The URL can be used to link to this page

Lawful Source of Income Consideration Copyright 2014 City of Dubuque Action Items # 1. ITEM TITLE: Lawful Source of Income Consideration SUMMARY: City Manager recommending an alternative process related to the Source of Income issue than that offered by the Human Rights Commission. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Council ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ Source of Income Proposal from Human Rights Commission-MVM City Manager Memo Memo ❑ Staff Memo-Alvin Nash Staff Memo ❑ Letter from Dubuque Area Landlord's President Jerry Marc and Supporting Documentation attachments ❑ Human Rights Commission's letter to City Council Supporting Documentation ❑ Source of Income Report Supporting Documentation ❑ Fair Housing Coach Newsletters Jan/July Supporting Documentation ❑ Impact of Source of Income Laws Supporting Documentation ❑ Poverty& Race Research Action Council Report Supporting Documentation ❑ Staff Memo-Kelly Larson Staff Memo ❑ Commission Minutes May-November 2014 Supporting Documentation ❑ Public Forum Meeting Notes Supporting Documentation ❑ Draft of Potential Ordinance Amendment Supporting Documentation ❑ R.R.S. Stewart Correspondence items Supporting Documentation ❑ R.R.S. Stewart Correspondence item-Source of Income Report Supporting Documentation THE CITY OF Dubuque UBE I erica .i Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007-2012-2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Source of Income Proposal from Human Rights Commission DATE: December 11 , 2014 Housing and Community Development Department Director Alvin Nash is recommending an alternative process related to the Source of Income issue than that offered by the Human Rights Commission. Consistent with Alvin's recommendation, I respectfully recommend that the Mayor and City Council direct the City Manager, through Human Rights Director Kelly Larson, Housing and Community Development Director Alvin Nash and Planning Services Manager Laura Carstens to work with Assistant City Attorney Crenna Brumwell, Dubuque Landlord's Association President Jerry Maro, Housing Commission Chair Jim Holz, Zoning Advisory Commission Chair Patrick Norton, Long Range Planning Advisory Commission Chair John Pregler, Community Development Advisory Commission Chair Theresa Caldwell, Human Rights Commission Chair Anthony Allen and a representative from the Resident Advisory Board (Board charged with providing Section 8 resident input into the policies and operating procedures of the rental program) to collect data and study this issue over the next two years to determine the best course of action based on the factual situation in Dubuque. //- 'L�r-� k�4 Micl6el C. Van Milligen MCVM:jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Crenna Brumwell, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Teri Goodmann, Assistant City Manager Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director Alvin Nash, Housing & Community Development Department Director Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Jerry Maro, Dubuque Landlord's Association President Jim Holz, Housing Commission Chair Patrick Norton, Zoning Advisory Commission Chair John Pregler, Long Range Planning Advisory Commission Chair Theresa Caldwell, Community Development Advisory Commission Chair Anthony Allen, Human Rights Commission Chair RRS Stewart, Vice-Chair, Dubuque Human Rights Commission 2 THE CITY ODubuque fi3iii dc 11 F DUBSi&E '1111► EMasterpiece on the Mississippi 2007.2012•2013 abetter way of living TO: Mike Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Alvin Nash, Director Housing & Community Development Department DATE: December 8, 2014 RE: Affordable Housing Strategies, Source of Income and Future In order to properly address the source of income conversation there needs to be a thorough analysis of the issue that involves a clear definition and understanding of what is actually happening in the community with regard to landlords who do not consider certain sources of income as acceptable rental payments. The ongoing debate between the Human Rights Commission and the Landlord Association is centered on the landlord's legal option to say "if they not satisfied or confident in the source of income used to pay the rent then I have the right to reject the application". Currently, a landlord or property owner can refuse to rent to an individual family if their sources of income would not allow the property owner to collect damages to the apartment unit. For example, the property owner could not collect or garnish the wages of someone on Social Security or Social Security Disability Income. This issue of source of income can be a very fragmenting. We should avoid this issue becoming a problem that divides the community and publicly distort the position of landlords who are legitimately concerned about their property values, profit margins and security of their properties. First we need to clarify definitions and establish the description of the following terms and circumstances: • The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher is not a source of income and can only be used to assist with the cost of the unit on a monthly basis. There is no liability to pay for anything other than the agreed-upon monthly qualified rent assistance. Those funds are paid as agreed-upon between the landlord, the tenant and Housing Authority. Except for a few qualifying for utility allowances, the tenant does not have access to voucher funds to pay for food, fuel, damages, clothing or any other income-based expenses. • There is no guarantee that any source of income will be collected against damages and that the property owner will receive those funds either through garnishment or the person voluntarily making a payment arrangement. There is 1 no source of income that guarantees a landlord or property owner will be reimbursed for damages either through the court system or voluntary payment. • Food stamps is not a source of income to pay rent • Child support is a source of income • Disability is a source of income • Social security is a source of income • Social Security disability benefits are a source of income • Alimony is a source of income • Retirement fund is a source of income • landlords and property owners may consider nonstandard sources of income on the conditions that they can determine them to be legal. Over the last four years, 2010 to 2014 the average demographics of 850 persons receiving vouchers assisted funding have been as follows: 25% on Disability, 213 30% social security (62 or older), 255 25% working with jobs, 213 20% working with jobs that can be garnished, 170 There is no record of anybody on social security or disability has ever trashed a rental unit. There are two recorded cases of a tenant on section 8 causing damage to the apartment in the last six years. City of Dubuque Voucher Lease up Success Rates Lease-Up Timeframe Time # # Success 0-30 31-60 61-90 91-120 121 + Period Vouchers Vouchers Rate% Days Days Days Days Days Issued Leased FYE 2011 280 183 65.36% 35.52% 24.59% 12.57% 4.92% 3.28% FYE 2012 316 205 64.87% 16.10% 27.80% 12.20% 9.27% 1.95% FYE 2013 266 182 68.42% 46.70% 20.33% 11.54% 5.49% 1.10% FYE 2014 153 111 72.55% 38.74% 23.42% 14.41% 13.51% 9.01% FYE 2015 287 160 57.00% 25.4% 31.00% 24.20% 13.70% 5.6% Average 1 260 1 168 1 65.64% 1 32.42% 1 31.43% 1 14.98% 1 9.38% 1 4.19% PHA Number Success 0-30 30-60 60-90 90- 120- Turn- PHRS Last Name of Units Rate Days Days Days 120 150 over Update Days Days Rate EIRHA 983 54% 15 55 20 5 5 19.8% Tom Oct-14 2 Iowa City 1265 70% 18 40 38 4 0 9.0% Julie T. Oct-14 Waterloo 1056 35% 18 40 38 4 0 11.0% Pete R. Jun-14 Davenport 769 91% 18 40 38 4 0 9.0% Carmen Oct-14 Cedar 1265 73% 18 40 38 4 0 19.0% Tom Oct-14 Rapids City of Clinton: Success Rate % 73% Majority Lease within 30 days City of Iowa City Success Rate % 70% Majority Lease within 90 days The comparisons between the city of Dubuque lease up rates compared to other localities suggest that over a period of 90 days we are at about 65.6% versus an average of 64.6%. Our conclusion is that local variables affect a successful time for people to lease up. We cannot measure whether a policy or ordinance would increase the lease up rate beyond normal market activity. REASONS FOR DELAY IN LEASE-UPS From a sampling of request for voucher extensions in 2014: • Can't find a suitable unit 34 • Medical issues 14 • Found unit but price was too high 12 • Don't have Security Deposit 10 • Waiting for approval from owner of the rental unit/interested in unit but waiting to view 9 • Don't accept Section 8 9 • Suitable area and transportation issues 4 • Lack of appropriate size bedroom for family 3 • On waiting list for a particular unit 3 • Moving out of area due to abusive relationship 2 • Lack of money to search 1 • Locked in a current lease out of town 1 • Needs a place that will accept housing & pets 1 • Trying to buy a house but waiting for loan approval 1 • Requires accessible unit 1 • Child still in school out of town 1 3 The reasons listed above suggest that source of income rejections affects perhaps 8% of those out there looking for apartments. The important thing about this list is that we discover other issues that can be helpful in assisting people. The number 1 reason for people not leasing is finding a suitable unit. In a draft preliminary report on the analysis of impediments by the John Marshall Law school fair housing legal clinic, they indicate that the last three years clients throughout the Chicago Metropolitan area in fair housing cases involving all protected classes show that 30% of its clients allege source of income discrimination. All but one of these cases involved an African American or Latino individual. The report suggests that source of income could be an impediment to fair housing. To affirmatively furthering fair housing they state passing a new source of income ordinance, if that is the path the city chooses to follow will take some time as it requires educating the public and city officials about the desirability of such a change. The process has begun and as experience in the communities demonstrates, particularly the recent legislative action taken by the Cook County commissioners in its expanding their source of income protection to voucher holders, it can be politically challenging and lengthy. They go on to say that a proper course of action is to collect data and begin analyzing the data to determine if there is a statistical pattern that suggest a proper solution for the community. As a Department of Housing and Community Development for the city of Dubuque, it is our job to execute, monitor and enforce the policy once it's been reasonably and legally established. Clearly, there are many more issues besides protecting an investment and discrimination, therefore a more detailed review of the issues will result in a much better community decision that is fair to all concerned. My recommendation to the City Manager is that rather than recommend an ordinance at this time or a special commission formed, propose a review to examine the issue and ask City Council to assign the existing Housing Commission and Planning Commission the responsibility to assist the Human Rights Commission and the Landlord Association to further examine and to explore community options. The best interests of both parties seem to be a plausible goal. A review to examine the impact of an ordinance, examine ways for the landlords to address their legitimate concerns, examine the way for someone who is an honest, hard-working person, who happens to be on Social Security or disability or Section 8 not be lumped in with somebody who could possibly cause damage to an apartment. There is no question that for some people the source of income issue is an impediment to fair, decent affordable housing, the issue continues to be how can a landlord rent to voucher holders who can afford the rent and pass a background check and at the same time not be discriminatory on the assumption that the source of income is associated with undesirable behavior. A 24 month review by the Planning and Housing Commission and the staff of both commissions will allow the following steps to be taken: 4 1 . Better understand that the landlords and property owners only want to do business with people who are fair and honest and will be become a great neighbor and contribute to a healthy and sustainable community. 2. Allow an opportunity to examine ways to distinguish an ordinance that can be applied to those who are not eligible to be a part of the program and those who legitimately and honestly deserve to live in a peaceful affordable and environmentally and otherwise safe community. 3. Enable both sides of the argument to establish the pros and cons. It is a question of fair housing, it is a question of how do we analyze and make the proper adjustments to what needs to be done in order to make sure that we are affirmatively furthering fair housing opportunities when possible. 4. Allow enough time to professionally consider any ordinance, taking into consideration concerns of the Human Rights Commission, the landlords, fair housing issues, economic issues and community concerns. Any ordinance should effectively protect both sides of an issue and be of value to the community as a whole. 5. Ask landlords to voluntarily change their policies on a trial basis in order to track experiences and allow them to make decisions based on their experience rather than their concerns and fears. 6. Allow us to distinguish between source of income and source of behavior; allow to apply statistical data to the issue. It seems possible that a landlord can protect their investment and at the same time we can affirmatively further fair housing. So far there has been a debate about the issue rather than an examination to reach a better policy. There could be an ordinance created or there could be a voluntary agreement reached with the landlords, there could be a slight adjustment to the policy that satisfies both points of view. It is further recommended that two City Council work sessions be scheduled to receive reports and analyze the data. s December 8,2014 To the Honorable Mayor and the City Council of Dubuque. 1,Jerry Maro as President of the Dubuque Area Landlords Association have been asked to write this letter to you in regards to the"source of income"on your agenda from the Human Rights Commission for your December 15,2014 city council meeting. We would like you to know our position in this regard. First of all,our membership is strongly opposed to this possible ordinance. We have expressed our concerns on many occasions having attended all of the HRC meetings since July. They have listened to our concerns,but still want to move forward. They wanted input,for or against. So they decided to have a form,open to the public, which was held October 16,2014,to receive additional info from the public. Approximately 80 people attended, mostly landlords,which this affects the most,along with a few residents. 95%of the people who spoke were against the idea with a few,I believe three,that were somewhat in support of. I don't believe they were satisfied with the results so now they are asking you to appoint a task force to look into this for 90 days. Our request is that should the council decide to form this task force that we would be part of that task force. After all,any ordinance of this nature affects all landlords in Dubuque,and we feel we should have our concerns heard. Second,why are we against this? Most landlords want to set a certain criteria and to be able to select their renters based on that. If an ordinance,when it comes to income that includes entitlements,such as food stamps, temporary assistance or a voucher for housing,that in no way it can be turned into cash,we have no recourse through the court system to ever collect should there be a loss due to unpaid rent or property damage. We also do not want another protected class that we have to worry about suing us for discrimination. Let's say they have a housing voucher but may have a criminal history that we do not accept. It will be easy for them to say they were turned down because they were on housing. We then will have to defend ourselves should a claim be filed. Let me give you an example. I was accused of discrimination by a guy I never met. Three applications,(from two women and one male)were sent to me in the mail. Applications had arrived incomplete,no verifiable phone numbers,no landlord references,and were not signed. I mailed them back new ones and asked them to complete, sign,and return. They never did. The next thing I received was a notice from the Human Rights that I discriminated based on race. The two women were white and the male was African American. He filed suit,left town and I had to prove I was innocent. Three years later and$8000.00 in attorney fees I proved my innocence. I did nothing wrong,but had to prove it over and over. The two women applications were also returned but they didn't file suit because they were not in a"protected class",yet were treated the same. Turning down a person in a "protected class"for good reason is a fear we all face every day as a landlord. I will include the comments made at the October 161h meeting form so you can see for yourself how landlords feel about this. Two other cities in Iowa did pass an ordinance,however,Iowa City does not include"section eight"and Marion passed it in-May 2014 without the landlord's knowledge. I understand there is movement started to repeal that ordinance. Cedar Rapids tried to pass it,but the realtors found out that the language in these ordinances were also,not just to rent but to purchase a home as well,for loan approval. Cedar Rapids city council decided not to consider a"source of Income". In conclusion, if you decide to form a task force,please consider us as part of this. We feel we have a good working relationship with you and our city manager,the best in any city around,and want to keep that relationship active. We as a city need to work together to improve neighborhoods with good renters by being selective to achieve these goals. As property owners we should have property rights, like being able to select our tenants based on our criteria. If this is a"section eight"issue,a lot of our members offer housing with that program. Some do not, but,that should be their choice. With the vacancy going up,a lot more units will be open for all programs that our city offers. My apologies for such a long letter,but we want you to know how and why we feel the way we do. We ask that you support our organization now and in the future. Sincerely, Jerry Maro residnt DALA R.R.S Stewart's comments that most of the people on housing are elderly or disabled are not true. According to info from housing actual numbers reflect 56%for elderly and disabled. t CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC FORUM October 16, 2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2014, at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, 11th & Locust Streets, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Chris Ostwinkle Miquel Jackson RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Susan Stone Ashley Melchert Absent: Tom LoGuidice Howard Lee Staff: Kelly Larson i Anthony Allen reviewed the public comment rules and asked commissioners to introduce themselves. R.R.S. Stewart explained the origin of the Human Rights Commission decision to review and consider source of income. R.R.S. explained that the Human Rights Commission attempts to hold one forum per year and in the past years has held forums on the Americans with Disabilities Act, access to Transit, and education on LGBT issues through Better Together Dubuque. The public was then invited to address the Commission related to the question of whether or not to recommend to the City Council that the human rights ordinance be amended to include Source of Income. Members of the public were invited to identify themselves as they provided their comments and the following people spoke: Jerry Maro, Judy Schmitt, Ken Bichell, Julie Beck, Vicki Bechen, Jo Ellen Reed, Ernestine Moss, Dan Pusateri, Sue Kearns, Dean Thompson, Al Kroger, John Jaeger, Helene Hill, Corey Gausen, Steve Bracken, Keith Nilles, Pauline Chilton, Carol Copeland, Margie White, Diane McClain, Suzie Cronic, Deb May, Michelle Jacoby. The comments have been arranged by topic and are attached to these minutes. At the conclusion of comments, Anthony thanked people for coming, expressed the desire to continue working together, and stated that the commission would likely continue to discuss this item at upcoming meetings. He invited people to attend commission meetings on the second Monday of the month at 4:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room at 1300 Main Street, and to watch for public notices of meetings. Kelly invited people to sign up for"notify me"through the City's website to receive notices of upcoming meetings. Anthony also invited people to submit additional comments through the Human Rights Department Office. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Public comments organized by general category/topic Page 1 of 4 Financial Considerations: • If a tenant damages that unit and has wage income, wages can be garnished making it more likely a landlord can collect damages. Funds in the form of a government subsidy cannot be collected on if damaged. • If a tenant loses their job,there may be similar recovery challenges • Inspection process can delay ability to rent immediately, causing income loss for landlords • The rental business is a financial loss and both section 8 and non-section 8 tenants cause damage • Used to accept section 8 and stopped when HUD stopped reimbursing for damages • Rental property is retirement investment and need to protect it • Recovery fund will be a taxpayer burden • If affected financially by this, landlords may raise rents and that will affect everyone h, • Insurance companies ask"do you have section 8 tenants" and charge higher premiums if do • There is financial cost to landlords when accused of discriminating and have to prove innocence • If people with money damage property, can get the money back • As more protected classes are added, the chances of being sued by more people increases and there is time and cost involved in responding to claims • There is no guarantee tenant will remain on section 8 program and continue to have that income on an ongoing basis. • Only own afour- plex and would go bankrupt if it was trashed • HUD requirements, such as re-painting entire exterior when paint is chipped in a small area, are too costly. • Already taking a risk with the investment and cannot afford increased risk • Compensation for damages very important because more often cannot recover if h 9 rY p the tenant receives section 8 It is easy to get to the point of having insufficient profit to continue • It is not uncommon for someone to file a lawsuit because angry they were turned down and for the landlord to have had no ill will and yet still need to defend self. • No money in rental property and having difficulty selling units • 98% of tenants are good tenants but the 2% can cause significant damage • Insurance companies are dropping coverage and raising premiums because of neighborhood property is located in Screening Considerations: • Challenging to tell if getting someone who has repeatedly caused damage to departments • Have lived next to a landlord who rents to both section 8 and non-section 8 and the property has been a problem for 20 years • As a landlord, I accept section 8 and base my decisions on the individual and their ability to meet my criteria, such as credit history, criminal records, income guidelines, and ability to live in a community with others. • 1 screen my tenants very carefully and I am still operating at a financial loss • Neighborhood renters damaging property of other neighbors and causing financial losses that cannot be recouped by the property owner • Cannot just assume people on section 8 will damage property—choose tenants based on criteria L,. Source of Income Definition/Scope: Page 2 of 4 • Alimony and child support are available to landlord only if the person responsible for paying them actually pays • Food stamps should not be included • Consider source of income laws that do not include section 8 • Social security, corporate pensions, investment income are all importance sources of income and have experienced landlords not wanting to count these as"income." • Look more closely at the sources—food stamps are not like social security income. • Banks do not include food stamps as income for mortgage qualification Additional Considerations: • There is a need to support people with limited resources • Do not expect anyone to live where I would not want to live • There are people who need it and there are landlords who are willing to meet that need • Limited number of properties accepting section 8 forces people to live only in certain areas of town. • Should have a right to live in any community can afford to live in, counting all sources of income. • 1 was on section 8 ten years and excellent tenant but could not choose where to live because so many landlords would not accept section 8. • Not sure how feel about forcing this on landlords. • We all want clean and properly cared for homes. • There are community problems when nest a lot of people with a lot of problems in a single area and that needs to be addressed. f • Can see all sides and want to be part of a solution that is beneficial to both landlords and tenants. • We all want choices • Fairness always has two sides • The landlords in this community are not all a bunch of rich people just choosing to treat people badly • Most people present here tonight are against this and concerned that it may pass anyway • 1 have a 50 apartment community with a very diverse group of tenants—single moms, people with disabilities, people of color, section 8 and non-section 8. When people call me I am always asked if my building is downtown. • If people stay on section 8 for the long run, it is counterproductive to helping them • There are people coming into this community who lack financial resources Miscellaneous: • As a landlord, receive calls asking if accept section 8 and did not realize it was legal to refuse. • Lots of nice locations for the elderly, but not for the disabled. • Sometimes people lose their vouchers because they do not meet landlord criteria, even though landlord has units available and will accept section 8. Questions: • Is there any information available on the decision in Cedar Rapids not to pursue a similar addition to their ordinance? • How would proposal help people with disabilities? • The majority of my section 8 tenants have been single mothers—what is the actual makeup of section 8? • Will there be a reimbursement fund? • How bureaucratic would system to access fund to recover damages be? Page 3 of 4 I! i ,a • Insurance companies will drop landlords who have a large claim—would City consider a blanket insurance liability policy? • If this ordinance passed, I applied my criteria to a voucher holder and that person passed my criteria, but I only use six month leases and not one year leases,what happens? Can I decline to participate in the section 8 program because 1 do not use a one year lease and the program requires a one year lease? • What if someone feels very strongly that they simply do not want to receive any federal funds? • Is there a proven significant difference in how people care for property between those who receive section 8 and those who do not? • Has this been enacted anywhere else and, if so,what have been the results? • Why should commissioners who are not landlords have a say in this? • Who makes the decision ultimately on whether or not the ordinance is amended? Suggestions: • Basic problem is decreased availability of affordable units. Before go to Council, create a task force to do some brainstorming between landlords and tenants to figure out how to increase affordable housing without putting this burden on landlords with another protected class. • When getting together for problem solving, include both landlords and tenants • Solve some of the problems so that people are not having to live in bad or scary places • Make sure any decision is as equitable as possible in accounting for financial risk to landlords • Promote accepting vouchers • Instead of putting this on the private sector, create a housing authority. • Landlord choice to participate in the program should be protected • Clean up neighborhoods were section 8 units are located so people not having to live in crime ridden areas • Before take anything to Council, meet to describe what intending to recommend and then go to council in a way that permits commissioners, landlords, and tenants all to weigh in • Build on the history of landlords working with the City and then some landlords may be willing to accept section 8 if not so fearful. • Properties require ongoing investments, work, sweat— make it so landlords want to accept section 8 • All of us face choices that are limited by our financial situation • Consider co-signers • Develop accountability program for tenants who are trashing properties—for example, if receiving voucher and damage property then must go to classes or take other actions to remain • If goal is to have section 8 housing outside of undesirable neighborhoods, then develop city- owned building Page 4 of 4 Human Rights Department THE CITY of Dubuque City Hall Annex ai.p, 1300 Main Street DUB E Dubuque,Iowa 52001-4732 (563)589-4190 office Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007.2012.2013 (563)589-4299 fax (563)589-4193 TDD humanrg!4cityofdubuque.org November 24, 2014 Dear City Council Members: During the Human Rights Department budget presentation to the City Council in Feb/Mar 2011, a Councilor asked about source of income anti-discrimination fair housing ordinances. Due to the other forums and issues being worked on by the Dubuque Human Rights Commission (DHRC), this topic did not resurface until 2013, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reviewed the City of Dubuque's Housing and Community Development Program. In April 2014, the City and HUD entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which among other things, recommended the city undertake "activities to integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." Since a HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes found that "Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and, for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas." By passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances, which aligns with the 2010 the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies recommendations that the city disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources, DHRC recommends that City Council work with DHRC to establish a taskforce composed of Human Rights and Housing Commissioners and staff, and attendees from the Commission's Source of Income Forum and other interested members of the public, and that the taskforce be given 90 days to consider: - whether the City of Dubuque should add Source of Income anti-discrimination to the fair housing ordinance; - whether there are other activities likely to improve voucher utilization rates and locational outcomes as source of income ordinances that the City of Dubuque could do in addition to and/or in place of a Source of Income ordinance; - and other activities in regards to all legal sources of income that could "integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." The Human Rights Commission is willing to have a work session with the City Council on this topic if the City Council wishes. Enclosed are four documents for your review: 1) A report of research and activities undertaken by DHRC to date; 2) July 2013 & January 2014 "Fair Housing Coach;" 3) 2011 HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes; and 4) Poverty & Race Research Action Council Appendix of State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination. Thank you so much for giving us your valuable time and guidance. Sincerely, Anthony Allen, DHRC Chair R.R.S. Stewart, DHRC Vice-Chair Source of Income Dubuque Human Rights Commission Activity Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Origins of this Proposal ........................................................................................................ 