APPENDIX B: State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-Of-Income Discrimination
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program APPENDIX B: State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination Updated August 2021 Set out below is a compilation of state, local, and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in the housing market based on source of income, along with an annotated bibliography of studies and published articles relating to discrimination against families with federal Housing Choice Vouchers. You can use the hyperlinks in the table of contents to navigate through the document. This compilation updates research originally compiled by PRRAC in 2009 and also drawing on earlier documents prepared by the National Housing Law Project and the Center for Policy Alternatives. The compilation was updated for the Fourth National Housing Mobility Conference in 2012 and was published as an appendix to the PRRAC- Urban Institute housing mobility toolkit that followed the conference, Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a Successful Housing Mobility Program (February 2013). Since 2013, we have regularly updated the appendix as these state and local laws have proliferated. In addition, we have compiled a guide for advocates and local policy leaders, titled Crafting an Effective Local Source of Income Discrimination Law (March 2020). In 2018, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report using the data from this Appendix to provide a national overview of laws protecting Housing Choice Voucher families from discrimination. The report, Prohibiting Discrimination Against Renters Using Housing Vouchers Improves Results, by Alison Bell, Barbara Sard, and Becky Koepnick (December 2018), includes a chronology of adoption of the statutes and ordinances described below, and an interactive map.1 In 2020, the Urban Institute also developed a dataset based on this Appendix, which presents the information in a more analytic framework, including scoring of the relative strength of the laws. See the updated dataset here. Zillow has also incorporated data from this Appendix in the “Local Legal Protections” section of its online rental listings. We are grateful for the contributions and corrections of our current and former staff contributors, and many of our legal services colleagues in the Housing Justice Network (see our full list of acknowledgements here). If you discover any errors in this document or have additional materials to add (new ordinances, case law developments, law review articles, etc.), please contact Phil Tegeler ([email protected]). 1 According to the Center’s calculations, at the time the report was released, source of income discrimination laws protected 34% of voucher holders in the U.S. With the addition of five states since December 2018 (New York, California, Colorado, Rhode Island and Maryland) and several new municipalities, we estimate that at least 50% of voucher holders are now covered. Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATE STATUTES A. California B. Connecticut C. Colorado D. Delaware (limited protection for housing vouchers) E. District of Columbia F. Maine (weakened by court interpretation) G. Maryland H. Massachusetts I. Minnesota (weakened by court interpretation) J. New Jersey K. New York L. North Dakota M. Oklahoma N. Oregon O. Rhode Island P. Utah Q. Vermont R. Virginia S. Washington T. Wisconsin (does not cover housing vouchers) II. LOCAL ORDINANCES A. Cities/Counties in California 1. Alameda, CA 2. Berkeley 3. Corte Madera 4. East Palo Alto 5. Fairfax 6. Los Angeles 7. Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas only) 8. Marin County 9. Mill Valley 10. Novato 11. San Anselmo 12. San Diego 13. San Francisco 14. San Rafael 15. Santa Clara County (unincorporated areas only) 16. Santa Monica 17. Woodland B. Cities in Colorado 1. Denver C. Cities in Delaware Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 2 1. Wilmington D. Cities/Counties in Florida 1. Alachua County 2. Broward County 3. Hillsborough County 4. Miami-Dade County E. Cities in Georgia 1. Atlanta F. Cities/Counties in Illinois 1. Chicago 2. Cook County 3. Harwood Heights 4. Naperville 5. Urbana 6. Wheeling (does not cover housing vouchers) G. Cities in Iowa 1. Des Moines (preempted by state law 2021) 2. Iowa City (preempted by state law 2021) 3. Marion (preempted by state law 2021) H. Cities in Kentucky 1. Louisville I. Cities in Maine 1. Portland J. Cities/Counties in Maryland 1. Annapolis 2. Anne Arundel County 3. Baltimore City 4. Baltimore County 5. Frederick 6. Frederick County 7. Howard County 8. Montgomery County 9. Prince George’s County K. Cities in Massachusetts 1. Boston 2. Cambridge 3. Quincy 4. Revere L. Cities in Michigan 1. Ann Arbor 2. East Lansing 3. Grand Rapids 4. Holland 5. Jackson Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 3 6. Kalamazoo 7. Kentwood 8. Lansing 9. Wyoming M. Cities in Minnesota 1. Minneapolis