Missouri lawmakers on the cusp of legalizing housing discrimination

The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent).

This week, the Missouri Senate passed legislation moving us one step closer to enshrining discrimination against the state’s poorest tenants into state law.

If this bill becomes law, the state will prevent municipalities in Missouri from enacting source of income discrimination bans, and will void bans already in place in St. Louis, Webster Groves, Columbia and Clayton, along with a portion of Kansas City.

Source of income discrimination bans are designed to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to potential tenants based solely on the kind of income that they have available to them. Many landlords will only consider W-2 wages when evaluating potential tenants, but this helps to prevent many of the poorest among us from being able to access safe, stable housing.

A single mother may have child support payments as her primary source of income, but a landlord isn’t bound to consider that when she applies for tenancy. A bus driver who has suffered repetitive stress injuries and now receives Social Security Disability Insurance may also struggle to find a landlord who is willing to rent to them.

However, the most common form of source of income discrimination is a refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, a federal housing program that has been addressing homelessness in the U.S. since 1974.

Despite being chronically underfunded by the federal government, these vouchers have been proven to lift people out of poverty, improve mental and physical health outcomes, and decrease homelessness. Seventy-five percent of HCV holders have extremely low incomes, defined as less than 30% of the federal poverty line (currently $32,150 for a family of four) or less than 30% of the local area median income.

These folks do not earn enough money to qualify for tenancy on their own; the section 8 program allows these families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the government pays the balance.

The legislation, which has cleared the House and Senate in differing forms, would make it extremely difficult for these low-income renters, the majority of whom have already experienced chronic homelessness, to find housing. It’s like finally finding a golden ticket after years of searching and then having it snatched away.

A 2018 study showed that over 67% of landlords refused to rent to voucher-holders in cities without source of income anti-discrimination laws. In comparison, less than 31% of landlords refused to rent to voucher holders in cities with source of income discrimination bans in place. This demonstrates that source of income discrimination bans are effective local public policy and should not be preempted by our state government.

This legislation is being framed as a protection for landlords, seeking to prevent them from being “forced” to participate in a federal program. They say that this is government infringement on the property rights of landlords. They say that it’s too hard to comply with government regulations for landlords who participate in the section 8 program.

This is utter and complete nonsense.

To participate as a landlord, property owners simply have to submit to an annual inspection and ensure that their rental rates are in compliance with federal Fair Market Rent standards, which are typically very generous. Inspection protocols have recently been revised to only consider key health and safety factors rather than cosmetic issues.

And, quite frankly, in listening to legislative committee discussion on this issue over the last two years, it seems like the concerns of landlords are actually centered on a prejudiced belief that poor renters are bad tenants.

Federal data shows that renters using housing vouchers are actually excellent tenants who stay in a unit for an average of 7 to 8 years, despite the fact that landlords are free to evict them for breaking the terms of their rental agreement. This is because of the program’s smooth transitions in employment status of renters, adjusting the amount paid by the government based on fluctuations in the income of the renter.

Voucher holders are also typically assigned a case manager that helps renters to understand the terms of their lease and comply with landlord regulations.

Over 86% of rental units in the country are owned by for-profit entities.

If we allow these landlords to opt-out of renting to single parents living on child support, individuals with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time, and seniors and other low-income families utilizing these federal vouchers, where do we envision they will go?

We are a nation that abhors the homeless, but we continue to pass policies that exacerbate homelessness.

Time and time again, Missouri legislators prioritize the perceived “rights” of business owners over ensuring the basic needs of Missourians.

Our state motto, “salus populi suprema lex esto,” translates to “the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.”  Our legislators continue to defy this principle in favor of making it easier for business owners to make money.

The highest profile example of this behavior this session is the legislature pushing to overturn the new requirement for business owners to provide paid sick leave to employees that was just approved by voters in November. If you can’t afford to pay sick leave to your employees, you shouldn’t be in business.

And you shouldn’t leave families living on the streets because you are unwilling to take part in a fifty-year-old safety net program designed to keep them safely housed.