2 2. Minnesota & Wisconsin Ordinances Memorandum.......................................................... 2 3. Relevant Provisions of Iowa City Code of Ordinances ...................................................... 6 4. Marion Code of Ordinances & Dubuque Housing Department Data ............................. 9 5. Community Overview Data from County Comprehensive Plan..................................... 16 6. Economic Development Data from County Comprehensive Plan ................................. 19 7. Housing Chapter from County Comprehensive Plan ...................................................... 24 8. Lawful Source of Income Protections Frequently Asked Questions and Answers*...... 31 9. Chart from Fair Housing Coach .........................................................................................34 10. Maps from HUD Study**.................................................................................................. 36 11. TH Article on Public Forum............................................................................................. 38 12. Minutes from Public Forum ............................................................................................. 39 *Compiled by the University of Iowa Legal Clinic. "Note these maps were created before Marion passed their ordinance and Oregon expanded their law to include all local, state, or federal housing assistance. 1. Origins of this Conversation In 2010 the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies did a review of research studies related to poverty, Section 8 housing assistance, crime, fear of crime, and crime prevention. The set of recommendations they issues included: Disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources Address poverty where it occurs and provide assistance to gain financial footing All of the statistics in the world cannot ask the most fundamental question. What kind of community do we want to be? IN A DEMOCRACY ... this is where civic engagement becomes crucial. Every year since 2010, the Human rights Commission has tried to do a Forum: 2010 - Fair Housing& 20th Anniversary of American with Disabilities Act 2011 - Joint Forum with the Transit Advisory Board and Housing Commission 2012 - Better Together Conference and First Year of"This is How we BBQ in DBQ" 2013 - Panel on the 20th anniversary in February of the Family Medical Leave Act being signed into law,the 100th anniversary in March of the National Women's Suffrage Procession, and t he 45th anniversary in April of the passage of the Fair Housing Act. 2014 - Source of Income Forum 2015 - (Planned) Forum on Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice, Education, Housing, Employment/Economic Development, and Community. During the Human Rights presentation to City Council in Feb./Mar 2011, a Councilor asked about Source of Income. Due to the other forums and issues being worked on by the Commission,this topic did not resurface until 2013. 1 The Human Rights department subscribes to "Fair Housing Coach", a newsletter for real estate professionals and their attorneys on management, lease, and regulatory compliance matters. The July 2013 issue was on how to comply with fair housing laws banning discrimination based on source of income. In it was this quote "The name has changed to the Housing Choice Voucher program, but many still use `Section 8' to refer to the federal government's major program for helping very low-income families,the elderly, and disabled individuals to afford housing in the private market. Moreover,fair housing advocates are increasingly pushing for reforms to ban discrimination based on source of income, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Earlier this year, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) called on Congress to add source of income to federal fair housing law, arguing that discrimination against voucher holders disproportionately ffects low-income women and families, people of color, and people with disabilities. HUD seems of like mind, at least that's the message voiced by top enforcement officials in 2010 when the agency announced new requirements for grant recipients to comply with state and local laws banning housing discrimination based on source of income. In a statement, John Trasvina, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said, "Prohibiting this form of discrimination provides an essential protection for many Americans, including disabled veterans, seasonal workers, and persons that are using Housing Choice Vouchers to maintain housing for themselves and their children. Racial discrimination is often perpetrated through denials of housing opportunities to Section 8 voucher holders. It is wrong and HUD will now keep systemic violators from applying for HUD funds." Also in 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reviewed the City of Dubuque's Housing and Community Development Program. In April 2014,the City and HUD entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which among other things recommended the city undertake "activities to integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." The HUD Office of Policy Development and Research did a study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes by comparing Cities with Source of Income ordinance to cities without. The study found that 'Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and,for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas" by passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances. In May 2014, the Assistant City Attorney had DHRC discuss proposed changes to Administrative Rules and Ordinance Section 8-4-7 in reference to a U.S. southern district of Iowa case on administratively releasing a case. In light of this and all the previously outlined developments since 2010, DHRC also began looking at whether to recommend updating the City Fair Housing Ordinance to include "Source of Income" anti-discrimination. 2. Minnesota & Wisconsin Ordinances Memorandum To: Human Rights Commissioners From: Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director Subject: Information Requested Related to Source of Income Coverage Date: June 2, 2014 At the May Human Rights Commission meeting, you asked for copies of the Iowa 2 City ordinance and the state codes in Minnesota and Wisconsin that cover"source of income" as protected class. I have attached the relevant portions of those laws, along with a link that allows you to view the entire ordinance or statute online. You also asked how many housing providers in Dubuque participate in the housing voucher/Section 8 program. As of January 1, 2014, there are 1,450 housing providers with rental licenses in the City of Dubuque. Of these, there are 229 housing providers (15.8%) who currently participate in the section 8 Voucher program (15.8%). Minnesota State Code Chapter 363A http://mn.gov/mdhr/yourrights/mhra.html Definitions: Subd. 47.Status with regard to public assistance. "Status with regard to public assistance" means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements. In Minnesota, the coverage is in employment, real property, education, credit. Example from housing below 363A.09 UNFAIR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY. Subdivision I.Real property interest; action by owner, lessee, and others. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease any real property, or any agent of any of these: (1)to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons any real property because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; or (2)to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any real property or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith, except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the adoption of reasonable rules intended to protect the safety of minors in their use of the real property or any facilities or services furnished in connection therewith; or (3) in any transaction involving real property,to print, circulate or post or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted any advertisement or sign, or use any form of application for the purchase, rental or lease of real property, or make any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental, or lease of real property which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the advertisement of a dwelling unit as available to adults- only if the person placing the advertisement reasonably believes that the provisions of this section prohibiting discrimination because of familial status do not apply to the dwelling unit. Subd. 2.Real property interest; action by brokers, agents, and others. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee, or agent thereof: (1)to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or to offer for sale, rental, or lease any real property to 3 any person or group of persons or to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of any real property to any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or represent that real property is not available for inspection, sale, rental, or lease when in fact it is so available, or otherwise deny or withhold any real property or any facilities of real property to or from any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; or (2)to discriminate against any person because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of real property or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; or (3)to print, circulate, or post or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted any advertisement or sign, or use any form of application for the purchase, rental, or lease of any real property or make any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental or lease of any real property, which expresses directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the advertisement of a dwelling unit as available to adults-only if the person placing the advertisement reasonably believes that the provisions of this section prohibiting discrimination because of familial status do not apply to the dwelling unit. Subd. 3.Real property interest; action by financial institution. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person, bank, banking organization, mortgage company, insurance company, or other financial institution or lender to whom application is made for financial assistance for the purchase, lease, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any real property or any agent or employee thereof: (1)to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status of the person or group of persons or of the prospective occupants or tenants of the real property in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying or renewing, or in the rates, terms, conditions, or privileges of the financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection therewith; or (2)to use any form of application for the financial assistance or make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for the financial assistance which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination; or (3)to discriminate against any person or group of persons who desire to purchase, lease, acquire, construct, rehabilitate, repair, or maintain real property in a specific urban or rural area or any part thereof solely because of the social, economic, or environmental conditions of the area in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying, or renewing, or in the rates, terms, conditions, or privileges of the financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection therewith. 4 Subd. 4.Real property transaction. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any real estate broker or real estate salesperson,for the purpose of inducing a real property transaction from which the person,the person's firm, or any of its members may benefit financially, to represent that a change has occurred or will or may occur in the composition with respect to race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, or disability of the owners or occupants in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located, and to represent, directly or indirectly,that this change will or may result in undesirable consequences in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located, including but not limited to the lowering of property values, an increase in criminal or antisocial behavior, or a decline in the quality of schools or other public facilities. Subd. 5.Real property full and equal access. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person to deny full and equal access to real property provided for in sections 363A.08 to 363A.19, and 363A.28, subdivision 10,to a person who is totally or partially blind, deaf, or has a physical or sensory disability and who uses a service animal, if the service animal can be properly identified as being from a recognized program which trains service animals to aid persons who are totally or partially blind or deaf or have physical or sensory disabilities. The person may not be required to pay extra compensation for the service animal but is liable for damage done to the premises by the service animal. Subd. 6.Real property interest; interference with. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged a third person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this section. It is not included in the public accommodations section. Wisconsin State Law https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/civil_rights_statut es and codes.htm 106.50 Open housing. (1) Intent. It is the intent of this section to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry and it is the duty of the political subdivisions to assist in the orderly prevention or removal of all discrimination in housing through the powers granted under ss. 66.0125 and 66.1011. The legislature hereby extends the state law governing equal housing opportunities to cover single-family residences that are owner-occupied. The legislature finds that the sale and rental of single-family residences constitute a significant portion of the housing business in this state and should be regulated. This section shall be considered an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, dignity, and human rights of the people of this state. 5 (h) "Discriminate" means to segregate, separate, exclude, or treat a person or class of persons unequally in a manner described in sub. (2), (2m), or (2r)because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status,family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry. Had to go to administrative rules for the definition of lawful source of income: DWD 220.02 Definitions. In addition to those terms defined in s. 106.50, Stats., the following are definitions for terms used in this chapter: . . . (8) "Lawful source of income" includes, but is not limited to, lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; any negotiable draft, coupon or voucher representing monetary value such as food stamps; social security; public assistance; unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments. Not included in employment, public accommodation, education 3. Relevant Provisions of Iowa Citv Code of Ordinances: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id-953 Definition: "PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SOURCE OF INCOME: Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, food stamps, and unemployment compensation, but not including rent subsidies." 2-5-1: HOUSING; EXCEPTIONS: It shall be an unlawful or discriminatory practice for any person to: A. Refuse to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest therein,to any person because of the age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income of that person. B. Discriminate against any other person in the terms, conditions or privileges of any real estate transaction because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. C. Directly or indirectly advertise, or in any other manner indicate or publicize in any real estate transaction that any person is not welcome or not solicited because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. D. Discriminate against the lessee or purchaser of any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest of the real property or housing accommodation, or against any prospective lessee or purchaser of the property or accommodation because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income of persons who may from time to time be present in or on the lessee's or owner's premises for lawful purposes at the invitation of the lessee or owner as friends, guests, visitors, relatives or in any similar capacity. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) 6 E. For purposes of this chapter, "person" means one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies,joint stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 of the United States Code, as amended, receivers and fiduciaries. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) F. For the purposes of this title, "aggrieved person" includes any person who: 1) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or 2) believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. G. For purposes of this chapter, "dwelling" and/or "housing accommodation" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. H. For purposes of this chapter, 'covered multi-family dwelling" means any of the following: 1. A building consisting of four(4) or more dwelling units if the building has one or more elevators. 2. The ground floor units of a building consisting of four (4) or more units. (Ord. 97- 3785, 5-20-1997) 2-5-2: EXCEPTIONS: A. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any qualifications it may impose based on religion, when these qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose unless the religious institution owns or operates property for a commercial purpose or membership in the religion is restricted on account of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) B. The following is exempt from the prohibitions set forth in section 2-5-1 of this chapter with the exception of the prohibition on discrimination in advertising set forth in subsection 2-5-1C of this chapter: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) The rental or leasing of four (4) or fewer rooms within a single housing accommodation by the owner of such housing accommodation, if the owner resides therein. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) C. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) D. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Restrictions based on sex in the rental or leasing of housing accommodations within which residents of both sexes would share a common bathroom facility on the same floor of the building. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) E. The following is exempt from the prohibitions set forth in section 2-5-1 of this chapter with the exception of the prohibition on discrimination in advertising set forth in subsection 2-5-1C of this chapter: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four(4) families living independently of 7 each other, if the owner occupies the premises, or some portion thereof, and actually resides therein. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997; amd. Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) F. (Rep. by Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) G. Nothing in this title limits the applicability of the city's restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. Nor does any provision in this title regarding familial status apply with respect to housing for older persons. For the purposes of this title, "housing for older persons" means housing: 1. Provided under any state or federal program that is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program and as determined by the secretary of housing and urban development); or 2. Intended for, and solely occupied by, persons sixty two (62)years of age or older; or 3. Intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit. In determining whether housing qualifies as housing for older persons under this subsection,the regulations promulgated by the secretary of housing and urban development shall apply and at least the following two (2) criteria must be present: a. That at least eighty percent(80%) of the units are occupied by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit; and b. The publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for persons fifty five (55) years of age or older. However, such housing may not otherwise be restricted on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, public assistance source of income or presence or absence of dependents. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20- 1997) 2-5-3: ADDITIONAL UNFAIR OR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES: A. A person shall not induce or attempt to induce another person to sell or rent a dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into a neighborhood of a person of a particular age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income. B. A person shall not represent to a person of a particular age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when the dwelling is available for inspection, sale or rental. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) C. A person shall not discriminate in the sale or rental or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of a disability of any of the following persons: 1. That buyer or renter. 2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available. 3. A person associated with that buyer or renter. D. A person shall not discriminate against another person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of a disability of any of the following persons: 1. That person. 2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available. 3. A person associated with that person. E. For the purposes of this section only, discrimination includes any of the following circumstances: 1. A refusal to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications are necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises. In the case of a rental, a 8 landlord may, where reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter's agreement to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 2. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when the accommodations are necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) 3. In connection with the design and construction of covered multi-family dwellings for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, a failure to design and construct those dwellings in a manner that meets the following requirements: (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994; amd. Ord. 97-3785, 5-20- 1997; Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) a. The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons. b. All doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs. c. All premises within the dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (1) An accessible route into and through the dwelling. (2) Light switches, electrical outlets,thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations. (3) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars. (4)Usable kitchens and bathrooms so that a person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. d. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the "American National Standard For Buildings And Facilities Providing Accessibility And Usability For Physically Handicapped People", as amended, commonly cited as "ANSI A 117.1", satisfies the requirements of subsection E3c of this section. 4. Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to a person whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) F. A person whose business includes engaging in residential real estate related transactions shall not discriminate against a person in making a residential real estate related transaction available or in terms or conditions of a residential real estate related transaction because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) G. For the purpose of this section, "residential real estate related transaction" means any of the following: 1. To make or purchase loans or provide other financial assistance to purchase, construct, improve, repair or maintain a dwelling, or to secure residential real estate. 2. To sell, broker or appraise residential real estate. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) H. A person shall not deny another person access to, or membership or participation in a multiple listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or discriminate against a person in terms or conditions of access, membership or participation in such organization because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) In Iowa City, the coverage is only in the Housing Discrimination portion of the ordinance. 4. Marion Code of Ordinances & Dubuque Housing Department Data TO: Human Rights Commissioners FROM: Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director DATE: August 1, 2014 RE: Following Up on Requests from July 14 Meeting 9 The purpose of this memo is to provide information requested by the Human Rights Commission at its meeting on July 14. First,the Commission requested a copy of the portion of the Marion, Iowa Code of Ordinances that addresses source of income. The link to the full ordinance is http://www.cityofmarion.org/home/showdocument?id-930. The relevant portions are copied below: "31.02 (14) "Lawful source of income"means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property. 31.18 FAIR HOUSING—GENERAL. 