Housing discrimination is holding many of Hawaiʻi’s families back—here’s one way to fix it
Housing discrimination has played an outsized role in our country’s history of housing policy. Despite significant efforts to eliminate or reform it, housing discrimination still persists to this day and can severely inhibit the ability of some renters in achieving housing security. Since the late 1960s, we’ve made progress by banning housing discrimination based on race, age, religion and sex through the Fair Housing Act. However, one category of individual is still frequently discriminated against when seeking housing: people with housing choice vouchers.
Housing choice vouchers, commonly referred to as Section 8, are rental subsidies allotted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by local Public Housing Authorities (PHA). PHAs determine a local payment standard based on their particular housing market, and voucher holders are expected to cover the remaining rent. This program can be incredibly helpful in allowing renters with low incomes to afford housing, particularly in high cost of living states like Hawaiʻi.
However, renters with housing choice vouchers can often find it difficult to secure housing, even with this federally provided subsidy. A brief search of rental listings will quickly demonstrate why. Many listings clearly state “No Section 8” or “Section 8 not accepted.” These landlords openly state in their postings that they will not rent to housing choice voucher holders. In effect, these renters are being discriminated against by virtue of their source of income, not their ability to pay.
There may be multiple factors contributing to a landlord’s reluctance to rent to a voucher holder. Since voucher holders are usually low-income, some landlords may perceive them to be less desirable as tenants. Another reason might be that landlords are required to enter into contract with the local housing authority to accept the vouchers, while also submitting to a health and safety inspection. Regardless of a landlord’s reasons, open discrimination against voucher holders clearly persists, which can significantly impede their ability to secure stable housing.
Over the last few years, several states have passed laws aimed at discouraging this harmful practice. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have made discrimination based on source of income illegal. In 2018, HUD studied the efficacy of source income of non-discrimination laws and showed encouraging results. HUD’s analysis found that landlords in jurisdictions with non-discrimination laws rejected 35 percent of voucher holders compared to 77 percent of voucher holders rejected in jurisdictions that had no such laws.
There is clear indication that source of income non-discrimination laws can improve the prospects of voucher holders in finding housing. Still, outlawing discrimination against voucher holders is likely just the first step. Landlords can always find ways to discriminate against voucher holders without explicitly stating their reasons. Furthermore, getting landlords to participate in the program and enter into contract with the local housing authority is another challenge policy makers need to address if they’re going to increase rental opportunities for this population.
This year, the legislature is considering multiple bills that address source of income discrimination. Recently, the House Committee on Consumer Protection and Commerce passed out SB206 SD2 HD1, which would prohibit discrimination in both advertisements and rental transactions that are based on participation in the housing vouchers program. The bill also enacts a fine on landlords of $2,000 for a violation of the law and up to $2,500 for subsequent violations. Although the current version contains some potentially harmful exemptions for small landlords owning less than six units and duplexes, the bill still represents a significant improvement in eliminating source of income discrimination.
Working to increase landlord participation, HB1752 HD1 creates a set of incentives for landlords to participate in the voucher program. Landlords accepting vouchers would be eligible for reimbursement when units sit vacant, a signing bonus for entering into the program, and reimbursement for potential damages caused by tenants.
Ideally, these two proposals should work in concert so that both non-discrimination and landlord incentives work to improve housing opportunity for voucher holders. In isolation, these proposals only solve for one side of the equation, leaving many voucher holders still hard pressed to find housing. With a state as high cost as Hawaiʻi, the legislature should use all the tools at its disposal to help low-income renters navigate our housing market. Furthermore, we should all be working together as a state to eliminate housing discrimination in all forms, whether by race, religion, sex, or source of income. These two proposals could be a good place to start.
