catholic Charities, who decided to stop facilitating adoptions when they no longer wished to comply with state laws prohibiting them from not placing infants with gay couples. The way the Church tells it, however, is that the government forced them to stop facilitating adoptions because they would not support gay parenting. Their spin on it creates space for resistance to what their congregants perceive as The Homosexual Agenda by making what ought to be a non-issue into an oppressive government regime.

And think about it: how often do you hear people complain about "political correctness," directly or indirectly? This is another example - albeit a clever one.

Ultimately I think that this is just one more attempt to build a conversation about how x issue - in this case, Fair Housing - is going "too far." And look: it's working. We're having this discussion. And while I do believe it's one worth having, I don't think using these kinds of scare tactics ("oooh, can't say 'quiet community,' that violates Fair Housing!!") is an appropriate way to begin it.

Sara, I like your conspiracy theory above and I hope your right. Marketing is about targeting a specific demographic of people who would use your product. Because of the nature of "housing" being a product, it sure creates a grey area from a marketing standpoint.
It does feel like that arm is getting tied tighter and tighter behind our backs.

Okay, I don't know about "quiet" being a FH violation, but back in the day, I was trained to know that word is something you can't say on a tour because it's a verbal promise that it will be "quiet" which is something you can't guarantee. It's akin to saying some place is "safe" for a lot of companies. Consider the litigious society that we live in, Mike. People will, and do, sue over EVERYTHING. That kind of situation just stacks the kindling on a fire that's already too hot.

Do I think they've maybe extended too far? Perhaps...that's a pretty long list, for sure. But I don't like to chance it when it comes to fair housing or the liability side of the property management industry.

You can make your community stand out from the pack without a lot of those words, btw. Vocabulary, while essential, isn't all you've got.

Thanks for the post Mike and thanks to Doug for passing his experience along. With information like you shared I wonder how much fear is being generated within our industry. I do know for sure that the "secret Fair Housing shoppers" are out there and looking for ways to smack communities with violations. I am sure that PM companies are making sure that their staff is prepared. Thanks for the post Mike.

I have been doing some sexual harassment research and came across verbage that stated a company could be held liable if the court finds that "the human resources department is a weak entity" I am writing a paper on that soon. I am trying to find out if the same could be applied when it comes to Fair Housing violations.

I concur that the line needs to be drawn. But so far the cases I have been studying, the majority of those who were slapped with violations were as a result of having nothing in place to prove that they were working to be in compliance. I look forward to others comments as well.

I think part of the biggest problems happening in Fair Housing and other areas of employment where discrimination can be an issue (EDNA, anyone?) is that we're ultimately relying on policies and procedures to enact social justice. That's what Fair Housing is trying to do, that's what anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies are trying to do - everyone wants the freedom to live and work in places that respect our whole selves and that do not judge us for arbitrary traits that have little or nothing to do with our ability to meet our responsibilities and expectations.

The problem, though, is that policies *can't* create social justice. They can create space for it, they can provide incentive to achieve it, but ultimately enforcing a law that says "you must not discriminate based on x y z" only creates a band-aid - it doesn't go deep enough into addressing why these issues exist in the first place. And, like it or not, we can't legislate bigotry out of existence.

And so we wind up worrying over things like whether "family-friendly" will send us to court instead of worrying about the people - singles, couples, triads, families, clans, etc. - who need homes. They may not be little things to a company's bottom line - see Jonathan's post about the largest Fair Housing fine ever - but more than ever I feel like we keep catching the wrong end of the stick and talking about "risk management" and "liability" and getting stuck in the details of potential litigation we lose sight of the ultimate intention of these rules and the people they were created to serve.

I don't know what the solution to that is - but I'm hearing a lot of fear, and a lot of concern about unnecessary restrictions created from that fear - and I want to help make it better. How do we do that?

Looking through the list, some of the words or phrases were noted as "standard - acceptable", and are designated by an underline. Those in bold are not acceptable, and italics were "caution" words. "Quiet" was noted as acceptable. I do agree with Heather's comments about not being able to keep that as a guarantee. I stick to that same rule - if it could come back to bite you later, find a better description! Until I joined the multi-family industry, I never knew what a difference a word could make, but semantics are everything!