2. Prohibitions/Unfair or Discriminatory Practices —Housing. It is an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person, owner of rights to housing or real property, or a person acting for an owner of rights to housing or real property, with or without compensation, including(but not limited to)persons licensed as real estate brokers or salespersons, attorneys, auctioneers, architects, builders, developers, agents, or representatives by power of attorney or appointment, or any person acting under court order, deed of trust, or will—collectively referred to in this chapter as a"housing provider": A. To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. B. To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provisions of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. C. To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination. D. To represent to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. E. For profit,to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. F. To discriminate against an individual who is receiving or has a Federal, State or local housing subsidy, including rental assistance or Section 8 vouchers, because the individual is such a 10 recipient or because of any requirement of such rental assistance or housing subsidy or voucher program, subject to the exemptions in Section 31.21 of this chapter; a housing provider: (1) Shall consider, and may verify, any lawful source of income or occupation in determining qualifications for rental or sale of a dwelling. (2) Shall not be required to rent or sell to any participant in a housing subsidy program merely because the individual has the subsidy. This subsection does not create a preference for persons with housing subsidies over those without subsidies. (3) Shall not refuse to accept or participate in a government housing subsidy program, except as provided elsewhere in this section, and must consider and evaluate individuals who participate in these programs along with other individuals and applicants. (4) May refuse to consider income derived from any criminal activity. (5) May determine the ability of any potential buyer or renter to pay a purchase price or pay rent by: a. Verifying, in a commercially reasonable manner, the source and amount of income of the potential buyer or renter, including any rental or purchase payments or portions of rental or purchase payments that will be made by other individuals, organizations or voucher and rental assistance payment programs on the same basis as payments to be made directly by the potential buyer or renter. b. Evaluating, in a commercially reasonable manner, the prospective stability, security, and credit worthiness of the potential buyer or renter or any source of income of the potential buyer or renter, including any rental or purchase payments or portions of rental or purchase payments that will be made by other individuals, organizations or voucher and rental assistance payment programs. (6) May refuse to lease or sell a dwelling to a potential or current renter or buyer who is relying on a Section 8 voucher or subsidy for payment of part or all of the rent or sale price for a dwelling if and when the Marion Housing Services Office or its designee determines that: a. The dwelling fails to meet Federal Housing Quality Standards in connection with the Section 8 or subsidy program; or b. The rent for the dwelling exceeds the Fair Market Rent authorized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Marion Housing Services Office in connection with the Section 8 or subsidy program. (7) Shall cooperate with the Marion Housing Services Office, HUD and the buyer or renter to execute all documents necessary to apply for participation in the housing subsidy or voucher program and to enable payment of housing subsidies or rental assistance payments." Marion Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31. Second, there was a request for data showing the number of people who move off of government assistance. While the City does not have data on forms of government assistance available through other agencies, we are able to provide some information related to the receipt of Housing Assistance Vouchers. For example, during FY14 (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014) a total of 170 families went off of the rental assistance program, one of whom was evicted. Additionally, the Housing and Community Development Department is involved in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and the Circles Initiative, both of which are designed to support people moving towards self-sufficiency. The charts on the following pages provide data on those programs. The Self-Sufficiency Program data is current as of June 2013. I have requested updated data from the department but have not yet received it. The Circle Leader chart was created in January 2014 based on 20 Circles Leaders active in the program at that time. 11 4a �Yaa cyHH 9j o1� a 9j d M 0y E o ay tb V +0 HA/ bs b w o 0O9 �O /ab of 46 Aar Q Ae�'�y�/I uai ~ yO gg%o l E u 7 w E o g4j e/ f'a /i,.� abs, a+oY G 4. G " ti A ° gAC ag6a 0 ✓� .� � m � o � m y — 10 '410 � o 0 X oo' Xno' x • • +o C 6 N .. E 2fHa H'�y�a0 a P N v .`_ 4aa°qq yOg m O V 3 �64� �•fqy 0y0 � 7 J Vl N 4rS ¢/ J W 0 �O d Y Y d /SOY m i 5 12 N � N AO ,p via �!ya, Ar d PeZ `J a LL C /Ay o V !P �4P OpAq, /gO N F 0 0,4/ O00 wo �Yp $ a`/ paaGYY a T E _ gy, _ QAC c a r pA n O `�4,P'gP�O ,d/qa ry gL QiP j �J AP 4/ c @ �a4 ry ma a N �YY H L d/P � LL A Ay, a9aA C E d � P� E _ Sao C INN oA gc �o o�aoa� 8 8 8 8 8 a E E N E E F F 13 | � ! § i [ % 0 « ` * ! f ! M ! f r ; ! Br � W / \ i ) \ ) § } / `k \ !/ Ul\ � ) ) ! \ \ \ \ \ ! \ � � a5 ! | } R t7 / \ ƒ Circle Leader Employment and Education 8o utcomes 70 N L .90 ■ Employed A °5o d ■ Enrolled in i o Education V r-ao ■ Certificates C or Degrees d M Earned A a+ o u L W 1 Enrollment 6months 12 months 18 months Length of Time in Circles The Circle Leader chart was created in January 2014 based on 20 Circles Leaders active in the program at that time. Finally, there was a request for information from Iowa City and Marion regarding their experience since including source of income in their ordinances. I contacted Stefanie Munstermann-Robinson, acting Director for the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission, for information related to the Marion ordinance. The Cedar Rapids Commission has an agreement to investigate cases on behalf of the City of Marion. To date, there have been no cases filed under lawful source of income, though the Marion Commission just became fully functional in May of 2014. 1 also spoke with Stefanie Bowers with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission. She has been the director since approximately 2006, and the source of income coverage was already included in the Iawwhen she was hired. She verified that the Iowa City ordinance does not include Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). She stated she receives very few calls about the source of income ordinance in general, and anecdotally she recalls perhaps four calls this year where an individual expressed concern that they were denied an apartment because they participated in the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Here are the numbers of cases that have been filed alleging discrimination based on public assistance source of income under the Iowa City Ordinance over the past five years: 15 FY10=5 FY11=5 FY12=1 FY13=5 FY14=1 All of these complaints were either administratively closed or resulted in a finding of no probable cause to believe discrimination occurred. Stefanie noted that only one or two of these cases was correctly filed under the ordinance. For example, people will often check"source of income" as a basis when they file an employment discrimination complaint and the case will be closed because source of income is only applicable in housing cases under the ordinance. Other times, people will check source of income in addition to other bases when filing a housing case and the case will end up being decided based on issues other than source of income. She recalls one or two correctly filed cases that involved situations where someone was receiving disability checks that arrived after the 1st of the month. These cases were mediated to permit rental payment at a later date when the checks arrived. cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager 5. Communitv Overview Data from Countv Comprehensive Plan In addition to the data provided by the City Housing Department,the Dubuque Human Rights Commission also looked at applicable data in the County Comprehensive Plan. In January 2011, Dubuque County received a Smart Planning Grant to incorporate guidelines from the state smart planning legislation of 2010 (Iowa Code Chapter 18B parts 1 and 2) into the Dubuque County Comprehensive Plan, previously last updated in 2002. Dubuque County, the City of Dubuque, and the six other largest cities within the county formed the Smart Planning Consortium to compile data to guide future development in the cities and county. The Consortium hosted an initial planning kickoff meeting in February 2011. Individual communities held workshops in November and December 2011. The Consortium held a final wrap up meeting in October 2012. Throughout 2013 and 2014, the updated County Comprehensive Plan, also called the County Smart Plan, went to Dubuque County Board of Supervisors,the City of Dubuque Council, and the six other largest cities's councils for approval. On the next several pages of this report is the City of Dubuque Community Overview, selections from the Economic Development Chapter, and the Housing Chapter from that plan, included for their discussions on how a lack of quality rental housing in Dubuque County, the City of Dubuque Council, and the six other largest cities' in the county could affect the capacity for economic growth in all of them. 16 Community Overview City of Dubuque, Iowa 2010 Dubuque Population Dubuque Race ,,85 some cher Bare, or lar C% 80to 84 75 to 79 xa0oenawar nava 70 65to69 cher,4'd1% hnder(,T 65 to 69 islanaer,o.4w< 60to 64 55 to 59 anerian indlan and 50to 54 Alaska xatieeo.zn< 45to49 DD�11US 40to44 35 to 39 30to34 Dubuque Hispanic or Latino 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 Hispanic or Ladino 5 to 9 lotany rare), z.40°c <5 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 ■ Female population ■ Male population Dae:usrensm 40 a ureau,X130 70,000 City of Dubuque Historical Population _ 60,000 Education Population 25 Years and Over 50,000 Doctorate degree 40,000 "TA30,000 Professional school degree 5°b 20,000 10,000 z I_*I' Master's degree 2°b Bachelor's degree mca ca 1 .7°b ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. N Associate'sdegree 6. °b City of Dubuque Population Forecast Some college,1 or more years,no 000 ]5,504 12.9° degree )0'000 57,538 57,686 5],63] Some college,less than 1 year 60,000 5. °b so'OM High schoolgraduate,GED,or 40'000 alternative 2 Th 30.000 20000 Less than high School graduate 11.6°b Q000 Data source �s�us cen.eonaa m ' syeE onoL¢mas-zms 0°b 30°b 20°b 30°b 40°b 1990 2000 2010 2020 20M 2040 The median age in Dubuque is 38.7 compared to 38.6 for the County. The 2010 population pyramid shows large numbers in the 20-24 age group, indicating the city's college population, and the 45-59 age group,indicating a large "baby boomer" population nearing retirement age. Dubuque has experienced steady population growth over the last 150 years. Population declined in the 1980s,but has since leveled off to a slow growth pattern.With new economic development activities, Dubuque's growth rate is expected to increase over the next 30 years. Ac- cording to projections, the City's population will top 75,000 by 2040.Whites make up about 92% of Dubuque's population. County wide,whites make up about 94%. Education levels in Dubuque are similar to the rest of the County. 33% of residents have a college degree. 17 Community Character Area: 31.35 sq mi 2010 Population: 57,637 Population Density: 1,839 persons per sq mi Total Occupied Housing Units: 23,506 Employment Status of Dubuque Residents Owner-Occupied Units: 15,446 Renter-Occupied Units: 8,060 2009" Median Year Structure Built:" 1956 Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units" $117,900 Data source us Census Bureau,2010 2000 'Data source US Census Bureau,Ars 5year Esnmate 20052009 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 3500 1990 3000 2500 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% m 2000 as ■Employed ■Unemployed `a 1500 Data source:us census Bureau,199S,2SSS 2 1000 Data Source US Census Bu,eau,ACS 5,ear Saturate,2005-2SS9 500 0 olek Dubuque m S °' A m e R T p m S e Employmentby Industry ti : R „ g m g A g R g o Ao A R NNYAN re-1o1a x=euro. Value(Thousands of Dollars)~ Data Source US Census eu.ew,ACS 5 treo.(5amc[;2CU5-20(9 Median Household Income: $41,879(2009 Dollars) wro=mp a Dubuque Household Income 3000 psnaiww mimnn.hh,& 2500 n 1 x a v EmplWeealThwan&) e Data Source US Census B urea u,ACS sear Este mate,2005-2no9 2000 Occupation of Dubuque Residents 16 and Older Management,professional,and 1500 related occupations i 5% Service occupations 1000 Sales and office occupations fanning,fishing,and forestry 500 0% occupations Construction,extraction,main - �tenance,and repair occupations 0 M& -Production,transportation,and v dn d on v m 6 h op n material moving occupations Thousands of Dollars Data Source:US Census Bureau,A6 5,ear Eat mate,2005-1009 Data So urce IAS census ACS 5.-l5amo@,2oc52W9 Unemployment remained around 5%between 1990 and 2009. 57% of Dubuque residents work in manage- ment,professional, sales,and office occupations. 15%work in production,transportation and material moving occupations. Dubuque home prices tend to be lower than the rest of the County. The median home price in Dubuque is$13,500 lower than the County median. Median household income is about$6,000 lower than the rest of the county. 18 conomfic levelo • Chapter J Data Analysis A diverse vibrant regional economy is e criti®Icom- As Dubuque Countysnives rebuild e more vibrant present ofthe foundation of asusminable community economy through more effective Local policies to Good Jot that pay a living wage and access to goods cal governments need to have Informative data and and services are Important factors In measuring a maps that Illustrate the economic forces at work community's quality of life. This chapter describes the The US Ceesays Bureau, BureauofEconomic Analy- data, policies and organizations that address issues of sls(BEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BGS) employment, industry, and commerce In a sustainable provide a wide variety of economic data through the way, Decennial Census and the American Community Survey(ACS). The following charts and tables are Pigure9.1 -Dubuque County Historical Employment selections from the Census that depict the most Important aspects of the Dubuque County economyrn , 55D Employment Over the last 20 years Dubuque County has experienced posl- Eao tive growth In total employment The total number of Jot has E a5D increased from 44,800 in 1990 to 56$00 in August 2010. Figure 5.1 illustrates the overall pose 199D 1995 xmE mos taro tive growth In employment since Source W Bureau CLabor Sfabs6a 1990. 19 Economic Development Since 2000, Dubuque Counts unemployment rate has mirrored the State of Iowas rate. Based on the BLS data presented in the Figure 7.2,both Dubuque County and the State of Iowa have fared well in the recession. Cur- rent unemployment rates are approximately 3 percentage points lower than the national average. Figure 7.2 shows the Annual Unemployment Rate for Dubuque County, the State of Iowa, and the United States. Figure 7.2 -Annual Unemployment Rate 10.0 9.0 v M 8.0 z c 7.0 v E 6.0 0 5.0 c 4.0 3.0 2.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 —Dubuque County —State of Iowa —United States Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment growth is expected to continue over the next 30 years. According to projections made by Regional Economic Model Inc(REMI), total employment in Dubuque County will reach 72,000 by the year 2040. Figure 7.3 depicts the REMI 30-year employment projection. Figure 7.3 -Dubuque County Employment Forecast 80,000 69,663 67,023 70,000 bU,329 1 9 �Rf; 64729 , 5 60,000 6,500 50,000 0 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000Ell] 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Source:REMI Inc. 2010 Information on employment by industrial sector is available through the US Census Bureau's County Business Patterns (CBP) dataset. The CBP is an annual series of data that provides county economic data by industry. County Business Pattern data excludes most government employees, railroad employees, and self-employed per- sons. Figure 7.4 contains the most recent CBP data from 2009. According to the CBP data, the Manufacturing, Health Care, and Retail Trade industries are the largest employers in the region. These three industries account for almost 50% of the employment in Dubuque County. 20 Economic Development Figure 7.5 shows the total employment for each city Maps within Dubuque County. The chart shows that the majority of the jobs within the county are concentrated To better understand the distribution of employment in the City of Dubuque. across Dubuque County, employment data has been mapped using the US Census Bureau On the Map ser- Figure 7.5 -Total Primary Jobs by City 2009 vice. On the Map uses data derived from Unemploy- ment Insurance Wage Records reported by employers Total Dubuque County and maintained by each state for the purpose of ad- ' ministering its unemployment insurance system. Asbury 404 Map 7.2 (at the end of the chapter) was created using Cascade* 970 On the Map. The map shows the density of employ- Dubuque 38,582 ment across the county. According to the map, the Dyersville* 2,343 highest density of employment in the county is located Epworth 258 in and around Dubuque's downtown. Employment Farley 1810 density is also high in Dubuque's west end commercial Peosta 11,338 area Other areas of moderate employment density Dubuque County 149,331 occur at locations across the County with the larger densities mainly within the larger cities. US Census Bureau, 2009 Map 7.1 shows the employment inflow and outflow *Cities smore than one county,jobs totals include portions of for Dubuque County. Inflow and Outflow maps for city outside of Dubuque County. individual cities can be found at the end of the chapter + Public and Private sector jobs,one job per worker. A primary in Maps 7.3-7.9. This series of maps shows the flow job is the highest paying job for an individual worker. of workers in and out of each community. The arrows Map 7.1 - Dubuque County Employment&Outflow 2009 16,606 11,702 Grad In WI 2,200 3 217 Linn Con ,IA 1.961 Jackson County,IA 1,745 Scott County,IA 1,551 Delaware County,IA 1,285 to Daviess County,IL 838 to Daviess County,IL 1.212 Johnson County,IA 830 Linn County,IA 903 Polk County,IA 756 Black Hawk County IA 677 Black Hawk County,IA 597 Scott County,IA 675 Delaware Countv.IA 403 Polk Coun ,IA 622 Clinton County,IA 373 Clayton Count};IA 547 Jones County,IA 357 .11 Others 6,740 AllOthers 4,036 Work in Dubuque / `Live and Work in Live in Dubuque County Live Outside [V�1 Dubuque County N+County Work Outside U.S. Census Bureau. 2011.-OnTheMap Application.Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program.http:lllehd- map.did.census.gov/ 21 region with the mein focus of Increasing the number of Challenges skilled made professionals. Future Shortage of Skilled Workers Chambers of Commerce The Dubuque Com regional faces a future qua County y Chambersofcommerce entinDplay buqu important CountyChamberole in co- �horOctober 011, IIo workersrceeDevelopment evel retirements. In nomic otb Dubuque County Chambers October 2011, Iowa Workforce De Attettent(IWD) are organizations and promote that work tofurther the released the Iowa Workforce Needs Aares<mkson,eent the needsoamerc work onthe he l pro mote tourism actimai region that untiea Th Dubuque Delaware,found ties. Chambersworkon thelocal level tobringbull- ]ones Comtles. TheNeeds Assessmentfound that as nectec together and develop toting social networksthe baby hoomer generation begins to retire, employ Chamberc alto work with local govern ments to help erc In Dubuque County will be forced to replace and reatepro-businessinitiatives. In Dubuque County, train thousands ofskllledworkers. Accordingtothe the Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce, theDy- IWgseveral industries In Dubuque County will have rsville Area Chamber of Commerce the Cascade large percentages of their workforce eligible to retire Chamber of Commerce and the West Side Business inthenextfiveyears. The industries with the high - AssociationofDubuqueworktopromoteandprotect est retirement eligibility Include Educational Services local businesses and work to make their communities (30.ES), Health Care and Social Services (25.996), better places to live. Manufacturing (14096), and Wholesale and Retail 'bade(6.5%).' The report detailed what employers are Economic Development Corporations doing to replace workers who retire. Ofthe employ - Economic Development Corporationsair not-for- c who replied to IWD'c survey 33.4% plan to use profit organizations that work closely with govern- combination of outside workers and promoting within ment,business, and other partner organizations to pro- the company, 31.0 % do not currently plan on filling mote economic development through recruitment and these positions,29.1 % plan only to hire workers from retention of Indus try, tourism promotion, workforce outside the company, and 6.5 % plan on ly to promote development, and employee recruitment and reten_ from within the company, tion. There are several active economic development Gender Wage Gap corporations In Dubuque County including. Asbury Area Development Corporation, Cascade Economic Wage Inequality between men and women is another Development Corporation, Greater Dubuque Devel- issue that is facing Dubuque County, AccoNingtothe opment Corporation, Dyersville Economic Develop- Iowa Policy ProJecPa 2011 report The State of Working ment Corporation,Epworth Economic Development Iowa, "the gap between womehs and meds earnings Corporation, Farley Development Corporation, and has narrowed with time nationally ac well ac In Iowa. Dubuque Main Street The lowest gap of$2 60/hour was measured In 2010. Economic Challenges, Strengths, and Opportuni- Figure7.6 - Gender Wage Gap on ties ECIA produces a Comprehensive Economic Develop- ment Strategy (CEDS) every five years to monitor and un evaluate long-term economic goals and strategies and to coordinate the development activities In a live-coun- IF region that inciudesDubuque County Initsmost cent edition, completed In January 2010, the CEDS outlines the most Important economicdevelopment yg gp iY}iEGi challenges and opportunities that are facing the region. The following list contains the challenger,strengths, Source.Iowa FoucyP,gect and opportunities that were listed In the 2010-2014 I htry✓/wwwmwawormorce.org/MI/labsu/vaaary/pros CEDS and the 2011 CEDS Annual Update. pentgeartemlowaworhlorceneedammaea¢ol1Per 22 However, this appears to be largely due to a decline in Lack of Quality Rental Housing the earnings of men:' Figure 7.6 shows a chart depict- ing the results from the Iowa Policy Project's analysis. Quality rental housing has become an issue for the region with the addition of IBM and their 1,300 new Natural Disasters employees in downtown Dubuque. Rental units in the region are sparse. The average year of construction In recent years, the region has been hit hard by natural for rental units in the region is 1951,which means disasters. In the past five years, tornados and floods that many n the units are close to 60 years in age. Of have caused billions of dollars in damage across the the total housing units in the region, less than 30% State of Iowa Many communities in Dubuque County are rental units. The IBM workforce population in are still working with federal and state agencies to search of housing is looking for rental housing. The rebuild damaged homes and businesses. Since 2008, demographic for this population is between the ages Dubuque County has been included in three federal of 25-30, recent college graduates, one to two years of disaster declarations. These disasters include: work experience, making$30,000 to $35,000 per year. 2008: Severe Tornadoes and Flooding FEMA-1763- The vacancy rental rate for the region is 1.1%, and in DR- Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, Dubuque, and Jackson the Dubuque area, it is less than .05%. In the near Counties. future, the region must address the shortage of work- force rental housing. See th Housing Chapter for more 2010: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes information on Dubuque County housing issues. FEMA-1930-DR - Delaware, Dubuque and Jackson Counties. Innovation 2011: Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-4018-DR- The wildcard for the region is innovation and entre- Dubuque and Jackson Counties. preneurship. The State New Economy Index ranked Iowa 45th in the nation when it comes to economic See the Hazard Mitigation Chapter for more informa- dynamism and its ability to rejuvenate itself through tion on natural disasters. the formation of new innovative companies. The study Adequate Transportation Infrastructure focused on several indicators including the number of entrepreneurs starting businesses and the number of Adequate transportation infrastructure funding is a patents issued. The study found that the region lacks a challenge for the region and the State of Iowa. Trans- significant institutional source for innovation such as portation challenges that impact Iowa and Dubuque a tier one research university or major private research County include: increased traffic demands and freight and development facility. Leaders in the region agree movements, changing demographics, increased bio- that the region's economic future will be founded on a fuels production, increased construction and mainte- strong seedbed of entrepreneurs and a steady stream of nance costs, flattened revenues, and aging infrastruc- talented individuals who are willing to take on the risk ture. According to the Iowa DOT 2011 Road Use Tax associated with starting new businesses. The region Fund Study, the transportation system will need a must find ways to integrate entrepreneurship into the minimum of$215 million per year in additional fund- K-12 curriculum to encourage it at ayoung age and ing to meet the"most critical stewardship needs on provide a way to change the culture over time. The existing infrastructure" State legislators have debated region must find new mechanisms to harness some of a state gas tax increase to cover the funding gap, but the indigenous wealth in the region and recycle it into the region also must work to stretch its limited trans- new businesses. The region needs to pursue equity portation budget by investing its funds wisely. See the capital to fund new business start-ups. Finally, the Transportation Chapter for more information on the region needs to improve delivery of support services County's transportation infrastructure. for entrepreneurs. 2 http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2011docs/110902- SW1201l.pdf 3 http://www.iowadot.gov/pdf files/RUTFStudy2011.pdf 23 Chapter 8 a result,housing and transportation planning must be H ousing is a basic need for all human beings and is closely coordinate d. an Important factor In community planning efforts. H ousing serves an Important role In the regional H ousing is many homeowners'largestsource of per omy, as It affects employers'ability to attract and sorrel wealth and is usually their largest expenditureretain good quality employees and also ere aces jobs . According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics In 2010 If combined housing and transportation costs are too housing accounted for more than 35%of consumer high, employers may lose employees to other regions. spending.' Housing also affects personal behavior The housingsecfor also employs manyworkers within Where people live affects who their friends are,where theregion. Builders lenders construction workers their children go to school,Job opportunities and and real estate brokers are an Important part of the many other aspects of dally life. Housing has a large regional economy, Impact on Individual quality of life within the region. Residential developmentcangreatlyaffectthenatu- Housingisoneoflocal governments most Important ralenvironment A sustainable community needs to issues es. in urban areas housing can account for 50%of balance needs for new housing with environmental lend uses and residential property tm revenues make protections. Low impact development,conservation up a large portion of Local government budgets. Be- subdivisions and other green building techniquescan all oe of its high level of Importance,housing affects help mitigate the Impact of residential development on ther planning elements listed In this plan. Public the natural environment services people require, how much those services cost, .me objective of this chapter is to encourage a diverse and who should pay for them all depend on where, housing stock that serves people at all Income levels how,and at what densities people live. Of theservices provided by Local governments,transportation is one end et ellsmges of life. Good quality housing is the of the most Impacted by housing. Individual travel foundation of a stable sustainable community To behavior is greatly affected by where people live,and as be effective,community planning efforts,Including sustainability efforts must be Integrated Into a com- t "construct Ismanditues2010"BLS.rare zv Sept ro 11 munitys housing policies. U.S bureau of Labor Sdtlatla. t Dec 2011 here ISeSeSvIrs awl asemes an nrohim at Inventory of Existing Housing Figure8.1 - Dubuque County Housing Tenure The US Census Bureau provides a wide variety of data on housing through the decennial census and the American Community Survey Dubuque County (ACS). The following charts are selections from the Census that depict the mcvt Important aspects Iowa of the Dubuque County housing market Dubuque County's vacancy rate is us lower than stak and national rates. In general, the Dubuque County D% xn% an% w% 80% long housing market has weathered the 0 D.nner-occupied • proper occupied housing crisis better than many markets In the countrywhere Source 2010Amv(mn Cmrmmn(ty Surveyl-YearRhmats large numbers of forecicvuree have driven vacancy rates up. Dubuque County residents are more likely to own their home. According to the housing tenure data shown In Figure 8.1, renters account for 25% of the Countyc occupied housing units. Nationally renters makeup about 35% Dubuque County Housing Market When compared with the rest of the US, the Dubuque County housing market hes remained relatively stable through the recent economic downturn. According to research publlshedby the mortgage Insurance firm PMI, Dubuque County was among the least risky places In the country to buy a home. PMIiHousingApprecla - tionRicklndex (HARI) m res the probability that house pris will be lower intwo years. Accordingtothe HARI,Dubuque County homce es had a 76% chance of falling In the next two years. Dubuque's score is well below Figure 8.2-Housing Appreciation Price Risk Index the national average of 433% and the riskiest regions In Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and California which have HARI �corec between 80% and 90% a� According to PMI, In general, 4111 the stateswith the loweetscoree y are In the Creat Plane —ee- peciallyNorth Dakota, Iowa, i and Nebraska. These states did not experience large housing 4 booms, have low unemploy- ment and foreclosure rates, and are very affordable P' Figure 8.2 shows the geographic dlstrlbuOF - i .mw tion of H ousing Appreciation Price Risk for metropolitan Source PMIMortgggeInsurance Ca areas. 2 Berson.DavldW std Economlcandliad Erate'Rends cast Morteaee nsuanceCo 2011, olbeecvom usmm/PDH 0 11 om era mml 25 Housing Affordability Figure 8.3 - Monthly Owner Costs as a Percent of HH Income Housing costs as a percent of household income is a generally used measure 60% of housing affordability. As a rule of m so% thumb, spending less than 30% of in- ■us come on housing is generally considered 40% to be affordable. Households spending ■Iowa 30% more than 30% are considered to be cost 3 .