I am located in Oregon, first time landlord. Our open house is tomorrow and someone has already mentioned they have Section 8 vouchers. My understanding is that it is an opt-in program? But that conflicts with the fact that it is "discriminatory" to tell people that you do not accept Section 8, or to refuse to accept it. I'm so confused. I am not interested in jumping through hoops to get my home "qualified," it would likely delay the move in and therefore impact my income.
Can I still hold the applicants to the same income requirements or am I forced to make accommodations for Section 8? That almost seems discriminatory toward everyone else. Would their voucher count toward income requirements?
Here is a local story, I'm discouraged by it.
@Amanda H., Under the new law, you cannot refuse a Section 8 applicant, but you also do not have to change your criteria specifically for them. As long as you use the same criteria for all applicants, then you are good to go. One thing they do mention is that you cannot "opt-out" of the program just because you don't want to hassle with the paperwork. See the links below for more information.
Discrimination on Source of Funds FAQs
Section 8 Bill
This debate is no longer about facts.
We can clearly see we have one group, mainly consisting of liberals who believe you should follow the letter of the law and abide by what the state dictates is fair and equitable as government should be unquestioned legal and moral arbiter of what is best for society.
And we have another group mainly consisting of conservatives/libertarians who believe they should be free to make their own decisions on what they want to do with their own properties even if the government wants otherwise for a greater "social good."
No new objective information is being added to this discussion other than people dressing up their subjective political viewpoints as objective information .
It really has started repeating itself in terms of info, hasn't it? I'm not sure it's entirely conservative v. liberal issue. There's also some plain old blissful ignorance, by both sides. Oregon passed it's own law in 2014 to specifically address this issue, so there wouldn't be a loophole or interpretations such as the ones in this thread. Expect more states to follow.
Well as Nada, Che Chiu, and others correctly pointed out the easiest way is just to construct your legal rental criteria or process as non-conforming to section 8 and the problem is solved by default rather than de Jure. Unless the state is now willing to prosecute a landlord discrimination case based on unsubstantial tacit intent rather than actual evidence no amount of moral hand-wringing and ethical cajoling is going to force you to rent to section 8.
Well as Nada, Che Chiu, and others correctly pointed out the easiest way is just to construct your legal rental criteria or process as non-conforming to section 8 and the problem is solved by default rather than de Jure. Unless the state is now willing to prosecute a landlord discrimination case based on unsubstantial tacit intent rather than actual evidence no amount of moral hand-wringing and ethical cajoling is going to force you to rent to section 8.
Of course no one can force a landlord to "rent to section 8". The denied applicant, with the help of a government agency, will sue the pants off of you instead.
Do you not think the good people of OR will go after landlords based on "unsubstantial tacit intent"? Good grief man, you live in Oregon. Give it time. The cases are mounting. It's not a reasonable or rational thing to have an "opt-in" program for landlords, call the voucher for the tenants "income", and then not allow landlords to discriminate against the source of tenant income. That's not "opting in" for a landlord. It's a mess of legal intent. A mess of state v. federal laws.
I'm typically pro tenant, and even I think there needs to be a way for a landlord to legally and safely "opt-out" of S8 without fear of discrimination of source of income claims.
@Account Closed
Previously in this long post I believe your mentioned that Maryland prohibits discrimination for source of income. They tried to pass a law to this effect in 2014, but failed. (HB1098)
They tried this in previous years, and no doubt will try it again. People need to actively work with their representatives to let them know their concerns.
I think I probably got my info on MD from a list I read of states with prohibitions on source of income discrimination.. Even without state law, I think MD has case law on this. See Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Associates. Unless that was overturned by yet another appeal (a 3rd one), the courts found for the original plaintiffs (Sec8 applicant and the county). The courts rejected many arguments, including the one that landlords should be able to opt out of S8 based on the administrative burden imposed by HAs.
Marie, I enjoy your posts. I have property in Maryland, California and North Carolina. Having family from California from the early 1800's and still there, I get to see the West Coast trends and then compare them to Maryland, my home for most of my life.
Maryland tends to be pretty liberal and a lot like parts of California but it has three distinct areas as politics go.
