Not So Fast - The Final Part of Our Series on Source of Income Discrimination

As we discussed in the last posting in this series, there remain tremendous challenges in resolving the macro issue that inhibits those with little means from renting apartments – the lack of adequate affordable housing stock. However, it would seem that the micro challenge – allowing landlords to discriminate against low income renters, based on the source of their rental payments – could be and was on its way to being resolved in one if not two major Texas cities. Austin had passed an ordinance prohibiting such discrimination, and Dallas had committed to considering such an ordinance.

One of the principals of American government is that, generally, federal legislation preempts and overrides state legislation. State legislation, in turn, perhaps without need for the “generally” caveat in the previous sentence, preempts and overrides local government legislation. This last legislative session, with regard to this very issue, the legislature stepped in and legislated in this very area in SB 267. The operative section of this legislation had three paragraphs (Once again, any interpretation should be taken with the obvious disclaimer that I am not an attorney, certainly not one licensed in Texas, and this is my simple lay explanation):

Section 1 (a) prohibits local governments from prohibiting source of income discrimination, in general: “A municipality or county may not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that prohibits an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, managing agent, or other person having the right to lease, sublease, or rent a housing accommodation from refusing to lease or rent the housing accommodation to a person because the person's lawful source of income to pay rent includes funding from a federal housing assistance program.” The “double negative” can be confusing – the state prohibits prohibiting. Basically, landlords may discriminate against those holding vouchers, and local governments cannot stop them from doing so. 

Section 1 (b) allows local governments to prohibit source of income discrimination, if the renter is a veteran: “This section does not affect an ordinance or regulation that prohibits the refusal to lease or rent a housing accommodation to a military veteran because of the veteran's lawful source of income to pay rent.”

Section 1(c) allows local governments to incentivize and encourage landlords to voluntarily accept housing vouchers: “This section does not affect any authority of a municipality or county or decree to create or implement an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus, or other voluntary program designed to encourage the acceptance of a housing voucher directly or indirectly funded by the federal government, including a federal housing choice voucher.”

With this new law in place, Austin could not enforce its ordinance, and Dallas certainly could still consider such an ordinance, but could not meaningfully address this issue, with regard to non-veterans. What can local governments, particularly in our geographical area of concern, Greater Dallas, still do? It would seem that they are left with two main options for veterans and non-veterans respectively.

First, local governments could pass ordinances prohibiting source of income discrimination in the case of veterans. As we heard from Shavon Moore, MDHA Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Coordinator, at the last regular CoC Assembly meeting, currently 120(!) veterans experiencing homelessness have housing vouchers, but not even one of them find housing. Most likely, many and perhaps most of these veterans, could be housed quickly, if landlords could no longer discriminate against them, refusing to accept their vouchers.   

 

Second, local governments could create programs to educate landlords about the positives and dispel myths and preconceptions about the negatives of accepting renters holding housing vouchers. To complement this education, local governments could grant incentives, perhaps through actual expenditures or tax expenditures to encourage landlords to accept vouchers.

Isabelle Headrick, Executive Director of Accessible Housing Austin

(Courtesy of Accessible Housing Austin)

With such education, landlords could arrive at the realization voiced by Isabelle Headrick, Executive Director of Accessible Housing Austin, “As someone who has leased properties to voucher holders for twelve years, I have found that Section 8 and other voucher programs make my job substantially easier, not harder… these are actually very well-run programs that put money into my organization’s bank account like clockwork every month and allow me to serve tenants who are very stable and stay for years.”

What I Shared at United Way’s Speed Networking Event: Housing Folks with a Criminal Background is about to Become a Lot Easier in Texas

Today I participated in a really cool networking event at United Way of Metropolitan Dallas, “Chat. Connect. Repeat. Speed Networking Event.” The theme for the event was “Referral Guide: Criminal History Backgrounds”. I got to meet some great providers, who are doing excellent work in this area. We each were able to share what each of our organizations do, and how we can mutually learn how to help each other in this area.

Carol Lucky, CEO of Child and Family Guidance Centers, at Chat. Connect. Repeat. (Picture courtesy of United Way of Metropolitan Dallas)

So, first I shared what we do: MDHA leads the development of an effective homeless response system that will make the experience of homelessness in Dallas and Collin Counties rare, brief, and non-recurring.

Then I shared just two system level items we are working on to help with folks’ reentry into society, after coming out of prison. I told them about HB 1510. Here is the summary of this important bill from the Texas Legislature Website:

House Bill 1510 amends the Property Code to establish that a cause of action does not accrue against a landlord or a landlord's manager or agent solely for leasing a dwelling to a tenant with a criminal record. The bill does not preclude a cause of action for negligence in leasing if the tenant was convicted of certain more serious offenses or is subject to sex offender registration and the landlord, manager, or agent knew or should have known of the conviction or adjudication.

Let’s “translate” that into English (with the obvious disclaimer, that I am NOT an attorney, and so none of this should be construed as legal advice). As Calvin Coolidge famously said, the business of the American People is business. And the business of business is to make money. Unfortunately, a corollary to that, is that folks do not want to get sued out of business. So, my business may be to rent out my apartments. However, if I think that if I rent to you, I could get sued, guess who I will not be renting an apartment to? You.

Why might I get sued? Well, say you have a criminal background, and I rent you an apartment. Then you beat up your neighbor. Your neighbor, in our litigious society, might claim that I was negligent simply for renting you the apartment, and I could get sued. Makes sense, right?

Well, no, not really. The facts do not bear out such a concern. As the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition argued in advocating for this legislation, studies have actually shown that, “leasing property to someone with a criminal history who meets the application criteria actually serves to decrease the risk that he or she will commit a new offense… Housing stability has been identified as one of the most critical factors in preventing recidivism and parole violation…”  So, what HB1510 does is remove the danger of that type of lawsuit. Property owners will no longer have to face the danger of a lawsuit, simply for renting property to someone with a criminal history (with some obvious exclusions). This law goes into effect on 1/16/16.

Now, getting the law passed is just the start. Now, we need to educate everyone, landlords, social service providers (especially front line case workers) and consumers about this. The beauty of this is that this is a system change, that requires little if any investment. We don’t need another costly program or complicated grant to use this law to decrease homelessness. We just need to increase knowledge across the system. 

What else did I share with the folks I met with today? Well, we’ve gone a little long, so in the next blog post I will tell you all about that.