� 20% ■Dubuque burdened and may have difficulty afford- a county ing other necessities such as food, cloth- W 10% ing, transportation, and medical care. o 0% Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show that Dubuque <20% 20%-25%25%-30%30%-35% >35% County is a relatively affordable region for homeowners compared to the rest Percent of HH Income of the country and the state of Iowa According to 2010 ACS data, 75% Figure 8.4-Monthly Owners Costs as a percent of HH Income of Dubuque County residents with a mortgage and 89%of residents without 50% a mortgage are paying less than 30%of „ their annual income towards housing. ao% ° ■us While owner occupied housing may be 30% relatively affordable in Dubuque County, z ■Iowa the same cannot be said about renter oc- 3 20% cupied housing. Figure 8.5 shows gross ■Dubuque rent' of as percent of household income. 10% - County The chart shows that housing affordabil- _hL ity rates are similar to state and national o o% >10% 10%- 15%- 20%- 25%- 30%- >35% rates: 48%of Dubuque County house- 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% holds pay 30% or more of their income Percent of HH Income towards housing. Figure 8.5 - Gross Rent as a Percent of HH Income 50% 45% 40% Geography a 35% — ■US �E 30% O a 25% ■Iowa a 20% c Dubuque 15% County a 10% n 5% 3 Gross Rent. The amount of the con- 0% tract rent plus the estimated average monthly <15% 15%-19%20%-24%25%-29%30%-34% >35% cost of utilities(electricity,gas,and water and sewer)and fuels(oil,coal,kerosene,wood,etc.) I Percent of HH Income if these are paid for by the renter(or paid for the renter by someone else). 26 Source Fig 3-5: 2010 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates Combined Housing and Transportation Costs new view including transportation costs. Accordingto the Index in all cities,many distant suburbs are less at Over the past fifty years many people have chosen to forable than they appear. The H+T Index takes the tra- leave urban areas for rural and suburban communities ditional30%of household income measure for housing as a way to reduce housing costs. For the most part, and adds an additional 15%for transportation resulting home prices are lower in suburban areas when com- in a combined affordability measure of 45%. pared to urban areas. However,on the suburban and rural areas the distance is greater between work, school, H+T Index results for Dubuque County are displayed and other daily needs. The increased distance results in Figure 8.6. The traditional 30% affordability measure in residents spending increased time and money on is displayed on the left and the 45% H+T threshold is transportation. According to a report entitled Penny displayed on the right. According to the traditional Wise,Pound Puelish produced by the Center for Neigh- measure,75%of Dubuque County residents are liv- borhoodTechnology(CNT),the increased transpor- ing in affordable housing. However,according to the talion costs associated with living in the suburbs can H+Tmeasure,70%of residents pay more than 45%in outweigh the savings on home costs and residents of housing and transportation costs and only 30%are pay - these communitiesare more vulnerable to fluctuations inglessthan45M. The maps in Figure 8.6 display the in gas prices." CNT has developed Housing and Trans- geographic distribution of the housing cost index and portation cost index(H+T Index) that allows users to the H+T index by census block According to the H+T compare the traditional view of affordability with the index,affordable areas of the county are urban areas that are dose to work,school,and services and have ac- 4 "Penny Wise,Pound Puelish'The Center for Neighbor- cess to public transit. hood Technology.March 2010,htn //www cnt orgheDostory/ pWpf.Od Figure 8.6- Dubuque County Combined Housing Costs Region: Dubuque, IA 0 rca : nayarpa Typical Household:defend Madan income:anssz Seenu prank cpmmmem.1.1 rmrl.e.. umpey:ppwnr,.smmrm 0..o. Housing Costs-%Income Housing and nansloortatlon Costs-%income l -161. farads arel Inarderearfabon Added.- a.p.i.br a..smaa. Modules. Meduabor than 45% 25 So 291% aox .' 45%and Greads 63 in 709% uias wa roow iymm iry asru roo® +mry ID as �anmounry �anmounry as Is onente Co..g onvnr.c...q Is Is W WlzcanzlIsIs O county county do ounq ie..munq I linois Illinois mnnocoonry - Indeed lady led vm9nry r ounry .on a m9nry r ounry o ti .a.. 200 2010 ED opposed mmlz waa for Mahfear Teoenoyy Ma W Ones Ave u+ya IL 90647 Tel crop y/u® per crop Mandan myon or se MCA Marro.r A...d for Canada and urari.a Inammone Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2012. 27 Federal Housing Programs Public Housing The federal government has created several programs Public housing was established to provide decent and to help those individuals who are cost burdened by safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the housing. Many of these programs operate under the elderly, and persons with disabilities.Public housing US Department of Housing and Urban Development comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single fam- (HUD). HUD is the primary resource for housing ily houses to high-rise apartments. There are approxi- related issues at the federal level. HUD's mission is"to mately 1.2 million households living in public housing create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and units, managed by some 3,300 local Housing Agencies quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to (HAs) nation wide. HUD administers federal aid to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy HAs that manage the housing for low-income residents and protect consumers; meet the need for quality af- at rents they can afford. HUD furnishes technical and fordable rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for professional assistance in planning, developing and improving quality of life;build inclusive and sustain- managing these developments. able communities free from discrimination; and trans- business" County Housing Agencies form the way HUD does business Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher HUD works with local housing agencies to implement many of their programs. The City of Dubuque Hous- The housing choice voucher program is the federal ing and Community Development Department and government's major program for assisting very low- the Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority work income families, the elderly, and persons with disabili- with HUD and the State of Iowa to assist Dubuque ties to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the County residents with their housing needs. private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are City of Dubuque Housing and Community Devel- able to find their own housing, including single-family opment Department homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant's The City of Dubuque Housing and Community Devel- free to choose any housing that meets the requirements opment(HCD) Department coordinates the efforts of of the program and is not limited to units located in a number of program areas to ensure residents in the subsidized housing projects. City of Dubuque receive safe and affordable housing Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by and to provide a more livable community. Public Housing a\Agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive The HCD department is responsible for administer- federal funds from the HUD to administer the voucher ing and coordinating activities relating to the use of program. A family that is issued a housing voucher is Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds. responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the Each year the City of Dubuque receives approximately family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under $1.2 million in federal CDBG funds from HUD. The the program. This unit may include the family's present funds are used for eligible activities in the areas of residence. Rental units must meet minimum standards housing, economic development, neighborhood and of health and safety, as determined by the PHA. A public services, public facilities, and planning/admin- housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the istration. PHA on behalf of the participating family. The fam- ily then pays the difference between the actual rent The City of Dubuque's 7,600 rental units are periodi- charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by cally inspected by the HCD department for compli- the program. Under certain circumstances, if autho- ance with the housing code and to ensure that the rized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to units provide decent and safe rental housing. Each purchase a modest home. rental unit must be annually licensed and an annual fee is charged. All owners are required to comply with 5 "Mission" HUD.gov.Department of Housing and Urban these requirements. The HCD department maintains Development. 1 Dec. 2011 http://portal.hud.aov/hudportal/ an inventory of all licensed rental units, issues license H U D?src=/a bout/m ission. 28 applications, and receives all fees. Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority The Lead Hazard Reduction Program provides for the (EIRHA) administration of a HUD funded forgivable loan for EIRHA was established in 1978 to meet the hous- lead hazard reduction by providing financial assistance ing needs of low and moderate income families and to low- and moderate-income homeowners and rental the elderly. EIHRA serves Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, property owners to reduce or eliminate lead-based Dubuque,Jackson, and Jones Counties in Eastern Iowa paint hazards in their properties. The program is spe- excluding the cities of Clinton and Dubuque. EIRHA cifically targeted to assist families with children under has a contract with HUD to serve as many families as the age of six. possible using their calendar year budget for Hous- The Rental Assistance, or Section 8,Program receives ing Assistance Payments (HAP) through the Section 8 federal funding to provide Housing Choice Vouchers program. to assist 900 households with rent payment assistance EIRHA has an annual contributions contract to assist in the City of Dubuque. Individuals and families wish- up to 883 households,within its budget authority,with ing to participate fill out a rental application, submit rental assistance in the region through Housing Choice to abackground check, and after approval, are issued Vouchers (HCV). The participating family chooses a a Housing Choice Voucher they may use at a rental decent, safe, and sanitary rental unit in which to reside. unit of their choosing. If the landlord of the rental If the landlord agrees to lease the unit to the house- unit agrees to lease to the household under the Hous- hold under the Section 8 HCV Program, and EIRHA ing Choice Voucher Program and the unit is approved approves the rental unit, EIRHA will make monthly by the HCD department, then the Housing Author- rental payments to the landlord to help the household ity will make monthly rental assistance payments to pay their rent each month.Participating households the landlord. Generally, participating households pay pay a minimum of 30% of their adjusted income for about 30% of their monthly adjusted income towards rent and utilities or $50, whichever is greater. their rent. While receiving rental assistance, Section 8 participants have the opportunity to engage in services EIRHA owns and manages 164 rental units in and programming to develop their skills and become Dubuque,Jackson, Delaware, and Clinton Counties. self-sufficient. These Public Housing units consist of apartments, du- plexes, and single family homes that provide housing The Shelter Plus Care(S+C)Program provides rental for low-income families, seniors, and persons with dis- assistance for homeless persons with disabilities in abilities.Participants in the program pay a minimum connection with supportive services funded from of 30% of their adjusted income toward rent and utili- sources throughout the community through other ties or $50, whichever is greater. Payments are made agencies and programs. The City of Dubuque has re- directly to EIRHA on the first of each month. ceived a five-year grant from HUD to operate a Spon- sor-based Rental Assistance(SRA)Program through The Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Corporation the S+C program. The City has entered into a sub- (EIRHC) is a subsidiary of EIRHA and was estab- contract with a nonprofit local organization, Project lished in 1990. It is organized as a not-for-profit under Concern, to provide rental assistance, screen prospec- the provisions of Chapter 504A of the Iowa Code five participants, and perform assessments of client's and serves six counties: Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, needs. Project Concern leases the units to be occupied Dubuque,Jackson, and Jones Counties in Eastern by the participants. Iowa. The purpose of EIRHC is to promote the general social welfare of eligible occupants of rental housing The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing as determined by the US Department of Agriculture Program (HPRP) is to assist persons and families who (USDA), Iowa Finance Authority(IFA), and Iowa are currently housed, but who are at risk of becoming Economic Development Authority (IEDA) regulations, homeless and may need temporary rent or utility assis- without regard to race, color, religion, creed or national tance; and persons and households who are currently origin; to acquire, construct, improve, and operate any homeless and need temporary assistance in order to real or personal property or interest or rights. EIRHC find housing and stabilize their living situation. owns and manages 10 elderly and/or disabled I bed- 29 room rental units: six in Grand Mound, Iowa, and four in Worthington, Iowa. Rental assistance is financed by environmental health hazards and energy efficiency USDA for these units. issues with integrated health, safety, lead hazards reduction, energy efficiency and weatherization inter- The Eastern Iowa Development Corporation (EIDC) ventions in low-to-moderate income homes. The City is a for-profit entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of of Dubuque is currently seeking funding to implement EIRHC. The EIDC was formed to serve as the gen- the GHHI within the city, and planning is underway eral partner in all Low Income Housing Tax Credit to expand the initiative to other communities within (LIHTC) projects. The Peosta Evergreen Meadows Dubuque County. (32 units) and Asbury Meadows (24 units) properties resulted from this formation Future Needs Sustainable Design Senior Housing- Over the next 30 years the popu- lation of Dubuque County will continue age. The To encourage a more sustainable region, the Dubuque communities of Dubuque County should plan for Smart Plan encourages green building strategies for increased demand for extended care and assisted living residential development including: public health, facilities. Communities should also look into strate- energy efficiency,water conservation, smart locations, gies, such as universal design and mixed-use transit- operational savings, and sustainable building practices. oriented development patterns that give elderly resi- These strategies enhance affordable housing, com- dents access to daily needs, allow them to stay in their munity facilities, town centers, and communities as a own home, and maintain an independent lifestyle. whole. Low and Extremely Low Income Housing - The In addition to increasing resource efficiency and economic downturn has created more demand for low reducing environmental impacts, green building income housing services. Communities should con- strategies can yield cost savings through long-term tinue to work with HUD and other agencies to expand reduction in operating expenses. The benefits include homeownership opportunities, preserve existing af- improved energy performance and comfort, a healthier fordable housing, and prevent homelessness. indoor environment, increased durability of building components, and simplified maintenance requirements Workforce Hosing-Many households of moderate that can lead to financial efficiencies for property income can have difficulty getting into good quality managers and owners. Green building practices im- housing. Communities should implement programs to prove the economics of managing affordable housing, help working families find housing that is affordable. community facilities, and Main Street businesses while enhancing quality of life for residents,visitors and Rental Housing-Examination of census data has employees. When green building practices guide the shown that while owner-occupied housing units in location of our buildings -placing homes, community Dubuque County are relatively affordable when com- facilities and businesses near community amenities pared with the rest of the Country, the same cannot such as public transportation to create walkable, livable be said about rental housing. Many renters are paying neighborhoods -the benefits for citizens and commu- upwards of 35% of their income for housing. Commu- nities expand to include fewer sprawl-related transpor- nities should conduct further analysis to determine the tation impacts. Housing built using the green building factors behind the high cost of rental housing and look strategies must be cost effective to build, and durable into methods to improve rental housing affordability. and practical to maintain. In addition, the principles Housing+ Transportation Costs -Data from the work together to help produce green buildings that Housing +Transportation Index shows that 70% of result in a high-quality, healthy living and working en- Dubuque County residents spend more than 45% of vironment; lower utility costs; enhance connections to their income on housing and transportation. The data nature; protect the environment by conserving energy, also reveals that the most affordable areas are located water, materials and other resources; and advance the within urban areas. Communities should look into health of local and regional ecosystems. methods to direct more housing towards urban areas The City of Dubuque's Green and Healthy Homes and to help reduce transportation costs. Initiative (GHHI) is designed to address home-based 30 8. Proposed Amendment to Dubuque Municipal Code Title 8 - Human Rights, Chapter 5 Fair Housing Laws & Lawful Source of Income Protections Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 1. WHAT ARE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS? The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained several Titles. Title I of the Act barred unequal application of voter registration requirements; Title II outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants,theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; Title III prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin; Title IV encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act; Title V gave the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 additional powers; and Title VI prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. Fair housing laws protect adults and children from discrimination based on personal and household characteristics that disadvantage them when trying to secure a place to live. The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 covers color, disability,familial status, national origin, race, religion and sex. The University of Iowa Clinical Law Program found that additional federal law already covers lawful source of income in credit transactions. Iowa Code Title VI Human Services, Subtitle 1 Social Justice and Human Rights, Chapter 216 Civil Rights Commission Act prohibits discrimination in the areas of credit, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations and education. Discrimination, or different treatment, is illegal if based on age (in employment and credit), color, creed,familial status (in housing and credit), gender identity, mental disability, pregnancy, physical disability, national origin, race, religion, retaliation (because of filing a previous discrimination complaint, participating in an investigation of a discrimination complaint, or having opposed discriminatory conduct), sex or sexual orientation. Dubuque Municipal Code also includes these provisions. The proposed amendment would add lawful source of income —the monies used by individuals to support themselves and their families - to Dubuque Municipal Code Title 8 - Human Rights, Chapter 5 Fair Housing Laws. 2. WHO MUST COMPLY WITH FAIR HOUSING LAWS? Fair housing laws cover most housing, but in many circumstances provide exemptions for owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members. The exemptions are taken directly from federal and state law. No person or occupation is being singled out. People in the business of selling or renting properties must comply with fair housing laws, including Realtors, and should receive training on fair housing compliance, laws and intentional and unintentional discrimination. 3. WHAT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES VIOLATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS? Discrimination in rentals and sales can take many forms, whether based on gender, lawful source of income, race, religion, or other characteristics of people in protected classes. Examples in rentals include landlords who misrepresent the availability of housing; require different terms or conditions for occupancy; steer families to particular units or neighborhoods; tell a renter one 31 thing in person and another on the phone; or refuse to take an application or rent from a person based on the individual's protected class characteristics. Unlawful sales practices include refusing to show a property in a particular neighborhood; requiring one but not all buyers to be pre-qualified before discussing properties; refusing to accept written offers from households with disability, retirement, or public benefits; providing listings in "select"neighborhoods that appear to be chosen because of their racial or other makeup; or encouraging or discouraging sales or purchases in particular neighborhoods. 4. WHY IS LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME BEING CONSIDERED? Lawful source of income laws are designed to help disabled veterans, retirees, and families who receive child support, social security, alimony or public assistance find a safe and decent place to live. They increase housing options and promote inclusion and diverse neighborhoods. Families with non-wage income are often turned away when trying to rent or buy a home. Some landlords don't bother to ask how much income the family has or inquire about its rental or credit history, as they would with individuals who have paychecks. The goals of the amendment are to curb practices and advertisements that discourage or exclude families with non-wage income from considering or entering into leases or purchase agreements and prevent the concentration of socio-economic classes and races in certain neighborhoods that may occur when only a limited amount of landlords consider all lawful sources of income. Dubuque has been aggressive in establishing Tax Increment Financing districts to support economic development initiatives in neighborhoods with a"concentration of poverty" and adding lawful source of income to the City's municipal code is consistent with that policy. 5. WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT REQUIRE OF LANDLORDS, BROKERS AND AGENTS? The ordinance prohibits discrimination against persons seeking housing based on the type of income they use to support themselves and their dependents. It does not set the terms of a lease or purchase agreement. Housing providers are obliged to evaluate applicants on the same basis, regardless of source of income or other protected class characteristic. 6. ARE LAWS ABOUT SOURCE OF INCOME NEW TO FAIR HOUSING? No. Lawful source of income laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the mid- 1970s. Nationally, 12 states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont; and Wisconsin), the District of Columbia, Iowa City, Marion and more than 30 other cities and counties, large and small, have similar laws. Officials in jurisdictions with source of income laws report that it is basically business as usual for landlords and brokers, so long as they screen, qualify or reject prospects using the same criteria. Housing providers are still able to conduct criminal history, background and credit checks, apply income formulas, and evaluate the source, amount, security and stability of payments. They remain free to reject unqualified applicants, including tenants who lack the ability to pay or have income from illegal sources. 7. WILL LANDLORDS OR SELLERS BE FORCED TO ACCEPT A RENTER OR BUYER OR END UP IN COURT? 32 No. The law does not force anyone to rent or sell to an individual on the basis of source of income and it does not create a preference for one or any particular source of income. It does not mandate participation in FHA, VA or other programs. The ordinance allows sellers acting in good faith for non-discriminatory reasons to reject program rules or terms and features associated with offers, such as timing, that are unreasonable or unacceptable. Across the country, very, very, few administrative complaints relating to home sales have ever been filed, and we could find no reported court decision on this issue, which should allay fears that civil rights investigators will be involved in every sales transaction. 8. IS THERE PROOF THAT LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CITY? No. While some have claimed that lawful source of income provisions will be detrimental to Dubuque, the Marion and Iowa City Civil Rights Commissions and UI Clinical Law Programs have been unable to find evidence or substantiate claims that the Lawful Source of Income Ordinance in either City undermined the interests of either city, homeowners or housing professionals. The National Association of Realtors®website is virtually silent on source of income laws. Moreover, no person, civil rights agency or housing official contacted said source of income laws make it difficult for real estate agents to transact business; advise clients or fulfill their fiduciary duties; result in increased numbers of absentee landlords who don't maintain properties; encourage homeowners to avoid using real estate agents in order to avoid fair housing laws; are vague or difficult to interpret; or result in a surge of complaints filed by disgruntled renters or buyers whose offers were rejected. 9. WHY IS LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION LIMITED TO HOUSING? The Commission decided not to extend coverage across-the-board because federal law already covers source of income in credit transactions; employers and schools generally do not hire, fire, offer programs or make decisions based on source of income; and public accommodations normally don't inquire where a customer's money is coming from to pay for the goods or services rendered. 10. DOES LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEED THE CITY'S HOME RULE POWERS? No. A city's statutory and constitutional home rule authority includes the power to pass ordinances that govern private civil relationships such as between landlord and tenant when granted the authority to do so by state law. Cities have the power under Iowa Code §216.19 to enact ordinances that provide broader or different civil and human rights protections. For example, Cedar Rapids, Dubuque and Iowa City all added gender identity and sexual orientation to their municipal codes before the Iowa Code was amended to include these statues in 2007. Ultimately, it is up to the City Attorney and Legal Department to advise the Mayor and City Council on ordinance-related legal matters. 9. Chart from Fair Housing Coach 10. Maps from HUD Studv Following these questions is a Chart over two pages from the January 2014 issue of"Fair Housing Coach", a newsletter for real estate professionals and their attorneys on management, lease, and regulatory compliance matters that the Human Rights Department Subscribes to. Then are maps from the HUD Office of Policy Development and Research 2011 study. 33 34 _ o E o E CO U VJ � a a a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a - - - - 48 m = d } N s o E w 35 Fig eM. Cn r-' f E N rrD n � < Cn 0 0 (D f 0 $ 3 0 o 3 N e v 3 0 r-' O - 3 n r Cv K G Am Om 5p m$ h4 M �Z , O Note these maps are from a study HUD did In 2011,which was before Marlon passed they ordinance and Oregon expanded their lawto Include all local, state, or federal housing assistance. 36 Pig�ee A2. ry 5 s N' 2 � � CL o' f/1 Cn S O C (D O 0 O _ O 03 N fl F a N. �s � r N z ; x o See 5 ?3 Note there maps are from e study HUD did In 2011,which was before Marion passed their ordinance and Oregon expanded their law to include all lo cal,state or federal housing assistance. 