I find in general that the North East from about Maryland on (Yes I know we are technically below the Mason Dixon Line <Grin>) tend to act on a inside out legislative process, city first, then county and then state. Wayne is from Cockeysville outside of Montgomery County and he's probably correct, it's not state wide. I live a mile or so from Glenmont and my properties are in Montgomery County. Montgomery County has some of the strongest tenant's rights laws and rules in the country. My lease has to start with a 30 or 40 page template they give us and I have to hold a license for each property.
What's humorous about the template is sometimes I wonder why or where some of the protections came from or why they are required. Would any landlord actually not do the simple things listed. Then over time on this site I have found someone claiming to enforce their right as a landlord not to provide those very things. I had to show my wife the thread where a landlord went on and on about being in the right when his tenant complained about not having a refrigerator for several weeks while the landlord spent that time looking to save $100 on a used one. Bought it, put in but never tested it. The freezer portion didn't work. Then another week. Guess what in our county template there is a timeliness clause.
As someone said above run it like a business. It's just stuff. If the numbers don't work move on to the next set of numbers.
Hope you have a great California day.
@Account Closed I think there are a few practical considerations which will make the states job in aggressively prosecuting landlords that aren't on board with the section 8 agenda difficult to impossible to enforce.
First, as I said, the government requires you to be qualified and certified to take section 8. I only do month to month rentals, that isn't section 8 complaint - opps! As of yet the government can't make me change the terms of my legal lease. I can probably come up fairly easily with a list of "non-conforming" legal lease terms that are disqualify section 8 applicant that are perfectly logical and legal. Unless the state plans on re-educating and re-training landlords this legal regulatory noncompliance is going to be tough to challenge.
Secondly the state has plenty of "low-hanging fruit" to attack rather then going after the majority of intelligent landlords with legal if not politically correct lease terms. Their first targets are going to be obvious, and dumb offenders, people with ads stating "No section 8" and "the poor need not apply." The second class of easy targets is big time landlords with multifamily units, as we all know this is where the money and market is for section 8. Small time landlords with ambiguous lease terms are hardly the face of whom the state normally wishes to attack - it's bad PR.
Traditionally nonfesance is always much more difficult to prosecute under proven intent than misfeasance. This is akin to what I meant by "unsubstantiatable tacit intent". The state can make a lot of noise and scare as many landlords that they "are gunning for them" but their legal remedies are far more limited. But by barking, cajoling, and frightening unknowledgeable landlords, as they are currently doing here, they are largely solving their problem without doing any actual work. How many times have seen ignorant landlord posts on this form asking if it's OK to discriminate against non-protected classes, and then a number of equally ignorant people responding that "no you cant discriminate against pit bulls, rapists, and people threatening to beat you up because that's "discrimination" as if that's prima facie illegal.. Ignorance abounds
Lastly, and I know this doesn't apply to you because you are obviously very smart and sophisticated (as well as being a snappy dresser). Can we all please stop with hectoring other landlords telling them things like "Don't discriminate against section 8, they are fine folks" and "I love section 8, you should too". While everyone is entitled to their own opinion its ridiculous to tell other landlords what they should or shouldn't do based solely on your own political worldview , subjective interpretations, and the overwhelming need to seem morally superior.
But by barking, cajoling, and frightening unknowledgeable landlords, as they are currently doing here, they are largely solving their problem without doing any actual work.
News Alert: Governments Solving Their Problem By Not Doing Any Actual Work!
No kidding. People v. the People, with some of the people getting paid (with pension).
If I was a landlord in OR, I'd be concerned that the state or local housing authorities will indeed cajole and frighten more landlords to accept S8 and make it look like law. It's not very different from the rent controls in LA, SF and Berkeley where you can't terminate a tenancy without extreme measures and cost, if at all. Rental property is in virtually permanent rental service, with a rent ceiling. Rent control is bizarre, to me anyway, because it controls agreements between private parties, even parties who are not receiving any government assistance or any housing subsidy.
The "source of income" discrimination issue is here to stay, though, for all landlords. A month-to-month tenancy requirement might work for some landlords, but that seems like an extreme measure to take just to avoid S8.
@Account Closed well you and I both know rent control is ridiculous outside of any political reasons. It is inefficient when it is circumvented and it is even worse when it is complied with. However most politicians don't advocate rent control because they think it's good policy, they campaign on rent control knowing that there are enough stupid and self-interested voters that it is an effective election tool in deep blue areas.
