A bill introduced in mid-February by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) would make it illegal to deny tenancy for those on Section 8 and instead require landlords to consider prospective tenants who use Section 8.
Existing law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, prohibits housing discrimination, including discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, or authorizations, based on specified personal characteristics, including source of income. Existing law defines the term “source of income” for purposes of the provisions relating to discrimination in housing accommodations described above, to mean lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant.
Under Senate Bill 329 This bill would instead define the term for purposes of those provisions, to mean verifiable income paid directly to a tenant, or paid to a housing owner or landlord on behalf of a tenant, including federal, state, or local public assistance and housing subsidies, as specified.
Basically, Section 8 housing vouchers do not meet source-of-income standards and SB 329 changes the definition so source of income includes the housing subsidies paid by the government to the landlords.
According to the Bill:
SECTION 1.
Section 12927 of the Government Code is amended to read:
(I) “Source of income” means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. For the purposes of this definition, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. 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 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f).
SEC. 2.
Section 12955 of the Government Code is amended to read:
12955.
It shall be unlawful:
(p) (1) For the purposes of this section, “source of income” means lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. For the purposes of this section, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant. 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 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f).
7 comments
That is what got Antioch in this mess
As a landlord I do background and credit checks. I’ve never had a section 8 apply that passed the basic background checks.
If they’re going to require landlords to change the income criteria to rent, then they need to make it easier for landlords to evict non-paying tenants…like they do in Arizona and Nevada.
If both Section 8 and open markets are held to the same criteria legal eviction should know no difference.
Funds/rents for Section 8 are not really guaranteed case for example the Dec/Jan 2018 Federal Shutdown landlords were instructed to use their own reserve funds. Ridiculous. Meanwhile 70 to 80% of landlord rent would not have been paid and it is illegal to evict Section 8 tenant because HUD has not paid their portion to landlords. This is wrong leaving landlords to use funds they may or may not have. If this was an an open market tenant landlords would have legal solutions to remedy unpaid rents.
Where does HUD get it’s money to pay their portion to the landlords? What does HUD produce which makes money?
You can “consider” anyone, but that doesn’t mean you have to rent to them. There’s a difference.
If they want this counted as verifiable income, then that same amount should be counted as verifiable income with food stamps and cash aid as well.
Comments are closed.