37 11. Telegraph Herald Article on the Public Forum on Source of Income Protections Some Dubuque property owners call proposal unfair; Others say the plan -- which says landlords couldn't deny prospective renters based on their type of income -- might help prevent discrimination. Posted: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:00 am I Updated: 3:16 pm, Fri Oct 17, 2014. BY BEN JACOBSON TH STAFF WRITER BEN.JACOBSON@WCINET.COM Those opposed to a proposal that would prevent landlords from denying renters based on their type of income claim that the move would be unfair to property owners. But others -- including some landlords themselves -- say the addition to the city of Dubuque human rights ordinance could help prevent discrimination. Both sides made arguments to members of Dubuque's Human Rights Commission on Thursday evening during a public forum. About 70 area residents, many of whom identified as members of the Dubuque Area Landlords Association, packed in to Carnegie-Stout Public Library's Aigler Auditorium for the two-hour discussion. Commission members have spent several months mulling the proposed ordinance amendment, which is modeled after existing policies in cities and states that implemented similar protections. If approved by the commission and adopted by City Council members, landlords would have to consider all sources of income, including housing vouchers, Social Security payments, alimony and child-support payments and benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, when determining whether an applicant can afford to pay rent. But several landlords said Thursday that the added protection for tenants would come at the expense of the property owners, many of whom are not in a position financially to assume an extra burden. "This takes away our choice," said Vicki Bechen, a Dubuque landlord. "I choose to put my apartments on Section 8 (housing vouchers), but not everybody does. Maybe some day, I won't want to deal with that again." Should an unruly tenant damage a rental unit, landlords must seek relief through the courts, according to Jerry Maro, president of the Dubuque Area Landlords Association. But if a problem renter only receives government assistance, landlords have no recourse to collect damages. "We're trying to protect our investment," he said. Much of the discussion focused on the merits of housing choice, or Section 8, voucher holders. Voucher recipients -- most of whom are disabled or elderly, according to commission members -- receive rental assistance through the federally funded program. Maro said the inspection process for apartments eligible for housing choice vouchers is too strict and often forces landlords to spend a lot of time addressing minor concerns. "Your loss could be two weeks,three weeks, four weeks of rent," while fixing issues that arise during inspections, Maro said. Commissioner Miquel Jackson disputed the idea that renters receiving housing vouchers were more destructive than their peers. "There are no proven differences between whether people on Section 8 or not on Section 8 trash a place more than the others," Jackson said. Keith Nilles, a retired renter, said he was shocked to learn landlords could choose to disregard his retirement income as a valid source of income. And since many landlords said they consider revenue from their rental properties retirement income, they could be end up in the same boat, he said. "Do you know you couldn't rent your own apartment because you don't have any income?" he asked forum attendees. Commission members took no action on the proposal Thursday and likely will spend a few more months discussing the issue before deciding whether to send it onto the City Council for consideration. Commission Vice Chairwoman R.R.S. Stewart said alternatives to the amendment, including more work with landlords and tenants, might be explored. 38 11. Minutes from the Public Forum on Source of Income Protections CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC FORUM October 16, 2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2014, at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, 11th & Locust Streets, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Chair Anthony Allen, Miquel Jackson, Jeff Lenhart, Ashley Melchert Chris Ostwinkle , Vice Chair R.R.S. Stewart, Susan Stone Absent: Howard Lee, Tom LoGuidice Staff: Director Kelly Larson Chair Anthony Allen reviewed the public comment rules and asked commissioners to introduce themselves. Vice-Chair R.R.S. Stewart explained the origin of the Human Rights Commission decision to review and consider source of income. Vice-Chair Stewart explained that the Human Rights Commission attempts to hold one forum per year and in the past years has held forums on the Americans with Disabilities Act, access to Transit, and education on LGBT issues through Better Together Dubuque. The public was then invited to address the Commission related to the question of whether or not to recommend to the City Council that the human rights ordinance be amended to include Source of Income. Members of the public were invited to identify themselves as they provided their comments and the following people spoke: Jerry Maro, Judy Schmitt, Ken Bichell, Julie Beck, Vicki Bechen, Jo Ellen Reed, Ernestine Moss, Dan Pusateri, Sue Kearns, Dean Thompson, Al Kroger, John Jaeger, Helene Hill, Corey Gausen, Steve Bracken, Keith Nilles, Pauline Chilton, Carol Copeland, Margie White, Diane McClain, Suzie Cronic, Deb May, Michelle Jacoby. The comments have been arranged by topic and are attached to these minutes. At the conclusion of comments, Chair Allen thanked people for coming, expressed the desire to continue working together, and stated that the commission would likely continue to discuss this item at upcoming meetings. He invited people to attend commission meetings on the second Monday of the month at 4:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room at 1300 Main Street, and to watch for public notices of meetings. Human Rights Executive Director Kelly Larson invited people to sign up for"notify me"through the City's website to receive notices of upcoming meetings. Anthony also invited people to submit additional comments through the Human Rights Department Office. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Public comments organized by general category/topic Financial Considerations: • If a tenant damages that unit and has wage income, wages can be garnished making it more likely a landlord can collect damages. Funds in the form of a government subsidy cannot be collected on if damaged. • If a tenant loses their job, there may be similar recovery challenges • Inspection process can delay ability to rent immediately, causing income loss for landlords • The rental business is a financial loss and both section 8 and non-section 8 tenants cause damage • Used to accept section 8 and stopped when HUD stopped reimbursing for damages • Rental property is retirement investment and need to protect it 39 • Recovery fund will be a taxpayer burden • If affected financially by this, landlords may raise rents and that will affect everyone • Insurance companies ask"do you have section 8 tenants" and charge higher premiums if do • There is financial cost to landlords when accused of discriminating and have to prove innocence • If people with money damage property, can get the money back • As more protected classes are added, the chances of being sued by more people increases and there is time and cost involved in responding to claims • There is no guarantee tenant will remain on section 8 program and continue to have that income on an ongoing basis. • Only own a four-plex and would go bankrupt if it was trashed • HUD requirements, such as re-painting entire exterior when paint is chipped in a small area, are too costly. • Already taking a risk with the investment and cannot afford increased risk • Compensation for damages very important because more often cannot recover if the tenant receives section 8 • It is easy to get to the point of having insufficient profit to continue • It is not uncommon for someone to file a lawsuit because angry they were turned down and for the landlord to have had no ill will and yet still need to defend self. • No money in rental property and having difficulty selling units • 98% of tenants are good tenants but the 2% can cause significant damage • Insurance companies are dropping coverage and raising premiums because of neighborhood property is located in Screening Considerations: • Challenging to tell if getting someone who has repeatedly caused damage to departments • Have lived next to a landlord who rents to both section 8 and non-section 8 and the property has been a problem for 20 years • As a landlord, I accept section 8 and base my decisions on the individual and their ability to meet my criteria, such as credit history, criminal records, income guidelines, and ability to live in a community with others. • I screen my tenants very carefully and I am still operating at a financial loss • Neighborhood renters damaging property of other neighbors and causing financial losses that cannot be recouped by the property owner • Cannot just assume people on section 8 will damage property—choose tenants based on criteria Source oflncome Definition/Scope: • Alimony and child support are available to landlord only if the person responsible for paying them actually pays • Food stamps should not be included • Consider source of income laws that do not include section 8 • Social security, corporate pensions, investment income are all importance sources of income and have experienced landlords not wanting to count these as "income." • Look more closely at the sources—food stamps are not like social security income. • Banks do not include food stamps as income for mortgage qualification 40 Additional Considerations: • There is a need to support people with limited resources • Do not expect anyone to live where I would not want to live • There are people who need it and there are landlords who are willing to meet that need • Limited number of properties accepting section 8 forces people to live only in certain areas of town. • Should have a right to live in any community can afford to live in, counting all sources of income. • I was on section 8 ten years and excellent tenant but could not choose where to live because so many landlords would not accept section 8. • Not sure how feel about forcing this on landlords. • We all want clean and properly cared for homes. • There are community problems when nest a lot of people with a lot of problems in a single area and that needs to be addressed. • Can see all sides and want to be part of a solution that is beneficial to both landlords and tenants. • We all want choices • Fairness always has two sides • The landlords in this community are not all a bunch of rich people just choosing to treat people badly • Most people present here tonight are against this and concerned that it may pass anyway • I have a 50 apartment community with a very diverse group of tenants—single moms, people with disabilities, people of color, section 8 and non-section 8. When people call me I am always asked if my building is downtown. • If people stay on section 8 for the long run, it is counterproductive to helping them • There are people coming into this community who lack financial resources Miscellaneous: • As a landlord, receive calls asking if accept section 8 and did not realize it was legal to refuse. • Lots of nice locations for the elderly, but not for the disabled. • Sometimes people lose their vouchers because they do not meet landlord criteria, even though landlord has units available and will accept section 8. Questions: [With answers provided at the Forum in brackets.] • Is there any information available on the decision in Cedar Rapids not to pursue a similar addition to their ordinance? • How would proposal help people with disabilities? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, the vast majority of people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers are people with disabilities and the elderly]. • The majority of my section 8 tenants have been single mothers—what is the actual makeup of section 8? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, the vast majority of people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers are people with disabilities and the elderly]. • Will there be a reimbursement fund? • How bureaucratic would system to access fund to recover damages be? • Insurance companies will drop landlords who have a large claim—would City consider a blanket insurance liability policy? 41 • If this ordinance passed, I applied my criteria to a voucher holder and that person passed my criteria, but I only use six month leases and not one year leases, what happens? Can I decline to participate in the section 8 program because I do not use a one year lease and the program requires a one year lease? • What if someone feels very strongly that they simply do not want to receive any federal funds? • Is there a proven significant difference in how people care for property between those who receive section 8 and those who do not? [See the 2010 study done by Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies, referenced at the beginning of this report]. • Has this been enacted anywhere else and, if so, what have been the results? [. Lawful source of income laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the mid-1970s. Nationally, 12 states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont; and Wisconsin), the District of Columbia, Iowa City, Marion and more than 30 other cities and counties, large and small, have similar laws. See Frequently Asked Question Answer#6 on page 32 for more information.] • Why should commissioners who are not landlords have a say in this? • Who makes the decision ultimately on whether or not the ordinance is amended? Suggestions: [With answers provided at the Forum in brackets.] • Basic problem is decreased availability of affordable units. Before go to Council, create a task force to do some brainstorming between landlords and tenants to figure out how to increase affordable housing without putting this burden on landlords with another protected class. • When getting together for problem solving, include both landlords and tenants • Solve some of the problems so that people are not having to live in bad or scary places • Make sure any decision is as equitable as possible in accounting for financial risk to landlords • Promote accepting vouchers • Instead of putting this on the private sector, create a housing authority. [In 1998, one-term Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) created the "Faircloth Amendment' or "Faircloth Limit'to the "Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act,"which blocked HUD support for construction of new public housing. Section 9(g) (3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Faircloth Amendment') states HUD cannot fund the construction or operation of new public housing units with Capital or Operating Funds if the construction of those units would result in a net increase in the number of units the PHA (Public Housing Authority) owned, assisted or operated as of October 1, 1999. Consequently, PHAs cannot build new publicly owned units or maintain those units using federal funds.] • Landlord choice to participate in the program should be protected • Clean up neighborhoods were section 8 units are located so people not having to live in crime ridden areas • Before take anything to Council, meet to describe what intending to recommend and then go to council in a way that permits commissioners, landlords, and tenants all to weigh in • Build on the history of landlords working with the City and then some landlords may be willing to accept section 8 if not so fearful. • Properties require ongoing investments, work, sweat—make it so landlords want to accept section 8 • All of us face choices that are limited by our financial situation • Consider co-signers 42 • Develop accountability program for tenants who are trashing properties —for example, if receiving voucher and damage property then must go to classes or take other actions to remain • If goal is to have section 8 housing outside of undesirable neighborhoods, then develop city- owned building. [See "Faircloth Limit" above.] These are the possible definitions of Source of Income discussed by DHRC in the months leading up to the forum: 1. LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation, lawful compensation or lawful renumeration in exchange for goods or services provided. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property or profit from financial investments. 2: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDS, and any additional state or local voucher programs, but not including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". 3: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", and unemployment or worker's compensation payments, but not including housing vouchers for the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8", McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDS, and any additional state or local voucher programs. 4: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation, lawful compensation or lawful renumeration in exchange for goods or services provided. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property or profit from financial investments. 43 . • . FAIRHousiNG OACH® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TRAINS YOUR STAFF TO AVOID COSTLY DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS JANUARY 2014 > Let's Begin! This month's lesson focuses on compliance with state fair housing laws, a WHAT YOU key factor in effective fair housing training. Usually, our focus is on fed- eral lawsinceit applies nationwide and covers groups long recognized as SHOULDKNow needing fair housing protections. But to fully protect your community,it's necessary to look beyond federal law to comply with any applicable state ABOUT and local fair housing laws. Nearly all states—and many local governmentshaveadopted their STATE & own laws banning housing discrimination. Most simply mirror federal law by banning discrimination based on the seven federally protected charac- LOCAL but 22 states have added fair housing protections for characteris- tics not currently protected under federal law. FAIRHousiNG In this lesson, we'll review the most common types of these additional fair housing protections—along with an updated checklist of the addition- al characteristics protected under the law of each state. Then we'll answer 11 frequently asked questions (FAQs)about state and local fair housing requirements. Finally,you can take the COACH's Quiz to see how much you've learned. WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? The federal Fair Housing Act(FHA) bans housing discrimination based on seven characteristics: race, color, national origin, religion,sex, disabil- ity, and familial status. The FHA applies nationwide, so communities must comply with the law,regardless of where they are located. In addition, communities must comply with applicable state and local laws,many of which have expanded fair housing protections to cover other characteristics. Some—like marital status, age, ancestry, and creed have been on the books for many years. While others—like sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, source of income, military status, status as a domestic violence victim, and even genetic information—have been added more recently. To avoid fair housing trouble, it's important to understand these addi- tional state or local fair housing requirements. Take a look at the checklist on pages 4 and 5 to see which ones apply in your state. COACH'S TIP: This month's state-by-state checklist provides a snapshot of current fair housing laws, but you should check with your attorney or local apartment association for any changes since publication—and to get updates on future developments in state or local laws affecting your community. 2 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ January 2014 r , r 11 FAQS ABOUT STATE & LOCAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS Prof.F.Willis Caruso,Esq. Theresa L.Kitay,Esq. t • Does My State Prohibit Discrimination Based Co-Executive Director Marina del Rey,CA on Marital Status? John Marshall Law School Fair Housing Legal David T.Quezada Support Center FUEL Center Director Nearly half the states prohibit housing discrimination based on mari- chicage,It U.S.Dept.of Housing& Urban Development generally tal status, which glly means g g being single,married,divorced, Nanette Cavarretta, Los Angeles,CA or widowed. Under these laws,it's unlawful to exclude or otherwise CAPS,CAM Regional Manager Shirley Robertson,cPM@, discriminate against applicants or residents because of their mari- Epoch Management,Inc. ARM,ADV.RAM,CCP tal status. Examples include showing a preference for married peo- winterPark,FL Equal Housing Opportunity&ADA ple, refusing to rent to applicants who are divorced or separated, Douglas D.Chasick, Southern Management or requiring single applicants pay higher rent rates than married CPM-,CAPS,CAS,ADV.RAM, Corp. CLP,SCE,Can Vienna,VA applicants. The Apartment Doctor Melbourne Beach,FL D.J.Ryan Find out whether your state has adopted a ban on marital sta- WilliamD.Edwards,Esq. Fair Housing Specialist DirectorofClientEducanon ins discrimination—and if so, what it covers. Make sure you under- Ulmer&Berne LLP Kimball,Tirey& stand how your law defines "marital status" and when it applies. In Cleveland,OH St.John LLP San Diego,CA most states,the law doesn't define marital status, but there are a few Avery Friedman,Esq. Chief Counsel Anne Sadovsky,CAPS,CAM that do. For instance,Alaska's statute bans discrimination based on Fair Housing Council Anne Sadovsky&Co. marital status and "changes in marital status,"but it doesn't prohibit Cleveland,OH Dallas,TX the sale,lease, or rental of classes of real property commonly known Nadeen W.Green,Esq. Kathelene William,Esq. as housing for "singles" or "married couples" only. And in North Senior Counsel The Law Firm of Williams Dakota, the law bans discrimination based upon "status with respect For Rent Media SolutionSTM &Edelstein,P.C. Atlanta,GA Norcross,GA to marriage," but it doesn't prevent"a person from refusing to rent a Rabin Hein,Esq. Carl D.York,CPM@ EMERITUS, dwelling to two unrelated individuals of opposite gender who are not Fowler,Hein,Cheatwood CAM,CAPS married to each other" &Williams,PA Vice President Atlanta,GA Sentinel Real Estate Corp. In some states, the marital status rules generated some contro- Fishers,IN versy when landlords raised religious objections to renting to unmar- ried couples who wanted to "cohabitate"—that is, live together. In the Contributing Editor:Carol Johnson Perkins,Esq. courts, results were mixed. In some, courts ruled that the law banning Executive Editor:Heath at 0giIAa discrimination based on marital status doesn't require owners to rent Director of Production:Kathryn Homenick to unmarried couples when doing so violates their religious beliefs. In Director of operations:Michael Koplin others,courts ruled that state laws banning discrimination based on FairHousing Coach[ISSN 1520-3093 marital status prevent landlords from turning away unmarried cou- FLC1,1938-3142 (omumd]ie published by Vendome Group,,LLc,s Eaet32nd pies who want to live together. Street,Newyork,NY 10016. More recently, marital status laws have taken on new significance Volumel6,lssue 7 with respect to the rights of same-sex couples, particularly in light of Subscriptions/Customer Service:To subscribe or for assistance with your subscription call 1-800-519-3692or the growingtrend toward recognizing same-sex marriage. Indeed, goto our web site,www.vendomeraalestetemedia.com. new HUD rules applicable to federally assisted housing banning dis- tor:Fax 228 1308; for 12 issues.To Contacendomube Edi- crimination based on sexual orientation and ender identity also pro- Disclaimer: Email:hogi/vie@vendomegry.com g y I1 Disclaimer:This publication provides general cover- tect marital status. Even in states that don't ban discrimination based age of its subject area.It is sold withthe understand- on sexual orientation,fair housing advocates sometimes rely on state ing thaouttheing publisher r not engaged in rendering legal, laws protecting marital status to pursue discrimination claims b accounting,or other professional advice or services.If Ii g I1 )' legal advice or other expert assistance is required,the same-sex couples. services of a competent professional should be sought. The publisher shall not be responsible for any damages resulting from any error,inaccuracy,or omission con- tained in this publication. t • Does My State Ban Age Discrimination? ©2014 by Vendome Group,I.I.C.All rights reserved. No part of Fair Housing Coach may be reproduced,,he Many state and local laws ban discrimination based on age,though tributed,transmitted,displayed,published,or broad- cast in any form or in any media without prior written there are significant differences in how the laws apply because of the permission of the publisher.To request permission to way they define "age." reuse this content in any form,including distribution in educational,professional,or promotional contexts, onto reproduce material in new works,please contact In many states, age is defined to mean individuals age 18 and the Copyright Clearance Center atm ho@copyrightcom older. These laws broadly prohibit discrimination against adult appli- or(978)750-8400.For custom reprints,e-prints,or logo licensing,please contact Donna Paghm at(216)373-1210 or dpaglia@vendomegTp.com. ©2014 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. January 2014 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 3 cants because they are considered either too young— experts believe that these terms are intended to ensure or too oldto live in a particular community or area broad protections based on sincerely held religious or of a community spiritual beliefs. That would mean that it's unlawful In a few states, the focus is on protecting older to discriminate against individuals who are not affili- people from housing discrimination, most common- ated with a particular religion or don't ascribe to ear- ly by defining age to mean individuals who are 40 ticular religious beliefs. Treating people differently and over. In Virginia, the discrimination ban applies simply because they door do not—attend religious to "elderliness" as opposed to age,and defines it as services or identify with a religious faith could lead to being 55 and older. For example, it would be unlaw- fair housing trouble. ful to exclude an older applicant who meets screening requirements, but who may be approaching retire- ment age, simply because of concerns about his future • Does My State Ban Discrimination financial qualifications. Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? • Does My State Ban Discrimination Currently,21 states and the District of Columbia have Based on Ancestry? adopted fair housing protections based on sexual orientation—all but four also cover gender identity Though the FHA bans discrimination based on or expression. Sometimes, the term"transgender" is national origin, many states and local laws added used to refer to gender identity and gender expression. ancestry to their lists of protected characteristics. It's important to get legal advice on exactly what Federal law doesn't define "national origin," so there your state law covers. It often takes more than sim- was some concern that it applied only to the country ply reading the relevant statute since the wording and where the applicant was born—not where his family definitions used in state laws vary widely. came from. Laws banning discrimination based on ancestry were adopted to ensure fair housing protec- Some treat sexual orientation and gender identity tion based upon the country of origin of the appli- as separate protected characteristics with separate cant's family. definitions for these terms. This is often the case when lawmakers added identity to existing laws protecting More recently, HUD has taken the position that sexual orientation. In June,for example,Delaware ancestry is included in the federal ban on discrimi- amended its fair housing law to add gender identity nation based on national origin. In a 2012 memo on to current protections for sexual orientation. In sepa- immigration, HUD stated that national origin dis- rate sections, the law defines "sexual orientation"to crimination means treating people differently because mean heterosexuality,homosexuality, or bisexuality; of their ancestry, ethnicity, birthplace, culture, or gender identity is defined as "a gender-related iden- language. Consequently, it's a violation of federal law tity,appearance, expression or behavior of a person, to deny people housing opportunities because they regardless of the person's assigned sex at birth. ten- or their family are from another country, because der identity may be demonstrated by consistent and they have a name or accent associated with a nation- uniform assertion of the gender identity or any other al origin group, because they participate in certain evidence that the gender identity is sincerely held as customs associated with a national origin group, or part of a person's core identity;provided, however, because they are married to or associate with people that gender identity shall not be asserted for any of a certain national origin. improper purpose" In contrast, some states list only sexual orienta- • Does My State Prohibit Discrimination tion as a protected class, but cover both sexual ori- Based on Creed? entation and gender identity. That's because the law defines the term "sexual orientation."For example, To supplement the federal ban on discrimination Colorado law lists only sexual orientation—but also based on religion, many states have adopted fair covers gender identity, since the law defines sexual housing protections based on creed or in some stat- orientation as "a person's orientation toward hetero- utes, "religious creed" sexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender Though both religion and creed are often unde- status or another person's perception thereof." fined in federal and state laws, some fair housing @2014 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 orvisitw vendomerealestatemedia.com. 4 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ January 2014 o m o a m - m a Q a a O y E m U O o < s o� N • a a a \ a a a a a a a Z W X Z a a a a a a a a a a a a N O U • a a a a a a a a a y E o m = w m m O January 2014 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 5 y 0 m 0 m > m x � � 0 0 T -- m o m o -- m o o - m o E • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N NO C tO ry C tO y O Y tC0 O Y d O - i 22E 3 3 3 3 E 0 5 5 w E w y o ON N N N N N O O L Y z z z z z z z z o 0 o a 4 > > > 6 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ January 2014 • Does My State Prohibit Discrimination ing law protects only honorably discharged veteran or Based on Source of Income? military status. Fair housing laws in 12 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on lawful . ; Does My State Ban Discrimination source of income—that is, discriminating against Based on Domestic Violence? applicants or residents because of how they get their financial support. The specifics of the laws vary, but At present, state laws offer a patchwork of hous- they generally apply to wages, retirement benefits, ing protections for domestic violence victims. A child support,and public assistance. few states have amended fair housing laws to cover Many but not all—also cover housing subsidies, domestic abuse victims or those who have obtained most notably Section 8 housing vouchers. The name protection orders against the perpetrator. Many more was changed to the Housing Choice Voucher pro- have enacted specific laws to prevent applicants from gram,but many still use "Section 8"to refer to the being excluded based on a history of being a domestic federal government's major housing assistance pro- violence victim or protect residents from being evict- gram. Federal law doesn't require participation in ed because of the actions of their abusers. the Section 8 program, but source-of-income laws in many states make it unlawful to refuse to rent to Sec- tion 8 voucher holders. In Massachusetts, for exam- • ' ' Does My State Prohibit Housing ple, the law bars communities from discriminating Discrimination Based on Genetic against individuals who receive public assistance or Information or Other Characteristics7 rent subsidies,including Section 8 housing vouchers. A growing trend among states is to prevent employers In contrast, California law bans discrimination based from discriminating against current and prospective on source of income, including public assistance but employees based on "genetic information,"but so far, not Section 8 vouchers. only two statesCalifornia and most recently, Mas- Ask your attorney to keep you apprised of any sachusetts—have added similar provisions to state pending changes to the law in your state to adopt or fair housing laws. expand laws banning discrimination based on source Meanwhile, some states ban discrimination based of income. Last year,for example,lawmakers in Ore- on other characteristics, such as HIV status, law- gon amended the state's fair housing law, which bans ful occupation, political beliefs or affiliation, student discrimination based on source of income. Up until status, personal appearance, or arbitrary personal the law was changed, it specifically excluded federal characteristics. housing subsidies under the Section 8 housing pro- gram. Effective Jan. 1,2014,the new law expands source of income protections to include Section 8 rent What Do I Need to Know About subsidies and any other local,state, or federal hous- Local Fair Housing Laws? ing assistance. In addition to federal and state law, communities must comply with any applicable local laws banning • Does My State Ban Discrimination housing discrimination. Many county and municipal Based on Military Status? governments have added additional protections not currently required under state or federal fair hous- Currently,five states have adopted some form of fair ing laws, and it's incumbent upon you to know what housing protections based on military status. The laws apply to your community. Last year, for exam- laws generally prohibit discrimination against active ple, many local governments adopted measures to duty members and veterans of the armed forces, ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and reserves, or state National Guard. gender identity, as well as source of income, often in In some states,fair housing protections for veter- states that don't offer these protections. ans are tied to the nature of their discharge. In Illi- nois, for example, the law bans discrimination based on both military status and "unfavorable discharge from military service."But Washington's fair hous- @2014 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit vendomerealestatemedia.com. January 2014 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 7 • Where Can I Learn More About If your company owns communities in more than My State and Local Laws? one municipality within a stateor in more than one state—then you'll have to find out about all applica- Check with your attorney or local apartment asso- ble state and local fair housing laws. ciation to find out about state and locals laws appli- cable to your community. You can get some general information on your own, but the laws can be compli- COACH'S TIP: Depending to where you're located, cated so it's a good idea to get legal advice about the HUD's Web site is one place to find respoout nsible data hand local government ageneses responsible for fair hous- specifics. ing compliance.The Web site lists names and contact To learn more about state law,visit the Web site of information for state and local agencies in 38 states the government agency that handles housing discrim- and the District of Columbia that receive funding to ination complaints in your state. Some states have a enforce fair housing laws under HUD's Fair Housing fair housing commission dedicated to handling hous- Assistance Program at halallportal hud gou/hudportal/ ing discrimination claims. In others, there's a state HUD?src=/program_offices/fair housing equal opp/ agency that's responsible for all types of discrimina- partners/FHAP/agencies tion claims. And in some states,the attorney general's office handles these types of claims. Fair Housing Act 42 USC§3601 etseq Most of these agencies will list the protected class- COACH Source es under both federal and state law. Just make sure to F.Willis Caruso, Esq.: Co-Executive Director, The John Marshall focus on housing discrimination. In some states, the Law School Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic, 321 S. protected classes apply across the board, but in oth- Plymouth Ct, Ste. CBA-800, Chicago, It 60604, (312) 786-9842, ers,there's a significant difference in what's covered 6Caruso@1m1s_wFu_ in the laws banning discrimination in public accom- modations (such as hotels and restaurants), employ- EDITOR'S NOTE:Special thanks to Prof. aclinical intern Essie Carrasquillo at the John Marshallrshall Law School ment, and housing. Fair Housing Legal Support Center and Clinic,for their assis- For local requirements,you may check with the tance in researching state fair housing Taws local municipality or local apartment association. Many provide information online about local fair housing requirements. COACH'S QUIZ We've covered 11 FAQs about state and local fair housing laws_ Now let's look at how the rules might apply in the real world.Take the COACH's Quiz to see what you've learned. INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the following questions has only one correct answer_On a separate piece of paper,write down the number of each question,followed by the answer you think is correct—for example, (1)In, (2)a,and so on The correct answers(with explanations)follow the quiz_Good luckl QUESTION #t QUESTION #2 Your community could be accused of a fair housing viola- In moststateswith fair housing protections based on sexual tion if you treat unmarried couples differently than married orientation, it's also unlawful to discriminate against trans- couples—even if you do so based on religious objectionsgender applicants or residents.True or false? True or false? a True. a True b False. b False O 2014 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit wv wndomerealestatemedia.com. 8 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ January 2014 COACH 'S r (continued) QUESTION #3 QUESTION #4 If state or local law bans discrimination based on source While screening an applicant,you learn about frequent com- of income, then you could face a discrimination claim for plaints and police calls about domestic disturbances at her refusing to accept applicants with Section 8 vouchers.True former residences.To prevent similar problems atyour com- orfalse? munity, you can deny her application without violating any a_ True_ fair housing Taws_True or false? _ b_ False_ aTrue_ b False COACH'S EXPLANATIONS QUESTION #1 QUESTION #3 Correct answer:a Correct answer:a Reason:FAQ#1 applies here: Reason:FAQ#6 applies here: FAQ 41: Does My State Prohibit Discrimination FAQ#6: Does My State Prohibit Discrimination Based on Marital Status? Based on Source of Income? In most states that ban discrimination based on marital sta- Before turning away Section 8 voucher holders,you'll have tus, you could trigger a fair housing complaint for denying to get legal advice about the particulars of any applicable housing based on whether applicants are married or not In state or local fair housing Taws based on source of income_ a few states, however,the courts have ruled that the marital Many, though not all, also cover federal, state, and local status provisions don't require owners to rent to unmarried housing subsidies, including Section 8 vouchers. couples when doing so violates their religious convictions. QUESTION #4 QUESTION #2 Correct answer:b Correct answer:a Reason: FAQ#8 applies here: Reason:FAQ#5 applies here: FAQ#8: Does My State Ban Discrimination FAQ#5: Does My State Ban Discrimination Based Based on Domestic Violence? on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity? You could trigger a discrimination complaint ifyour commu- In all but four of the states that currently ban discrimina- nity is subject to state or local fair housing Taws that protect tion based on sexual orientation, fair housing laws also domestic violence victims. Even if you're not, you should cover gender identity or expression_ Sometimes, the term check to see if there are any other state or local laws that "transgender" is used to refer to gender identity and gen- prohibit landlords from denying housing because of a history derexpression,which generally refers to an individuals'gen- of being a domestic violence victim. derrelatedidentity, appearance, or expression, regardless of their gender at birth_ O 2014 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-519-3692 or visit vendomerealestatemedia.com. . • . FAIRHousiNG OACH® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TRAINS YOUR STAFF TO AVOID COSTLY DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS JULY ' > Let's Begin! In this month's lesson,Fair Housing Coach explains how to comply with COMPLYING fair housing laws banning discrimination based on source of income. The federal Fair Housing Act(FHA)doesn't prohibit discrimination based WITH on source of income, but an increasing number of states and municipali- ties have added these provisions to their fair housing or civil rights laws in FAIRHousiNG recent years. Generally speaking,the ban on discrimination based on source of LAWS income means that you can't exclude or otherwise discriminate against applicants and residents because of where they get their money or finan- PROTECTING cial support. The specifics of the laws vary, but most cover lawful sources of income such as wages, retirement benefits, child support, and public SOURCE OF assistance. INCOME Many but not all—also cover housing subsidies, most notably Sec- tion 8 housing vouchers. The name has changed to the Housing Choice Voucher program, but many still use "Section 8" to refer to the federal government's major program for helping very low-income families, the elderly, and disabled individuals to afford housing in the private market. Though federal law makes participation in the Section 8 program volun- tary for private communities, fair housing laws in some jurisdictions make it unlawful to turn away individuals who use Section 8 housing vouchers to pay their rent. Moreover,fair housing advocates are increasingly pushing for reforms to ban discrimination based on source of income, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Earlier this year, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) called on Congress to add source of income to federal fair hous- ing law, arguing that discrimination against voucher holders dispropor- tionately affects low-income women and families, people of color, and people with disabilities. HUD seems of like mind,at least that's the message voiced by top enforcement officials in 2010 when the agency announced new requirements for grant recipients to comply with state and local laws banning housing discrimination based on source of income. In a statement,John Trasvina, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said, "Prohibiting this form of discrimination provides an essential protection for many Americans,including disabled veterans, seasonal workers, and 2 FAIR HOUSING COI July 2013 r , A 111A persons that are using Housing Choice Vouchers to maintain hous- ing for themselves and their children. Racial discrimination is often Prot F.Willis Caruso,Esq. Theresa L.Kitay,Esq. perpetrated through denials of housing opportunities to Section 8 CcExecutiveDirector Marina del Rey,CA g annow keep Y John Marshall Law School voucher holders. It is wrong HUD will ksystemic viola- Fair Housing Legal David T.Ouezada tors from applying for HUD funds." Support Center FUEL Center Director Chicago,It U.S.Dept.of Housing& Urban Development It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will heed the call to Nanette Cavarretta, Los Angeles,CA CAPS,CAM change federal law, but the issue has gained traction on the state and Regional Manager Shirley Robertson,cPMo, local level, with mixed results. Earlier this year, a bill to extend fair Epoch Management,Inc. ARM,ADV.RAM,CUP Winter Park,FL Director Equal Housing housing protection based on source of income failed in Maryland, but Opportunity&ADA in New York,Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced plans to include a ban Douglas D.Chasick, Southern Management CPM-,CAPS,CAS,ADV.RAM, Corp. on discrimination based on source Of income as part of a 10-point CrP,SCE,con Vienna,VA The Apartment Doctor Women's Equality Agenda. Melbourne Beach,FL D.J.Ryan Fair Housing Specialist In this lesson, we'll review fair housing laws protecting source of William D.Edwards,Esq. Director of Client Education Ulmer&Berne LLP Kimball,Tirey& income and offer six rules to help you comply with applicable laws to Cleveland,OH SC John LLP avoid discrimination claims. Then you can take the Coach's Quiz to Avery Friedman,Esq. San Diego,CA see how much you've learned. Chief Counsel Anne Sadovsky,CAPS,CAM Fair Housing Council Anne Sadovsky&Co. Cleveland,OH Dallas,TX Nadeen W.Green,Esq. Kathelene William,Esq. WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? Senior Counsel The Law Firm of Williams The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing because of race, color, For Rent Media SolutionSTM &Edelstein,P.C. Atlanta,GA Norcross,GA religion, sex, national origin,familial status, or disability. Robin Hein,Esq. CadD.yff1aPMbEMERRDSaWA APS expressly Though it's not exl covered under federal law, source-of- Fowler,Hein,Cheatwood Vice President g p Y &Williams,PA Sentinel Real Estate corp. income discrimination is banned under some state and local laws. Atlanta,GA Fishers,IN In general, the laws protect applicants from discrimination because of where they get their income or means of financial support. They Contributing Editor:Carol Johnson Perkins,Esq. generally apply only to lawful sources of income—earnings from Executive Editor:Heathat 0giIAa criminal activity are not covered. Examples of lawful income include Director of Production:Kathryn Homenick wages,grants,gifts, inheritance, retirement benefits, annuities, alimo- ny, child support, unemployment benefits,veterans benefits,disability Director of Operations:Michael Koplin benefits,and government or private assistance. Some laws also pro- Fair Housing Coach RSSN 1520-3093(PRINT(,1938-3142 feet prospects and residents against discrimination based on lawful LNLINER is published by Vendome Group,LLC,6 East32nd occupation. Street,Newyork,NY 10016. OCCU I1 Volumel5,lssue 13 Some source-of-income laws also ban discrimination against Subscriptions/Customer Service:To subscribe or for assistance with your subscription,call 1-800-519-3692 or applicants whose rent is paid with housing subsidies, including Sec- goto our web site,av wvvendomeraalestatemedia.com. tion 8 vouchers. The Section 8 program allows voucher holders to live Subscription for 12 issues.To ttbe Edi- tor:Fax:212-228-1308;Email:hogilvie@vendomegry.com in an housing that meets program requirements, including private Disclaimer:This publication provides general cover- housing where the Owner agrees to rent under the program. Funding age of its subject area.H is sold withthe understand- for the voucher program comes from HUD, but it's administered by ing thatthe publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting,or other professional advice or services.If local public housing authorities. legal advice or other expert assistance is required,the services of a competent professional should be sought. In a nutshell, the Section 8 voucher program creates a three-way The publisher shall not be responsible for any damages resulting from any error,inaccuracy,or omission con- relationship among the landlord, the tenant, and the local housing tamed inthis publication. authority. After the tenant finds a unit and comes to terms with the ©2013 by Vendome Group,I.I.C.All rights reserved. landlord, the local housing authority must approve the rental based No part of Fair Housing Coach may be reproduced,he tributed,transmitted,displayed,published,or broad- on several factors, including the amount of the rent and results of a cast in any form or in any media without prior written health and safety inspection.ection. Once approved, the tenant and the land- permission of the publisher.To request permission to I> PP reuse this content in any form,including distribution lord sign a lease with a HUD-required addendum, and the landlord in educational,professional,or promotional contexts, or to reproduce material in new works,please contact signs a standard housing assistance payment contract with the hous- the Copyright Clearance Center at info@copyrightcone or(978(750-8400.For custom reprints,e-prints,or logo licensing,please contact Donna Pa glia at(216(373-1210 or dpaglia@vendomegip.com. ©2013 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. July 2013 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 3 ing authority. The amount of the voucher is based on housing subsidies. In Massachusetts, for example, the the tenant's income—tenants must pay at least 30 per- law bars communities from discriminating against cent(but no more than 40 percent) of their monthly individuals who receive public assistance or rent sub- income for rent; the voucher makes up the difference sidies, including Section 8 housing vouchers. But in and is paid directly to the landlord by the housing Oregon, the law bans discrimination based on source authority of income, but it specifically excludes federal housing To avoid these regulatory and administrative subsidies under the Section 8 housing program. requirements, many communities choose not to Even if your state isn't on the list, it's important to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. There's no direct check the details of local fair housing laws. In many requirement in federal law or HUD regulations that states, county and municipal governments have taken a community must accept Section 8 vouchers, so it's the lead to ban discrimination based on source of lawful to decline to participate in the program in income,with particular attention to Section 8 hous- a majority of states—but not if your community is ing vouchers.As many as 40 jurisdictions have adopt- subject to state or local laws banning discrimination ed such measures, including New York, Chicago, Los based on source of income, including housing sub- Angeles, Philadelphia, Seattle, and many smaller cit- sidies. In those jurisdictions, communities may be ies,along with county governments in Illinois, Mary- liable for fair housing violations if they turn away or land, Oregon,Washington, and other states. otherwise discriminate against applicants or residents who wish to pay their rent using Section 8 vouchers. COACH'S TIP: In the absence of current laws regard- ing source of income, ask your attorney to keep you apprised of any pending changes to the law in your 6 RULES FOR AVOIDING SOURCE-OF- state and local area Each year, state and local law- INCOME DISCRIMINATION makers across the country consider proposals to add fair housing protections based on source of income, Get to Know State and Local Law including housing subsidies. For example,discrimina- tion against voucher holders was already outlawed in Find out whether your community is subject to state Chicago, but in May 2013, lawmakers in Cook Coun- or local laws banning discrimination based on source ty, III , extended the ban to the rest of the county by amending its source-of-income protections to cover of income. Currently, 12 states and the District of Section 8 voucher holders. Columbia include protections based on source of income in their fair housing or civil rights laws. They include: ■California; Don't Reject Applicants Based on ■Connecticut; Source of Income ■Maine; Failure to abide by state,county, or local laws ban- ■Massachusetts; ning discrimination based on source of income can ■Minnesota; lead to fair housing trouble. Last year saw a 38 per- ■New Jersey; cent spike in the number of complaints based on law- ■North Dakota; ful source of income,according to the National Fair ■Oklahoma; Housing Alliance's (NFHAs)2013 report,which noted that fair housing organizations reported 569 ■Oregon; complaints in 2012—up from 353 in 2011. ■Utah; ■Vermont; and But that's only the tip of the iceberg, according ■Wisconsin. to the NFHA, which pointed to recent fair housing tests that revealed significant levels of discrimination If your state is on the list,check the details to in jurisdictions where only a few formal complaints determine what the law covers—and specifically what were filed. Meanwhile, fair housing advocates con- it says about Section 8 housing vouchers and other tinue to pursue active investigations into compliance @2013 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. 4 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ July 2013 with laws banning discrimination based on source of The lawsuit was filed by the Connecticut Fair income. Housing Center,based on the results of fair housing testing dating back to 2009. The complaint alleged EXAMPLE: In March 2013, the Equal Rights Cen- that the owner and manager repeatedly expressed ter (ERC) released the latest in a series of reports in an unwillingness to rent to individuals because they its ongoing investigation into discrimination against either attempted to use state assistance programs Section 8 voucher holders in the District of Colum- or disability benefits to pay their rent or security bia. The latest investigation found that 28 percent of deposits, or they could not demonstrate they were voucher holders encounter housing discrimination, employed. down from 45 percent in 2010 and 65 percent in 2005. Without admitting liability, the owner and prop- erty manager agreed to a settlement,which requires In the most recent investigation, the ERC con- them to pay$150,000, adopt a fair housing policy, ducted 90 phone tests of rental housing providers, receive fair housing training, and cooperate with the ranging from large and small apartment complexes monitoring of certain rental practices for three years. to basement apartments in row houses. In 28 percent of the tests, a caller inquiring about renting an apart- "Source-of-income discrimination such as the ment with a voucher was subjected to some form of refusal to accept rental assistance programs or discriminatory treatment—including outright refusal other government aid causes real harm to individu- to accept the voucher, limiting the use of the voucher, als and families, particularly those with disabilities, imposing different terms or conditions for a voucher seeking housing,"the Center's Legal Director Greg holder, or imposing limitations that would effectively Kirschner said in a statement. "These types of settle- bar a voucher holder from obtaining the housing. ments underscore the severity of these violations and further the Center's mission of ensuring all people have access to the housing of their choice, free from "The fact that the rate of source-of-income dis- discrimination" crimination in the District has decreased by more than 50 percent in less than 10 years confirms that continued education, outreach, and monitoring is improving many families'ability to use their vouch- Watch Your Language ers," Executive Director Don Kahl said in a state- Make sure that your compliance efforts extend to ment. "Despite this progress,more than one in four what you say in your advertising—and how you voucher holders continue to face discrimination. respond to telephone or online inquiries—about your These kinds of barriers to equal housing opportunity willingness to accept Section 8 housing vouchers or simply cannot continue to be tolerated in the nations' other forms of public assistance. The wrong mes- capital." sage may trigger a fair housing complaint—or draw To comply with laws banning discrimination the attention of fair housing enforcement officials or based on source of income, communities should organizations, who are monitoring online advertising make sure that they don't turn away applicants sim- for compliance with state and local laws banning dis- ply because they're unemployed or receive financial crimination based on source of income. assistance, such as rental assistance or disability ben- If these laws apply to your community,then it's efits. Otherwise,you could trigger a fair housing com- unlawful to make statements or disseminate adver- plaint—win or lose,it still can be costly to resolve. tising that indicates a preference or limitation based EXAMPLE: In May 2013, a Connecticut landlord on a prospect's source of income. For example,your and his former property manager agreed to pay community may not publish advertisements that say, $150,000 to settle a fair housing case alleging that "No Section 8," or tell prospects over the phone that they unlawfully refused to accept lawful sources of you don't accept Section 8 housing vouchers. If you income that also served to discriminate against indi- do,you may trigger a fair housing complaint because viduals with disabilities. you're effectively screening out all Section 8 prospects before they even apply. O 2013 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. July 2013 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 5 In addition, it's unlawful to provide inaccurate Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. Based on the com- or untrue information about the availability of units plaint, the FHJC conducted an investigation, which for discriminatory reasons. Such prohibited conduct allegedly revealed systemic discrimination based on includes indicating, through words or conduct, that source of income and disability at all the owner's an available unit has been rented, or limiting infor- rental buildings in New York City. mation about suitably priced available units, because of the prospect's source of income. The lawsuit accused the community and its rent- al management company of treating applicants with rental assistance of any kind, including persons with COACH'S TIP:When meeting with prospects, make a HASA housing subsidy, differently and less favor- sure to tell them about all vacancies that meet their ably than applicants with income from employment. needs, regardless of their source of income_ Telling For example,the complaint alleged that applicants applicants receiving housing assistance about vacan- who were employed were allowed to go directly to a cies in only particular sections of the community convenient on-site leasing office, meet with a leasing amounts to unlawful steering,a form of discrimination based on source of income agent, obtain floor plans, and view available apart- ments before having any income verified or complet- ing a rental application. In contrast, the complaint alleged that applicants Follow Standard Procedures Regardless of Source of Income with any type of rental assistance, including persons with a HASA rental subsidy, were required to go to Follow standard policies and procedures when deal- a separate off-site leasing office, speak with employ- ing with prospects and applicants to ensure that every ees behind a glass window,complete a rental appli- prospect visiting your leasing office is treated the cation, submit to a credit and criminal background same way, regardless of her source of income. For check, and provide other documentation just to be example,you should offer every prospect—regard- placed on a waiting list and before any information less of her source of incomea rental application and would be provided about apartments for rent or avail- invite her to fill it out. Be consistent in applying your able apartments would be shown. The lawsuit alleged screening criteria--including credit history,rental that this different treatment constitutes intentional history, criminal background, and the liketo all source-of-income discrimination under the New York applicants, regardless of the source of funds used to City Human Rights Law. pay rent. The complaint is the latest of a series of lawsuits It's unlawful to refuse to allow a prospect to apply filed by the FHJC on behalf of prospects attempting to live in the community—or to impose procedural to rent a unit with a HASA housing subsidy in New hurdles that make it more difficult for prospects with York City. In March 2013,a large realty company housing assistance to get through the application pro- agreed to pay$212,500 to settle a lawsuit involving cess. Fair housing organizations are taking notice— the city's ban on discrimination based on source of and acting on complaints of discriminatory treatment income. during the application process. And in December 2012, a court ordered two New EXAMPLE: In April 2013,the Fair Housing Justice York City real estate firms to pay$25,000 in damages Center (FHJC)filed a lawsuit on behalf of a woman for source-of-income discrimination against a HASA living with AIDS, who claimed that she had been client and others using government subsidies.Accord- denied a unit in a 5,000-unit community in New York ing to the court, one of the brokers refused to assist City because she intended to pay her rent using a HASA clients altogether. Although the other worked housing subsidy for people with HIV/AIDS issued by with HASA clients, it refused to show them proper- a city agency(HASA). ties owned by landlords who didn't accept HASA subsidies. According to the FHJC, the owner and its affili- ates are among the nation's largest landlords, with The court rejected the brokers'claim of a legiti- rental communities in New York, California, New mate business justification based on delays in the approval process and payment of deposits.Although O 2013 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-519-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. 