As far as using month-to-monthleases to avoid S8, well that is just a pleasant side effect. I prefer month to month as it's easier for me to get rid of undesirable tenants and I don't like keeping people hostage as renters when it's super easy for me to find a new tenants as I offer below market rents in a hot market in order to attract better tenant that will comply with my explicit instructions of "not to bug me unless its an emergency." So far, so good.
@Account Closed well you and I both know rent control is ridiculous outside of any political reasons. It is inefficient when it is circumvented and it is even worse when it is complied with. However most politicians don't advocate rent control because they think it's good policy, they campaign on rent control knowing that there are enough stupid and self-interested voters that it is an effective election tool in deep blue areas.
As far as using month-to-monthleases to avoid S8, well that is just a pleasant side effect. I prefer month to month as it's easier for me to get rid of undesirable tenants and I don't like keeping people hostage as renters when it's super easy for me to find a new tenants as I offer below market rents in a hot market in order to attract better tenant that will comply with my explicit instructions of "not to bug me unless its an emergency." So far, so good.
Where I am, MTM leases reduce the tenant applicant pool considerably in the $2K+ rents. At least for the first year. Below market rents in a hot market? Like urban Portland, with a millennial tenant pool?
@Account Closed
Here is the text from the ruling in that case. I think is says Section 8 can't be imposed, but it is in legalese.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT (THOMPSON, J.) THAT COURT FINDS THE RECORD SHOWS APPELLANT HAS PRESENTED LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS FOR ITS REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THESE REASONS TAKEN TOGETHER CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN, AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT SHOWS APPELLANT IS USING THESE REASONS AS A PRETEXT FOR A TRUE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT APPELLANT PARTICIPATES IN SEVERAL GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND HAS SEVERAL LOW-INCOME TENANTS. THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT APPELLANT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IS CLEARLY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. THE DECISION OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CASE REVIEW BOARD IS REVERSED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
@Account Closed I went to UCSB right after high school so I certainly have some affinity to the area despite the high cost of living. As Jon Holderman recently said on a post, lower rent generally attracts better tenants, that has been my experience as well. Besides, offering below market rent this hot area tends to attract more applicants; this also allows me to better discriminate against all kinds of non-protected individuals including those with bad teeth, crooked gaits, sassy attitudes, the overly inquisitive, and those with otherwise nebulous personality traits and idiosyncrasy's that I find off-putting.
I have only once had someone request a yearly lease but I told them no.
@Account Closed
Here is the text from the ruling in that case. I think is says Section 8 can't be imposed, but it is in legalese.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT (THOMPSON, J.) THAT COURT FINDS THE RECORD SHOWS APPELLANT HAS PRESENTED LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS FOR ITS REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THESE REASONS TAKEN TOGETHER CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN, AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT SHOWS APPELLANT IS USING THESE REASONS AS A PRETEXT FOR A TRUE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT APPELLANT PARTICIPATES IN SEVERAL GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND HAS SEVERAL LOW-INCOME TENANTS. THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT APPELLANT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IS CLEARLY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. THE DECISION OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CASE REVIEW BOARD IS REVERSED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Wayne, that's how I understand it as well. My properties are in Montgomery County. I use a property management firm that's pretty big. They and the previous firm I used seemed to say the same thing. It's an opt in program. I used both as placement firms. I would consider S8 if the met the screening we use for any other tenant.
I use a placement firm because they have access to renter data bases that I can't afford and they do a great background check. Keeps my trouble rate down and gives me better chance of good tenants. The other thing you get by using a placement firm is that when and if a potential renter is turned down the system looks at the firms track record which is much bigger than mine would be. Much easier for them to show a consistent track record. We have turned down at least one S8 application but not because it was S8.
We can't offer a lease less that two years in Montgomery County. The tenant can counter with a one year and we can accept but we cannot offer a one year.