N. Cities in Missouri 1. Clayton 2. Saint Louis 3. Webster Groves O. Cities/Counties in New York 1. Buffalo 2. Erie County 3. Hamburg 4. Nassau County 5. New York City 6. Rochester 7. Suffolk County 8. Syracuse 9. Westchester County 10. West Seneca P. Cities in Ohio 1. Athens 2. Akron 3. Bexley 4. Cincinnati 5. Cleveland Heights 6. Columbus 7. Linndale 8. Reynoldsburg 9. South Euclid 10. Toledo 11. University Heights 12. Warrensville Heights 13. Westerville 14. Wickliffe 15. Worthington Q. Cities in Pennsylvania 1. Borough of State College 2. Philadelphia 3. Pittsburgh R. Cities in Rhode Island 1. Providence Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 4 S. Cities in Tennessee 1. Memphis T. Cities in Texas 1. Austin (preempted by state law 2015) 2. Dallas (preempted by state law 2015) U. Cities/Counties in Washington 1. Bellevue 2. King County (unincorporated areas only) 3. Kirkland 4. Olympia 5. Redmond 6. Renton 7. Seattle 8. Spokane 9. Tumwater 10. Vancouver V. Cities/Counties in Wisconsin 1. Cambridge (does not cover housing vouchers) 2. Dane County 3. Madison 4. Milwaukee County 5. Ripon (does not cover housing vouchers) 6. Sun Prairie (does not cover housing vouchers) 7. Wauwatosa (does not cover housing vouchers) III. STATE AND LOCAL INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS A. Illinois B. Oregon C. Virginia D. Washington IV. PROPOSED LEGISLATION (and ABA RESOLUTION) A. Hawaii B. Ohio C. Michigan D. New Mexico E. Saint Louis County, MO (unincorporated areas only) F. ABA Resolution G. Federal Bills V. FEDERAL LAWS PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER FAMILIES Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 5 A. HOME Program B. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program C. Mark to Market D. Multifamily Units Purchased from HUD E. HUD Regulations and Notices F. Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 G. Capital Magnet Fund H. Preemption VI. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Law Review Articles on Source-of-Income Discrimination Recent Studies of Source-of-Income Discrimination Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 6 STATE LAWS California Historically, the California source of income discrimination law did not protect Section 8 voucher tenants. See SABI v. Sterling, 183 Cal.App.4th 916 (2010). However, in October 2019, the Governor signed into law an amendment to California State Code that expanded source of income discrimination to include any verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, to a representative of a tenant, or to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including Housing Choice Vouchers. The updated California Government Code Section 12927 includes in the definition of “source of income” funds as “paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937.” The state law is augmented by ordinances in several California cities, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, San Francisco, East Palo Alto, Berkeley, Marin County, Santa Clara County, Corte Madera, and Woodland (see discussion of local ordinances below). Date Enacted Source of income discrimination was added to §12955 in January 2000 and further amended in 2005. Protections for voucher holders under source of income discrimination were added in October 2019. Cal.Gov.Code § 12921 effective January 1, 2014; Amendments to § 12927 and § 12955 approved October 8, 2019 Related state regulations: 25 CCR § 12005 Relevant Case Law: Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc., 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719, 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (finding that despite the language of subsection (p)(1), protection against discrimination on the basis of source of income is not limited to landlords and tenants and may be applied to borrowers and lenders). Operative Language: Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955; effective January 1, 2005, amended October 8, 2019 (Section of the Fair Employment and Housing Act): “For the purposes of this section, ‘source of income’ means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or to a representative of a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance, and federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including, but not limited to, federal housing assistance vouchers issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. For Poverty & Race Research Action Council 2021 www.prrac.org 7 the purposes of this section, a housing owner or landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant.” Rules Pertaining to Source of Income Source of income discrimination applies to landlords; real estate brokers, home sellers, mortgage companies, and banks may not refuse to deal with you because of the source of your income. They also cannot charge a higher deposit or treat you differently because of your source of income. A landlord cannot advertise or state a preference for certain sources of income.