6 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ July 2013 there could be circumstances when a landlord or real- For example, if your community requires appli- tor might prefer a so-called market-rate client over a cants to earn at least three times the rent to live HASA client or a person receiving a governmental there,you may impose the same requirement on rental subsidy, that wasn't the case here. The court applicants who get Section 8 vouchers or other finan- noted that the broker who worked with the prospect cial assistance. But you must take into account the didn't tell him that he was ineligible for certain apart- amount of their financial assistance to determine ments because they were available immediately and whether they meet this requirement, for example, by that HASA applications would take too long to pro- requiring that they make three times the amount of cess. Rather, it indicated that certain apartments their portion of rent. didn't accept programs under any circumstances because they were only for working people [Short v. Furthermore,communities may refuse to rent to Manhattan Apartments, December 2012]. applicants who can't afford to rent the unit, even with housing subsidies. The Section 8 housing voucher limits the amount of housing assistance based on the amount generally needed to rent a moderately priced Apply Standard Screening Policies unit in the local housing market. If the rent is great- Source-of-income laws ban discrimination against er than that amount, then the voucher holder must applicants because of where they get their income— pay the difference—but by law,a family moving into not the amount of their income. You may ask about a new unit may not pay more than 40 percent of its the source of the applicant's income, as long as you adjusted monthly income for rent. don't discriminate based on that information. Communities have the right to rent only to appli- Apply the Same Terms and Conditions, cants they believe to be responsible and who will pay Regardless of Source of Income the rent. You may require applicants to satisfy your screening criteria—such as credit checks,criminal To comply with laws protecting source of income, background checks, and rental history—as long as communities must treat all applicants and residents you apply the same standards to all your applicants, equally in the terms,conditions, or privileges of the regardless of their source of income. tenancy, regardless of their source of income. In juris- dictions where the laws include protections for hous- For example,you don't have to accept an appli- ing subsidies, it would be unlawful to require Section cant who receives financial assistance if you have 8 voucher holders to pay a larger security deposit or other nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting him, higher rent than required of other residents. such as a criminal record, as long as you apply that policy consistently to all applicants. Other legitimate, It would also be unlawful to treat residents differ- nondiscriminatory reasons for rejecting an applicant ently or enforce community rules and policies more might be bad credit history or prior evictions for non- strictly against them based on their source of income. payment of rent or damage to the apartment. You could face a discrimination claim, for example, if maintenance requests by individuals using Section Regardless of the applicant's source of income, 8 housing vouchers are ignored or put at the bottom you don't have to accept individuals who can't dem- of the list. The same would be true if you singled out onstrate their ability to pay their rent. Communi- residents receiving housing assistance for rules vio- ties may require all applicants to satisfy minimum lations, while ignoring similar infractions by people income requirements,such as two or three times who don't receive such assistance. the rent, and may verify that the applicant can sat- isfy that standard. Doing so doesn't violate state or To avoid a potential violation,provide fair hous- local laws banning discrimination based on source of ing training to all employees,stressing the need to income—as long as you apply the same income crite- treat all your residents in the same professional man- ria(taking into account their financial assistance)to nerregardless of their source of income or any other all applicants. protected characteristic. @2013 by Vendome Group, LLC Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. July 2013 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ 7 COACH'S QUIZ We've suggested six rules for complying with fair housing laws banning discrimination based on source of income. Now let's look at how the rules might apply in the real world.Take the COACH's Quiz to see what you've learned. INSTRUCTIONS: Each of the following questions has only one correct answer_ On a separate piece of paper, write down the number of each question,followed by the answeryou think is correct—for example, (1)b,(2)a,and so on The correct answers(with explanations)follow the quiz Good luck QUESTION #7 QUESTION #4 Ifstate law bans discrimination based on source of income, If your state or municipality bans discrimination based on then it may be unlawful to refuse to accept Section 8 hous- source of income, then it's unlawful to require applicants ing vouchers_True or false? to satisfy minimum income requirements and to verify that a_ True_ that applicants can satisfy that standard_True or false? b_ False_ a_ True_ b False QUESTION #2 If your community is subject to laws banning discrimina- QUESTION #5 tion based on source of income, then you may not reject Your community is subject to state or local Taws banning an applicant because she relies on retirement benefits to discrimination based on source of income_ A resident pay her rent True or false? relies on alimony and child supportpayments for herfinan- cial support,butyou're concerned that she may fall behind a. True. on her rent if her ex-husband doesn't fulfill his obligations. b_ False_ Although other residents are allowed to mail rental checks, you have the right to ensure prompt payment by requiring QUESTION #3 her to bring cash to the office to pay her rent_True or false? a True Your community is subject to laws banning discrimination based on source of income. You receive an application b. False. from a man who receives a housing subsidy, but during the background check, you find out that he has a lengthy criminal record. Since he doesn't meet your screening cri- teria, you may reject his application without violating fair housing law_True or false? a True b False O 2013 by Vendome Group, LLC Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-619-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. 8 FAIR HOUSING COACH@ July 2013 COACH'S EXPLANATIONS rejecting him, such as a criminal record, as long as you QUESTION #7 apply that policy consistently to all applicants, regardless of their source of income. Correct answer:a Reason: Rule#1 applies here: QUESTION #4 Rule 41: Get to Know State and Local Law In many jurisdictions, laws banning discrimination based Correct answer:b on source of income also cover public and private hous- Reason:Rule#5 applies here: ing assistance, including Section 8 housing vouchers. But Rule#5:Apply Standard Screening Policies some don't,so check with your attorney to get the details of state and municipal Taws applicable to your community_ Laws banning source-of-income discrimination don't pre- vent communities from requiring all applicants to satis- fy minimum income requirements, such as two or three QUESTION #2 times the rent,and to verify that that the applicant can sat- isfy that standard_ Doing so doesn't violate state or local Correct answer:a laws banning discrimination based on source of income Reason: Rule#2 applies here_ as Tong as you apply the same income criteria (taking into Rule#2: Don't Reject Applicants Based on account their financial assistance)to all applicants_ Source of Income To comply with laws banning discrimination based source QUESTION #5 of income,you may not refuse to rent to prospects because Correct answer:b of where they get their income or means of financial sup- port, including retirement benefits. Reason:Rule#6 applies here: Rule#6:Apply the Same Terms and Conditions, QUESTION #3 Regardless of Source of Income Fair housing protections based on source of income don't Correct answer:a stop with the application process, so you may not treat Reason: Rule#5 applies here: residents differently or apply your rules and policies more strictly because of the source of their income. Even if you Rule#5:Apply Standard Screening Policies have concerns that she'll fall behind on rent payments if You don't have to accept all applicants who receive hous- her ex-husband doesn't fulfill his obligation to pay alimony ing assistance to comply with state or municipal Taws ban- and child support, it's unlawful to impose more stringent ning source-of-income discrimination. You may reject an payment requirements on the resident based solely on the applicant if you have other nondiscriminatory reasons for source of her income_ O 2013 by Vendome Group, LLC.Any reproduction is strictly prohibited. For more information call 1-800-519-3692 or visit wvendomerealestatemedia.com. The Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes ,�OEjN�TO, FE)R U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 IIIIIIII Office of Policy Development and Research 9egA/DEVE\-o Visit PD&R's Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and others sponsored by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need. �-�e.(EjN�T pFy FDRU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 IIIIIIII Office of Policy Development and Research 9egN DEVE�Q The Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research Prepared by Lance Freeman, Ph.D. Columbia University Submitted to QED Group, LLC February 24, 2011 �-�e.(EjN�T pFy FDRU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 IIIIIIII Office of Policy Development and Research 9egN DEVE�Q Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary........................................................................1 Chapter One: Introduction................................................................6 Background............................................................................6 Chapter Two: SOI Laws and Utilization Rates.......................................12 Data for Utilization Analysis........................................................13 Analytic Strategy for Assessing Impacts on Utilization Rates....................13 Results of Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Utilization Rates.............18 Chapter Three: SOI Laws and Locational Outcomes...............................22 Analytical Strategy ...................................................................23 Data for Analysis of Locational Outcomes.......................................27 Results: Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Locational Outcomes.......29 Summarizing the Results for Locational Outcomes.............................37 Conclusions and Policy Implications...................................................38 Implications for Policy..............................................................41 References...................................................................................43 Appendix.....................................................................................47 FDRU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 IIIIIIII Office of Policy Development and Research 9egN DEVE�Q List of Exhibits Figure1......................................................................................10 Table1................................................................................................................................18 Table2.......................................................................................18 Table3.......................................................................................20 Table4.......................................................................................29 Table5.......................................................................................30 Table6.......................................................................................33 Table7.......................................................................................35 FDRU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 20 IIIIIIII Office of Policy Development and Research 9egN DEVE�Q EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Housing vouchers were initially championed as a more efficient way of subsidizing housing for the poor and more suitable for a nation whose primary housing problem is one of affordability(Lowry 1971). More recently,vouchers have come to be seen as a tool for promoting economic and racial/ethnic integration (McClure 2008). Because vouchers augment the purchasing power of tenants a more expansive set of geographic options should be available. Indeed, when the Housing Choice Voucher program was enacted, improving the neighborhood outcomes of voucher recipients was a stated goal. The advantages of vouchers vis-a-vis project based housing assistance is dependent upon voucher recipients being able to locate a landlord who will accept the voucher. For a number of reasons, this is not always the case. Some landlords wish to avoid the administrative burden associated with the voucher program. Other landlords resist renting to voucher recipients perhaps because they perceive this group to be undesirable tenants and/or fear their other tenants would object to voucher recipients as neighbors (Sard 2001). This type of discrimination based on the source of income could prevent the voucher program from living up to its full potential. Indeed,various evaluations of the voucher program have found that at least 20% of all housing searches using a voucher are unsuccessful (Finkel and Buron 2001). Furthermore, many Local Housing Authorities fail to utilize all of their vouchers in a given year (Finkel, Khadduri et al. 2003). Discrimination based on source of income could be a contributing factor to some of the difficulties voucher recipients encounter when attempting to use a voucher. Discrimination based on source of income might not only be an obstacle to using a voucher but might also lead to voucher recipients being more clustered in disadvantaged neighborhoods. While vouchers do deliver better locational outcomes than project based 1 housing assistance (Newman and Schnare 1997), there is both anecdotal and systematic evidence that indicates many voucher recipients are concentrating in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Pendall 2000). Voucher recipients might locate in disadvantaged neighborhoods for a number of reasons. It seems plausible, however, that discrimination against voucher recipients based on their source of income would play a significant role in limiting the neighborhood options of voucher recipients. In localities where discrimination occurs,voucher recipients might find their options more constrained and hence be relegated to more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Thus, discrimination against voucher recipients on the basis of their source of income might limit the success of the voucher program by lowering utilization rates (the utih.�ation rate as used hereafter is defined as the number of leased units divided by the number of contracted units for the Annual Contributions contract) among Local Housing Authorities (LHAs) and increasing the likelihood that voucher recipients reside in more disadvantaged neighborhoods. One possible policy antidote to discrimination against voucher recipients and the resulting problems this discrimination creates are Source of Income (SOI) anti- discrimination laws (hereafter referred to as SOI laws). These SOI laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher recipients solely on the basis of their having a voucher. A number of state and local jurisdictions have passed such laws (Tegeler 2005). The existence of SOI laws might make it easier for voucher recipients to lease apartments, thereby increasing the utilization rates of LHAs in jurisdictions that have such laws and serve to open up a wider set of geographic options to voucher recipients, thereby improving their locational outcomes. The research presented in this report tests these two hypotheses, (1) SOI laws increase utilization rates among LHAs, and, (2) that SOI laws improve locational outcomes 2 for voucher recipients (i.e. facilitates voucher recipients living in more advantaged neighborhoods). Using a difference-in-differences approach utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions with SOI laws were compared to utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions without SOI laws before and after the passage/repeal of the SOI laws. LHAs in jurisdictions that had a SOI law during the 1995-2008 study period were matched with LHAs in adjacent jurisdictions that did not have such laws. Three states, the District of Columbia, five cities and two counties saw the status of their SOI law change during the study period and had adjacent jurisdictions with LHAs that could be included in the analysis. A similar analytical approach was employed to examine SOI laws and the locational outcomes of voucher recipients including tract level measures of the poverty rate, percent white, and percent of the tract who are voucher recipients. These neighborhood characteristics were contrasted between voucher recipients residing in jurisdictions with SOI laws and voucher recipients residing in adjacent jurisdictions without SOI laws before and after the SOI law was passed/repealed. Voucher recipients residing in the jurisdictions described above were included in the analysis. Among the findings, when utilization rates among LHAs in jurisdictions with SOI laws were compared to utilization rates in jurisdictions without such laws, both during the period when the laws were in effect and during the period when the laws were not in effect it was found that utilization rates increased in the LHAs when SOI laws were present. Improvements in utilization rates ranged from four percentage points to 11 percentage points. This evidence is consistent with the notion that SOI laws facilitate the utilization of housing vouchers. When the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws was compared to the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions 3 without such laws, both during the period when the laws were in effect and during the period when the laws were not in effect the evidence suggests the neighborhoods of the former group were more advantaged. There were statistically significant differences across all three locational outcomes. That is, poverty rates and voucher concentrations were lower and the percent white was higher. But the differences were not that great. The poverty rate was one percentage point lower in the tracts of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws were in effect. The tract level measures of the percent white and percent who are voucher recipients differed by only half a percentage point between voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws and voucher recipients living in jurisdictions without such laws during the period when the laws were in effect Stratified analyses that focused on the elderly and large families, two groups who have been found to be relatively unsuccessful using the voucher program, found the improvements in locational outcomes to be larger, albeit inconsistently so, for these groups. For large families there was a two percentage point decline in the percent of voucher recipients in a tract associated with the presence of a SOI law. For the elderly there was a one percentage point lower poverty rate and a three percentage point higher percent white in the tracts of voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws were in effect. This evidence also suggests SOI law do facilitate movement into more advantaged neighborhoods. Stratified analyses for blacks and Hispanics were more mixed. Blacks residing in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws were in effect experienced tract level poverty rates one percentage point lower than blacks living in jurisdictions without SOI laws. Hispanics residing in jurisdictions with SOI laws while these laws were in effect lived in tracts with one percentage point fewer whites than Hispanics living in jurisdictions without 4 SOI laws. This is the one instance where the relationship was opposite of what was hypothesized. The other observed relationships for blacks and Hispanics were either not statistically significant and/or not large enough to be substantively meaningful. For policy makers several lessons can be distilled from this research. SOI laws do appear to have the potential to make a substantial difference in utilization rates and locational outcomes, the latter under certain circumstances. As was mentioned earlier the improvements in utilization rates ranged from four percentage points to 11 percentage points. In a LHA with 10,000 vouchers this could translate into 400 to 1,100 additional families receiving assistance. The evidence for locational outcomes was more mixed. While in general there was evidence of SOI laws being associated with access to more advantaged neighborhoods the increases were not dramatic nor was the benefit of SOI laws apparent for all groups. Nevertheless, because expanding the range of neighborhoods available to voucher recipients is in vogue, even the modest benefits associated with SOI laws suggests an examination of whether these laws should be extended is warranted. This is especially the case if we consider the possibility that SOI laws be passed at the federal level. Such a law might be expected to have a more significant impact given the greater resources of the federal government for enforcement and the great visibility of federal laws. Taken together, the results of this research suggest SOI can have an important impact on the performance of the Housing Choice Voucher program. In a world of limited resources and a desperate need for more affordable housing, such a finding should not be taken lightly. 5 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This report examines how Source of Income anti-discrimination laws (hereafter referred to as SOI laws) affect the use of housing vouchers. Vouchers are often championed as being more cost effective than project based housing assistance and in recent times have been lauded for their potential to deconcentrate poverty. The success of voucher programs, however, is predicated on voucher recipients successfully finding an apartment to lease. For a number of reasons, including discrimination by landlords on the basis of source of income (i.e. a voucher),voucher recipients frequently cannot find apartments to lease. In these instances the superiority of the voucher program to other types of housing assistance is illusory. SOI laws have the potential to dampen discrimination against voucher recipients and consequently could affect the success of the program. The research presented in this report assesses whether SOI laws do indeed achieve this potential. Background After years of debate a near consensus has been achieved on the superiority of vouchers overproduction subsidies as a means of meeting the nation's affordable housing needs (Winnick 1995). Housing vouchers were initially championed because of their greater cost-effectiveness, because vouchers more directly addressed the major housing problem of the poor, lack of income, and because vouchers provided families with more choices than project based assistance like public housing (Lowry 1971). More recently,vouchers have increasingly come to be seen as a means of promoting geographic opportunity (Newman and Schnare 1997; Goering 2005; McClure 2010). Because voucher recipients can, in theory, move anywhere to find a suitable unit, their housing choices are expected to be more expansive than those associated with project based housing assistance,which by definition creates some clustering of low-income households. Indeed, more recent legislation 6 authorizing tenant-based housing assistance explicitly promotes mixed income neighborhoods as a goal (Government 1995). Moreover, the stigma associated with project- based housing assistance often leads to these developments being targeted to low-income minority neighborhoods (Rohe and Freeman 2001; Freeman 2003). Thus, tenant based vouchers have come to be viewed as a way to promote opportunity as well as the most cost effective means of providing affordable housing. The superiority of housingvouchers is, of course, predicated on the recipients being able to secure housing using a voucher. If a recipient is not able to secure housing with their voucher, all of the putative advantages of vouchers will remain in the realm of theory. Since vouchers first became a substantial component of the discourse on housing policy in the 1960s, there was significant concern about how successful voucher recipients would be in successfully leasing an apartment. Reflecting the prevalence of poor housing quality as a housing problem during those times, much of the early concern around successful voucher use centered on the perceived obstacles recipients would face in finding housing that would meet program standards. Because slums (defined here as physically inadequate housing) were still prevalent in the 1960s,voucher proponents were concerned that government funds would be used to subsidize substandard housing (Housing 1968). The first voucher program, Section 8, was therefore implemented with minimum housing standards that precluded usingvouchers to lease substandard housing units. In the Experimental Housing Allowance Programs (EHAP) voucher recipients (the benefits in these experimental programs were called allowances but are referred to as vouchers here for the sake of consistency) often failed to participate in the program, either because their current unit did not meet program standards and they could/would not find units that did. On average, 72% of recipients in EHAP successfully leased units that met 7 program standards (Frieden 1980, p. 247). Early studies of the Section 8 program also suggest that successfully leasing a unit with a voucher was by no means a guarantee. Success rates were 72% for non-minorities and 52% among minorities (Housing 1982). The difficulty of finding apartments that met quality standards and housing discrimination against minorities were posited by Weicher (1990,p.276) as reasons for the lack of success. Subsequent studies of housing voucher success rates showed a general upward trend, but overall rates hovered between 68% and 81% during the 1980s and 1990s (Finkel and Buron 2001). The most recent study of voucher success rates found an average of 69% in metropolitan areas (Finkel and Buron 2001). Studies of voucher utilization,which considers whether a particular voucher is ultimately used by any family, paint a similar story. Housing authorities may issue a voucher multiple times, but ultimately the various recipients may not be able to secure a unit to lease. Utilization rates (the utih.