@Account Closed
Here is the text from the ruling in that case. I think is says Section 8 can't be imposed, but it is in legalese.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT (THOMPSON, J.) THAT COURT FINDS THE RECORD SHOWS APPELLANT HAS PRESENTED LEGITIMATE, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASONS FOR ITS REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SECTION 8 PROGRAM. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THESE REASONS TAKEN TOGETHER CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE BURDEN, AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT SHOWS APPELLANT IS USING THESE REASONS AS A PRETEXT FOR A TRUE DISCRIMINATORY INTENT. THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT APPELLANT PARTICIPATES IN SEVERAL GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND HAS SEVERAL LOW-INCOME TENANTS. THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT APPELLANT ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IS CLEARLY AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. THE DECISION OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CASE REVIEW BOARD IS REVERSED, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Do you have the date on this memo/order? Is it after the Nov 2007 reaffirmation of judgment for the plaintiff?
I went back to MD Judiciary case search and entered Glenmont Hills Associates as a company to bring the case back up. The section I quoted was from 2006. It looks like they then went to the Court of appeals for the court of appeals. In 2008 they wrote a lot of legalese that I have trouble following. They reversed the circuit court and held for the Commision on Human Rights, which sounds conflicting to me.
There have been several attempts to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination of income since then, and they all failed. I try to be active when the General Assembly is in session.
@Account Closed
I went back to MD Judiciary case search and entered Glenmont Hills Associates as a company to bring the case back up. The section I quoted was from 2006. It looks like they then went to the Court of appeals for the court of appeals. In 2008 they wrote a lot of legalese that I have trouble following. They reversed the circuit court and held for the Commision on Human Rights, which sounds conflicting to me.
There have been several attempts to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination of income since then, and they all failed. I try to be active when the General Assembly is in session.
@Account Closed
The reversal in 2007 is what interests me. It's case law that says you can't discriminate against S8.....you can't just say no. The courts said that the landlord was not burdened administratively by having to do the necessary paperwork and inspections, and the rights of the landlord were not being infringed upon That doesn't make it law, as of course legislation is different from case law. Still, that's the precedent in MD for right now.
Oregon just made a law that prevented discrimination based on source of income (i.e. you have to accept Section 8 if their voucher will cover what you're asking for in rent). To me, it's fairly dumb, but Oregon does things like that. Most states don't have these laws from my understanding though.
actually if you Google Oregon fair housing laws regarding section 8, it does say that you can require 3 times the amount of rent, but only the portion of the rent that the tenant is responsible for. It says if you times the full amount by 3 then no section 8 person would ever qualify and it would be considered discrimination. So if rent was 1200, but the voucher holders portion was only 200, then you could only require that they make 600 a month.
Here's a new piece of information to help in the decision of to "Section 8" or not.
A short time ago our local decision making body over section 8 matters decided to reduce their payments to landlords. Yes by $175 per month on one property and by $212 on another and this wasn't simply an isolated event. Everyone I know that has section 8's in our area got juiced in this deal.
So all that careful scrutiny over a potential purchase and an amazing rehab that came in just under budget is now barely cash flowing. All because some knuckle head thinks it's a good idea to run a twisted comp game and make a 3/2 or a 2/2 house rents the same as their lower 3/2 and 2/2 apartment rents. And there is no turning it around besides stop renting to them.
Who needs a copy of the Section 8 certification paperwork?
To accept Sec 8, the facility must apply, be inspected and have your lease meet Sec 8 criteria.
I don't like their lease, ergo never applied.
When asked, "do you accept Sec 8", I can honestly, sorry - - I'm not qualified".
To accept Sec 8, the facility must apply, be inspected and have your lease meet Sec 8 criteria.
I don't like their lease, ergo never applied.
When asked, "do you accept Sec 8", I can honestly, sorry - - I'm not qualified".
I'm thinking you didn't read the entire thread. Can't say I blame you. However, there is relevant info and case law references that pretty much nullifies your solution in some states. In one case, it was found that the administrative burden to the landlord to apply and schedule inspections, etc. for the S8 program was not onerous for the LL and found for the tenant applicant. So, not "qualifying" by landlord choice is out in at least one state. IMO the month to month lease solution is next, and will eventually be found to be discriminatory towards S8 applicants. Plus there are tenant advocate testers everywhere now, reading and calling on ads, for the purpose of going after LLs who think they have figured out how to eliminate S8 applicants.
@K. Marie P.
The 3mon lease rolling into m/m is not discrimination as it was in place in '97 and uniformly applied every since. It is an effective means to avoid dead beats that pay 1-2 months and then sit on their years lease and is documented in my business plan.
