The condemnation heaped on BYU's off-campus housing policies needs to be examined from a different point of view.
When a tenant signs a lease, he agrees to rules set down by the landlord. Some landlords forbid smoking and pets. A tenant can either agree or disagree. If he doesn't like it, he can go elsewhere.What if he can't find an apartment that allows pets or smoking? Then he will have to live in another town or give up his pets and cigarettes.
A landlord is not required by law to rent out his units to everybody who wants one. Landlords are bound by fair housing laws that prevent discrimination against minorities. Those laws keep landlords from refusing housing to minorities, but those laws don't prevent landlords from setting up restrictions not prohibited by law.
For example, smokers do not have a constitutional right to smoke in their apartments if they sign a lease that forbids it.
This brings us to BYU. If a landlord wants to be on BYU's approved list he must impose certain restrictions on his tenants. A tenant who agrees has no grounds to complain because the restrictions are enforced. It is lawful for landlords to write into a lease agreement rights of inspection at reasonable times.
A tenant has grounds to complain if the restrictions are not clearly set forth at the time a lease agreement is signed. If they were not, then the landlord and BYU are out of line. In all the articles I have read, no one has commented directly on this point.
Michael W. Crippen
Salt Lake City