By August Barham 

Marh 19, 2020

​

Two bills intended to protect Washington, D.C. residents in need of affordable housing may not go far enough to end discrimination in the District housing market, a public hearing found on Feb. 20. 

​

The D.C. Council’s Committee on Housing and Neighborhood Revitalization heard testimony about Bills B23-0509 and B23-0528, attempting to address holes in the city’s voucher program. This program helps low and moderate-income residents pay rent in privately-owned properties.

​

“Vouchers are of huge importance to millions of people, as it helps prevent homelessness and increases housing stability,” said Johanna Valenzuela, Tenant and Outreach Specialist at Carecen. 

​

The Central American Resource Center, Carecen, works to foster the development of the Latinx population in Washington. Carecen spoke on the city's voucher program to advocate for Latinx people who benefit from the program and require safe, secure and affordable housing to thrive. 

​

The voucher provides 70% of the voucher holder’s rent directly to the landlord, and the holder pays 30%.

​

“Having a voucher has been a breath of fresh air for me and my family,” said Nicole Odom, a public witness, “but the road to where we are now has been a very difficult one.”

​

Michele Thomas, chief of the civil rights section in the Office of the Attorney General, noted a study by the Urban Institute on Federal Housing Opportunities in D.C. that found 15% of landlords will not rent to people attempting to pay with section eight vouchers. This practice is illegal but difficult to trace, and therefore common.

​

“I would assume income discrimination is much higher than we are reporting,” said Mel Zahnd, staff attorney of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia. “There are a lot of housing providers that are at least facially claiming they accept vouchers, but are in fact, repeatedly rejecting tenants based on their source of income.”

​

The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia is a civil legal service organization working to make “justice real – in individual and systemic ways – for persons living in poverty in the District of Columbia,” according to the organization’s mission statement. The Society spoke on the city's voucher program to address what they deem a systematic barrier to justice for District residents living in poverty. 

​

Thomas suggests that income discrimination against voucher holders is particularly detrimental to people of color. 

​

“This practice has the added effect of reinforcing racial segregation in housing, as more than 90% of voucher holders are African American,” Thomas said.

​

Valenzuela said Latinx immigrants are also disproportionately affected by source of income discrimination because their only source of income often comes from public benefits such as housing vouchers.

​

Bill B23-0528, the Rental Housing Source of Income Amendment Act of 2019, would consider voucher housing assistance part of the tenant’s income. As source of income is a human right according to the D.C. Human Rights Act, landlords may not refuse housing to people because they are paying through a voucher.

​

“This legislation will clarify to such bad actor housing providers that their actions will not be tolerated in the District,” said Bonds. 

​

High application fees also pose a barrier to voucher program participants in finding affordable, safe and stable homes.

​

“Even once our residents are deemed eligible for a voucher, the cost of application fees and security deposits may create new barriers to entry,” Garrett said.

​

Odom noted application fees as a major obstacle she faced when searching for housing for her family. Odom paid application fees of up to $50 for each adult in her family five times before being accepted by a renter and finding a home. 

​

“That is an expensive ‘no,'” Odom said.

​

Bill B23-0509, the Local Rent Application Voucher Amendment Act of 2019, would assist renters who qualify for the federal choice voucher program with funds for up to five rental applications in the District housing market.

​

“This bill is literally a lifesaver for voucher holders,” Odom said.

​

The public witnesses generally appreciated the council’s attempt to address discrimination against voucher holders but felt the bills only addressed a small portion of a larger issue.

​

“We [the Washington Legal Clinic] appreciate the goals of the Local Rent Application Voucher Amendment Act and the Rental Housing Source of Income Amendment Act. However, we also recognize that these two bills do not address the fundamental and significant barriers that are most pressing for low-income renters,” said Brittany K. Ruffin, staff attorney at the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless.  

​

Many witnesses noted credit score checks as a major concern unaddressed by the two bills. Odom discussed routinely being led to believe her housing application would be accepted, then being turned down due to her credit score.

​

“The realtor always had a poker face and never really showed signs of ‘you’re wasting your time’ vibes, but each and every time it was a complete waste of time,” Odom said.

Odom did not understand why a lower credit score should make her less eligible than another applicant with the same tenant record. She suggested credit checks be removed from the housing application process. 

​

“Why am I going to be treated differently when I do the same as the other person? It's just I made that sacrifice of going to school and taking that hit,” Odom said.

​

Ruffin and Zahnd both pointed to the Fair Tenant Screening Act as a more comprehensive piece of legislation that would address the issue of credit checks. Ruffin also discussed the Eviction Record Sealing Authority Amendment Act as another piece of legislation. Ruffin and Zahnd felt these acts should be consolidated into one omnibus legislation.

​

“These are issues that need to be addressed in one compressive bill instead of residents having to keep coming back to different hearings that are all attempting to address one issue but are piecemealing,” Ruffin said.

​

The attorney general’s office also requested an amendment to bill B23-528 to clarify that restitutions from discrimination lawsuits initiated by the OAG go to the harmed residents directly, and that penalties are deposited in the office’s litigation support fund. This amendment would have no financial impact. 

​

“Litigating against large housing providers is difficult, and we need all the resources we can get to combat this challenge,” Thomas said.

​

Bonds agreed with the need for omnibus legislation and noted the housing committee’s investment in continuously improving the District housing market. The bills were generally considered a step in the right direction.

​

“The positive effects of this bill cannot be understated in reiterating and reaffirming the rights of low-income residents who are searching for a safe place to live,” Thomas said.