It is a coincidence that Sec 8 falls outside that. It is irrational to believe and for the State to insist that the only valid lease would be a yearly lease.
As long as I do not offer other terms to any other prospects (including current renewals), I am within the law regarding discrimination.
====
I did/don't not vilify Sec 8 cert holders and a personal friend has been on Sec 8 for 3 decades. My TOTAL objection is, HUD messes with my contract and property management, not individuals per se. I'm a believer in the Golden Rule and apply that uniformly also.
Where I am, Section 8 pays a little less than the going rate for rentals, so the only ones that we have rented to Sec 8 are properties in bad neighborhoods. I NEVER advertise "NO SEC 8", but I do sometimes advertise, "SEC 8 OK". If I have a unit that commands more than the going rate for Sec 8, I just tell the applicant that Sec 8 will not allow that price for such and such a unit. They usually then offer to pay more under the table. This is, in fact, extremely common in my area. A realtor in the town where we own multifamilies told us that she had never seen a building for sale that had Sec 8 tenants where the tenants WEREN'T paying 15 to 20% under the table above and beyond the contracted rental price. We even were shown buildings where we were shown leases that had a handwritten note, "tenant is paying an additional $200/month". BEWARE! NEVER, NEVER put yourself in that position. It is a violation of Sec 8 If you do it, and if the tenant ever wants to, they can report you, and you will be kicked off of Sec 8, and never be able to participate in the program again.
In addition, many of the Sec 8 tenants are horrible tenants. Not all, but many. There is always a "baby daddy" who lives there illegally, and often he is dealing drugs. In addition, the tenants will let in other illegal subtenants, from whom they collect rent. They absolutely destroy the units - have NO respect for anyone else's property. They are horrible to the neighbors - make noise all night (cause they often don't work so they sleep all day), break into neighbors' cars, do drugs, deal drugs.
If you have a property that has any value, do not take Sec 8. If it's in an area where rents are low because it's a high crime area, you might want to take it, but if you do, make the entire building Sec 8, so that you don't have paying tenants dealing with the trouble that sec 8 brings.
BTW, you will ALWAYS lose a month between tenants when you rent to Sec 8, since the inspection can only be done when the unit is vacant, and it takes about a month to get the entire process done, from the time the prospective tenant views the property, to the time Sec 8 approves and starts paying the rent. Also, inspectors can be having a bad day, and insist at random that you do things that have no effect on safety or rentability.
I think it is unfortunate that many landlords and leasing agencies refuse to participate in a government program that guarantees monies for the perspective renter. I believe it is discriminatory not to accept section 8. To determine this one must ask themselves why dont I want to rent if it is for any biases or stereotype fears than that is discrimination. What is not fair is scrutinizing and examining a section 8 renters income in the same way you would a non section 8 renter. We must understand the purpose of section 8 and its intended purpose. It is to help those who come from low economical disadvantages to have an opportunity to live in a safe and descent house. It is an act of goodness to the less fortunate to denie that is closing your eyes to thosr in need...
I think it is unfortunate that many landlords and leasing agencies refuse to participate in a government program that guarantees monies for the perspective renter. I believe it is discriminatory not to accept section 8. To determine this one must ask themselves why dont I want to rent if it is for any biases or stereotype fears than that is discrimination. What is not fair is scrutinizing and examining a section 8 renters income in the same way you would a non section 8 renter. We must understand the purpose of section 8 and its intended purpose. It is to help those who come from low economical disadvantages to have an opportunity to live in a safe and descent house. It is an act of goodness to the less fortunate to denie that is closing your eyes to thosr in need...
Act of goodness? Those in need? I'm running a business!
My HA doesn't pay market rents, they insist on year leases (I only rent MTM), and our Sec 8 inspector is over-the-top: I was once failed for some loose veneer trim on a vanity, and a shower head escushion plate that wasn't caulked to the wall.
If HUD really wanted to encourage property owners to accept Section 8, they need to look at where they are creating a competitive disadvantage for themselves in their local program.
Exactly my point if the rent is being on time every month then why not rent to those on section 8 the government guarentees it.....it is because realtors and landlords discourage it and it is generated by discrimination.....