�ation rate as used hereafter is defined as the number of leased units divided by the number of contracted units for the Annual Contributions contract) under 90% are not uncommon among housing authorities (Finkel, Khadduri et al. 2003). Clearly, possession of a voucher by no means translates into successfully securing a unit to lease, and not all vouchers are ultimately used. A number of factors have been found to be associated with successful voucher use. At the housing market level the aggressiveness of the Local Housing Authority (LHA) in identifying potential landlords, the management capabilities of the LHA, the number of vouchers issued by the LHA, the tightness of the local housing market, and the physical quality of housing in the local housing market have been associated with voucher success. Family level factors are important as well with family size and composition being found to be consistently important(Finkel and Buron 2001) while a study focusing on participants in the Moving to Opportunity Experiment also found race/ethnicity, access to an automobile 8 and positive attitudes towards moving to be additional important predictors of successful use of a voucher (Shroder 2003). And at least one researcher anecdotally reported that discrimination against voucher recipients was a possible factor in the success or failure of voucher use (Sard 2001). Beyond the aforementioned factors are the decisions of landlords to rent to voucher recipients. Either because of the administrative burden or the perceived attributes of voucher recipients, landlords sometimes decline to participate in the program (Sard 2001). Interviews with property owners support the view that administrative burdens might be an obstacle. Interviewees cited late rent payments by LHAs and having to deal with multiple LHAs, in some cases leading to confusion about differing regulations, as reasons to avoid the program (Manye and Crowley 1999). Discrimination against voucher recipients might occur if they are perceived by landlords as undesirable tenants and/or landlords fear that their other tenants would view voucher recipients as undesirable neighbors. Figure 1,which illustrates some of the results of a casual perusal of real estate ads on Craigslist,makes clear that discrimination against voucher recipients does occur. The prevalence of such discrimination is unknown,but a survey by the National Low Income Housing Coalition found 8% of Section 8 administrators citing discrimination against voucher recipients as a reason for unsuccessful voucher use (Manye and Crowley 1999). Furthermore, when the Washington D.C. based advocacy group, the Equal Rights Center, contacted landlords and asked whether they accepted vouchers, approximately half said no or listed obstacles that would make it difficult for voucher recipients to rent a unit (Macdonnell 2005). We should also keep in mind that like recipients of other types of means tested public assistance programs,voucher recipients are stigmatized in the public imagination (Williamson 1974). This stigma is often amplified by sensationalized accounts 9 of voucher households ruining neighborhoods (Husock 2003; Rosin 2008). The hostile reaction to the implementation of the MTO experiment whereby Baltimore public housing residents received vouchers that would enable them to move to suburban Baltimore County, is evidence of the stigma attached by many to the voucher program (Goering 2003). Evidence of vouchers' unsavory reputation can even be found in the popular media. Rappers often rap about growing up or living in dangerous "Section 8" housing as a way of demonstrating their toughness and street credibility (Buck 2004; Scrappy 2006). Thus,both theory and anecdotal evidence suggest discrimination against voucher recipients could be significant. Figure 1. Real Estate Ads from Craigslist $1200 / 2br - Completely Redone (Cypress Hills) Date: 2010-12-13, 5:36PM EST Reply to: KandPrealtyAgmail.com[Errors when reolvine to ads?] 2-Bdrms, Eik, Living room, Full Bath Talk 347-674-RENT (7368) Visit www.KandPrealty.com PS. NOTE NO SECTION 8 at this location • Location: Cypress Hills • it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests • Fee Disclosure: Real Estate FEE, Rent, Security • Listed By: KPRS PostingID: 2111264998 $1200 / 1br - 1 bdrm apt. for rent (hempstead n.y.) 10 (map) Date: 2010-12-12, 4:11 PM EST Reply to: see below Spacious 1 bdrm apt. for rent. Full bath, lrg living area, kitchen with dishwshr, laundry room and parking(optional). Located at 32 cathedral ave on garden city- hempstead border, close to all. No section 8 allowed. Contact chris at 516-376-7105. cathedral ave at hempstead turnpike (Qooele marl (yahoo maul • cats are OK - purrr • Location: hempstead n.y. • it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests • Fee Disclosure: none • Listed By: christopher pesa Discrimination against voucher recipients could affect the success of the voucher program in several ways. Most obviously, the success with which vouchers are used might be compromised. Indeed, Finkel and Buron (200 1) found that voucher recipients were more likely to be successful leasing a unit if they lived in a jurisdiction with a SOI law. The Finkel and Buron (2001) study, however, relied on cross-sectional data that makes it difficult to know if the SOI laws preceded greater voucher recipient success or vice versa. Additionally, some of the secondary benefits of voucher use, such as fostering mobility into more advantaged neighborhoods,might also be less likely due to discrimination. Given the on-going need for housing subsidies, that vouchers are the nation's largest affordable housing program and the recognition that discrimination against voucher recipients may be inhibiting the successful use of vouchers, it is not surprising that some advocates have looked for policy remedies to address discrimination (Macdonnell 2005;Tegeler, Cunningham et al. 2005). One such policy remedy is SOI laws. These laws typically forbid discrimination in access to housing or employment on the basis of the source 11 of income (e.g. welfare assistance, housing vouchers). For SOI laws to be an effective remedy they would have to indeed deter discrimination. The evidence on the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws with regard to housing outcomes suggests such laws do have an effect. For example, state fair housing laws were found to moderately impact housing outcomes for blacks renters (Collins 2004), researchers demonstrated a positive relationship between fair housing policy enforcement and black homeownership growth (Bostic and Martin 2005), and anti-predatory lending laws appear to affect the type and volume of subprime lending (Bostic, Engel et al. 2008). Moreover, several demographers have linked lower levels of segregation in newer metropolitan areas to the fact that much of the housing built in these areas was built after the passage of federal fair housing laws (Massey and Denton 1993; Logan, Stults et al. 2004). It is therefore plausible that SOI laws, too, might have an effect on housing outcomes for voucher recipients. The remainder of this report focuses on the empirical question of whether or not SOI laws have an impact on outcomes associated with the voucher program. The next chapter examines the relationship between LHA utilization rates and the existence of a SOI law in the LHA's jurisdiction. As mentioned above, SOI laws have the potential to make voucher use easier because landlords will have a disincentive to discriminate on the basis of the source of income (i.e. the voucher). This would result in higher utilization rates, all things being equal. The subsequent chapter addresses another outcome of interest to many locational outcomes. Frequently, the potential to expand the neighborhood options of the poor is offered as a major selling point of the voucher program (Sard 2001; Polikoff 2005). Chapter three examines whether SOI laws indeed facilitate entry into more advantaged neighborhoods. The final chapter summarizes the findings and discusses the implications for future research and policy. 12 13 CHAPTER TWO: SOI LAWS AND UTILIZATION RATES The overview provided in Chapter one discussed the numerous reasons why vouchers might not be used successfully and described the research documenting that indeed,vouchers are often unable to be used successfully. When a recipient returns a voucher because of an unsuccessful search, the LHA has the option, time permitting, to reissue the voucher to another family. Successive families may also be unsuccessful in their searches, however, leading to a lower utilization rate. As discussed in the preceding chapter, it seems plausible that discrimination by landlords could contribute to unsuccessful searches by voucher recipients and therefore lower utilization rates. Conversely, to the extent that SOI laws dampen discrimination against voucher recipients, this could lead to higher utilization rates. This chapter explores the hypothesis of whether SOI laws are associated with higher utilization rates. Data for Utilization Analysis Data for the utilization analysis was drawn from two sources. 1) Utilization rates have been obtained from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the years 1995-2008. 2) The Poverty and Race Research Action Council's (PRRAC) database of State, Local, and Federal Statutes against Source-of-Income Discrimination (2005) was used to identify cities or counties that have SOI laws. A list of state and local SOI laws (Table Al), an outline of the methodology PRRAC used to canvass state and local SOI laws (Table A2), a map of states with SOI laws (Figure Al), and a map of localities (Figure A2) with SOI laws is provided in the appendix. Analytic Strategy for Assessing Impacts on Utilization Rates To detect whether SOI laws have an impact on utilization rates, a difference-in- differences analysis was used (Meyer 1995). This approach compares utilization rates of 14 LHAs in jurisdictions having SOI laws with utilization rates of LHAs in jurisdictions without such laws before and after a change in presence of SOI laws (meaning the SOI law was adopted or repealed). SOI laws have been adopted at the city, county, and state levels. To employ the difference-in-differences approach, the SOI law must have either been adopted or repealed during the years for which utilization data are available. The only states that adopted SOI laws during the study period (1995-2008) are New Jersey and Washington D.C. (which is being treated as a state for the purposes of this analysis). Also, Minnesota and Oregon's SOI laws were effectively repealed during the study period. The LHAs in these states can also be included in the difference-in-differences analysis. The comparison in these latter two cases is between utilization rates of LHAs in jurisdictions having SOI laws with utilization rates of LHAs in jurisdictions without such laws before and after the repealing of the SOI laws. Several cities and counties also adopted SOI laws during the study period. These jurisdictions include the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco (CA), Buffalo and New York (NY), and Grand Rapids (MI) as well as Frederick (1VID) and Nassau (NY) counties'. To increase the comparability of the treatment and control groups, the comparisons will be limited to those LHAs that are in jurisdictions that abut the boundary of a jurisdiction with the opposite SOI status. Thus, LHAs in jurisdictions with SOI laws (the "treatment group") will be compared to LHAs in adjacent jurisdictions without SOI laws (the "control group"). Because data are available for several years (1995-2008 for most LHAs) and a number of LHAs are to be included in the study, the unit of analysis is the LHA-year. The outcome of interest is the utilization rate for a specific LHA in a specific year. 1 A number of other localities adopted SOI laws were excluded from the analysis because they either had no LHAs within their border or did not have any neighbonngjurisdictions with LHAs. 15 For each of the states whose SOI law status changed (New Jersey, Washington D.C., Minnesota and Oregon), "treatment' LHAs were selected if they were in a county on the border of the state and there were LHAs in an adjacent county without a SOI law across the state boundary which were selected for the "control" group. For each of the cities or counties whose SOI law status changed during the study period, all of the LHAs within these jurisdictions were selected as treatment LHAs. For the cities of Buffalo, Grand Rapids and Los Angeles, control LHAs were selected from the counties that surround these cities. For Nassau and Frederick Counties, control LHAs were selected from adjacent counties that do not have SOI laws. Finally, for the cities of New York and San Francisco, which encompass counties, control LHAs were selected from adjoining counties without SOI laws. New York City's SOI law was only passed in 2008, the year our study period ends. Consequently, the analyses will experiment with excluding the New York City observations, as there may not have been enough time for the law to take effect. By selecting LHAs in adjacent cities or counties, we limit the possibility of confounding factors that might arise if the comparison group had vastly different housing market characteristics. A total of 47 LHAs are in jurisdictions that adopted or repealed SOI laws and are in counties on the borders of states and/or are in cities. Another 87 LHAs are in jurisdictions that do not have SOI laws,but are adjacent to states, counties, or cities with SOI laws. The total sample for the difference-in-difference analyses using geographically proximate treatments and controls consists of 1,801 observations. The list of LHAs in the analyses of utilization rates is in Table A3 in the appendix. Limiting the analysis to LHAs that are in adjacent jurisdictions serves the purpose of dampening the impact of omitted variables that may be correlated with whether a jurisdiction's SOI law status changed. If the omitted variables correlate with the change in 16 the status of SOI laws, the estimate of the effect of these laws on utilization rates will be biased. Using the aforementioned approach, the differences in how utilization rates are affected by the differences in the independent variable, namely the presence of a SOI law, can be estimated. The bias in this case will exist to the extent that differences in omitted variables correlate with whether or not the status of a SOI law has changed. Because control LHAs were selected from the some geographic area, many of the omitted variables are likely to take on similar values between the treatment and control cases. Of course, even with this approach some of the differences in the values of the omitted variables between the treatment and control LHAs may correlate with whether or not a SOI law has been adopted. If the correlation between the omitted variables and the adoption of the SOI laws is less after matching than before, assuming matching will produce preferable results does not seem unreasonable. Cities or counties that are adjacent will likely share similar unmeasured housing market traits, perception of voucher recipients, and other relevant unmeasured traits than would randomly matched pairs. Goff, Lebedinsky and Lile (2009) showed that matching states based on geographic proximity produces better estimates of the factors that promote economic growth. The equation below models the difference-in-differences approach that will be used to estimate the relationship between the adoption of SOI laws and utilization rates. UTIL,= ao + b,SOI, + b2SOIPERIOD, + b3SOI,* SOIPERIOD,+ b3COMPARISONGROUP, + u, , Where ao= An intercept 17 UTIL,= the utilization rate for each LHA SOI;= A dummy variable indicating whether the LHA is in a jurisdiction that adopted or repealed a SOI law during the study period SOIPERIOD, = A dummy variable indicating if the year is after the adoption/repeal of a SOI law in that jurisdiction and the adjacent jurisdiction SOI,*SOIPERIOD,— an interaction term between the two variables defined above COMPARISON GROUP,= A dummy variable indicating which comparison group (e.g. treatment and control LHAs for the City of Los Angles) belongs to u, = is an error term Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the utilization rate analysis. The unit of analysis in this model is the LHA. The interaction term in the above equation will reveal if the difference in utilization rates between LHAs in SOI jurisdictions and LHAs in jurisdictions without SOI laws changed after the adoption or repealing of a SOI law. If this interaction term is statistically significant and substantively meaningful, it will provide compelling evidence that SOI laws do indeed affect utilization rates. Such a finding would show that the difference in utilization rates between LHAs in jurisdictions with and without SOI laws changed after the adoption or repealing of SOI laws. If SOI laws are making discrimination against voucher recipients less likely, and subsequently increasing recipients' success rate, the change in SOI laws would certainly seem to be the most plausible explanation for this dynamic. 18 • WE am IMMIMM Observations Mean Standard Deviation Min Max 1810 90.91 24.29 0.00 915.80 Frequency-0 Frequency-1 1011 804 1176 639 Results of Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Utilization Rates The relationship between LHA utilization rates and enactment of SOI laws is discussed in this section. Recall that a difference-in-differences approach was employed examining whether the difference between utilization rates before and after the enactment of SOI laws changes. Table 2 illustrates the results of a model estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) with robust standard errors to account for having multiple observations from the some LHA. The second column presents results for the entire sample, while the third column excludes New York City LHAs and its comparison LHAs. Because New York adopted a SOI only in 2008, it can reasonably be argued that there were not enough observations in the period when the SOI law was in effect to have an impact on the utilization rates of New York City LHAs. Parameter Estimate Parameter Estimate Entire Sample Excluding New York -0.08 -0.01 (0.16) (0.17) • -0.06 -0.85 (1.58) (1.66) -2.03 -3.28 19 parameter Estimate parameter Estimate • (2.25) (2.45) • • 6.26 7.45* • (4.09) (4.21) 94.82** 94.94** (2.89) (2.97) • . 1681 1492 0.02 0.02 Model estimated using OLS with robust standard errors in parentheses Unit of analysis:Local Housing Authorities *significant at 10%;**significant at 5%;*' significant at 1% Note: In the interest of brevity coefficients for the fixed effect variables are not listed. The variable "SOI law in Effect" represents the years when the SOI law was in effect in both the jurisdictions that passed the laws and their adjacent counterparts. The coefficient is not statistically significant in either column, suggesting there was no change in utilization rates across the board that accompanied the adoption of SOI laws. The variable, "In a Jurisdiction that adopted SOI law," indicates whether that observation belongs to a jurisdiction that had a SOI law during the study period. The coefficient is negative and not significant. This implies that if anything,utilization rates were lower in those jurisdictions that had SOI laws,but this result is not statistically significant The variable "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI law was in effect' provides a direct test of whether differences in utilization rates between LHAs in SOI jurisdictions and those in adjacent non SOI jurisdictions changed after the passage or repeal of SOI laws. The coefficient for this variable in the second column is positive but not statistically significant In the third column, which represents the relationships between utilization rates and SOI laws excluding New York City, the coefficient is positive and statistically significant. The result implies that after jurisdictions passed SOI laws there was a seven point increase in 20 utilization rates among LHAs in those jurisdictions, relative to LHAs in the adjacent comparison jurisdictions. This suggests that after the passage of SOI laws, utilization rates were higher in jurisdictions that adopted SOI laws. The model as a whole, however, does a poor job of explaining the variation in utilization rates, as indicated by the low R'values. Table 3 illustrates the results of a model estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) with fixed effects to account for having multiple observations from the same LHA. In the interest of brevity, only the independent variables central to our hypothesis are discussed. As in Table 2, the second column presents results for the entire sample, while the third column excludes New York City LHAs and its comparison LHAs. The findings using a fixed effects approach are similar to those using robust standard errors. The major differences between the models are that the fixed effects approach explains more of the variation in utilization rates, as evidenced by the higher R2. The variable "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction after SOI law passed" is also statistically significant for both the entire sample and in the model excluding New York City. The result implies that after jurisdictions passed SOI laws there was an 11 point increase in utilization rates among LHAs in those jurisdictions, relative to LHAs in the adjacent comparison jurisdictions. -0.02 0.04 (0.18) (0.20) -1.12 -1.69 (2.03) (2.18) -28.25 -27.53 (16.92) (27.34) - 10.58** 11.12** 21 Table 3. Relationship Between Utilization Rates and SOI Laws Using Fixed Effects Entire Sarnple New York and Comparison excluded Constant 94.94 87.42 • ons 1,492 1,492 • 02 .09 Model estimated using OLS with robust standard errors in parentheses Unit of analysis:Local Housing Authorities *significant at 10%;**significant at 5%;*' significant at 1% Note: In the interest of brevity coefficients for the fixed effect variables are not listed. An additional set of analyses, not presented here, were conducted excluding those observations that had large jumps in their utilization rates from the previous year. This was defined as an increase of at least 20% in the utilization rate over the previous year. Dropping these observations had the effect of making the relationship between the passage of SOI laws and the relative increase in utilization rates smaller. Dropping the observations with large changes in their utilization rates and estimating the model using robust standard errors, the relative increase in the utilization rate was still statistically significant but only by four points. This contrasts to a relative increase of seven points, as described above, when these observations were not dropped. When the model was estimated using fixed effects and excluded those observations with especially large increases in their utilization rates, the relative increase was again four points. Taken together, the results presented here suggest that SOI laws do make a difference in utilization rates. 22 CHAPTER THREE: SOI LAWS AND LOCATIONAL OUTCOMES Although not the primary motivation for the adoption of voucher program, the notion that vouchers could facilitate movement to better neighborhoods has long been one selling point of this type of housing subsidy (Sard 2001). Research based on EHAP found that vouchers only had a modest impact on neighborhood quality, primarily because many families did not move to use their vouchers. But among those that did move, neighborhood quality did improve (Frieden 1980). Evaluations of later voucher programs, like Section 8 and the Housing Choice Voucher program, indicate tenant based vouchers do appear to be promoting a"geography of opportunity" more so than project based housing assistance programs like public housing (Newman and Schnare 1997). Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that vouchers are not expanding geographic choices as much as they could. For example, Pendall (2000) found that although voucher and certificate holders were less likely to live in distressed tracts than poor renters, one in five voucher and certificate holders still lived in distressed neighborhoods. Another study found there were many tracts with housing affordable to voucher recipients, but that had relatively few voucher recipients living there (Devine, Gray et al. 2003). More recently, McClure (2008) found that the proportion of voucher recipients residing in low-poverty neighborhoods, defined as neighborhoods with a poverty rate below 10%,was slightly lower than the proportion of units at or below Fair Market Rents (FMR) in such neighborhoods. This would suggest that voucher recipients were less dispersed than housing units they could afford. Moreover, the proportion of extremely low-income households residing in low poverty tracts (25%) was slightly lower 2 Distressed tracts were defined as those where a neighborhood was one standard deviation above the national median on five indicators simultaneously:persons below the poverty line,percentage of households receiving income from public assistance,percentage of males aged 16 and over who had worked fewer than 27 weeks in 1989,percentage of families with children under 18 headed by a single woman,and percentage of persons between 16 and 19 who were not in school and had not completed high school. 23 than the proportion of voucher recipients residing in such tracts. This last finding would suggest that the spatial outcomes of very poor households compare favorably with those of voucher recipients. This belies the notion that vouchers expand geographic opportunity for the poor. Discrimination against voucher recipients on the basis of their source of income is one explanation for the voucher program not achieving the expected degree of deconcentration of the poor. As Figure 1 in Chapter One illustrates discrimination against voucher holders does occur. Several prominent news reports have also described how voucher holders have been denied access to units because they have a voucher (Fernandez 2008; Spivack 2009). Moreover, some advocates of Source of Income SOI laws have pointed to SOI discrimination against voucher recipients as a potential cause of their undue concentration (Daniel 2010) in certain communities within jurisdictions without such laws. This argument assumes discriminatory treatment restricts the geographic options of voucher households. To the extent that landlords discriminate it seems likely that such discriminatory practices would not be randomly distributed across space. Rather, discriminatory practices might likely be found in those neighborhoods where non voucher demand is strong and/or neighboring tenants and residents would react negatively to voucher households. This could result in an increase voucher recipients being segregated into fewer and most likely more disadvantaged neighborhoods. Analytical Strategy for Analyzing SOI Laws and Locational Outcomes To discern whether SOI laws are related to locational outcomes among voucher recipients, locational attainment models are employed. Locational attainment models are used most often by urban sociologists as a way of exploring how individual traits are translated into locational outcomes. Using this approach scholars have used locational 24 outcomes (e.g. residence in a suburb, neighborhood racial composition) as the dependent variable, while the independent variables of interest were individual traits such as race or class (Gross and Massey 1991; Alba and Logan 1993; Logan and Alba 1993; Logan,Alba et al. 1996; Freeman 2002; Freeman 2010). In the research presented here the dependent variables are neighborhood characteristics, as in other locational attainment research. But in this case we focus on whether a jurisdiction with a SOI law facilitates individual voucher recipients residing in more advantaged neighborhoods. Past research on locational attainment has considered spatial independent variables such as region or suburban location as determinants of locational outcomes (Logan, Alba et al. 1996; Friedman and Rosenbaum 2007; Freeman 2010). Analogously, SOI law status in a jurisdiction is used as an independent variable here. Using the characteristics of the neighborhood the voucher recipient resides in as the dependent variable and residence in a jurisdiction with a SOI law as the key independent variable of interest still leaves the challenge of ruling out other explanations for any observed relationship between residence in a jurisdiction with a SOI law and the voucher recipient's locational outcomes. For example, in jurisdictions with SOI laws the populace, in general, and landlords, particularly,might be more open to having as neighbors and renting to, voucher recipients. Moreover,voucher recipients might choose to look for housing in jurisdictions with SOI laws because these jurisdictions are viewed as providing more options for the type of neighborhoods a voucher recipient can move into. To dampen the extent to which these and other threats might undermine the validity of the findings, a difference-in-differences approach much like the one employed in Chapter two to study utilization rates is used. In this chapter, the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws are compared to the locational outcomes of 25 voucher recipients living in jurisdictions without SOI laws before and after a change in the status of SOI laws (meaning the SOI law was adopted or repealed). To increase the comparability of the treatment (i.e. voucher recipients living in jurisdictions without SOI laws) and control groups (voucher recipients living in jurisdictions where the status of SOI laws did not change), the comparisons will be limited to those voucher recipients living in jurisdictions that abut the boundary of a jurisdiction with the opposite SOI status. Thus, locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws will be compared to the locational outcomes of voucher recipients living in adjacent jurisdictions without SOI laws. The some jurisdictions that were used in the utilization rate analysis are used here. See Table A3 in the appendix for a list of the jurisdictions and corresponding LHAs. Because data are available for several years (1995- 2008), the unit of analysis is the person-year. The outcomes of interest are the characteristics of the neighborhood the voucher recipient resides in for a specific year. Limiting the analysis to voucher recipients that are in adjacent jurisdictions serves the purpose of dampening the impact of omitted variables that may be correlated with whether a jurisdiction's SOI law status changed. Because the voucher recipients in both treatment and control jurisdictions are observed before and after the change in SOI status any omitted variables that correlate with SOI status but do not change contemporaneously will not bias the estimates of the impact of SOI status on locational outcomes. For example, imagine that jurisdictions with more liberal attitudes have populations and landlords that are more receptive to the voucher program and therefore voucher recipients in these jurisdictions live in more advantaged neighborhoods. The liberal attitudes of these jurisdiction leads to the adoption of SOI laws. Because the difference-in-differences approach makes comparisons before and after the adoption of the SOI law, however, the liberal attitudes should affect 26 locational outcomes both before and after the adoption of the laws. Therefore, the fact that liberal attitudes are not explicitly measured for the analysis does not result in biased results. The possibility of self-selection bias, whereby voucher recipients who wish to live in more advantaged neighborhoods gravitate towards jurisdictions with SOI laws, is also dampened to a great extent using the difference-in-differences approach. The passage of a SOI law might attract some voucher applicants who think such laws will facilitate their moving into better neighborhoods. But many LHAs have long waiting lists for vouchers and therefore the family would first have to move to the jurisdiction to get on the waiting list. This is possible, but seems unlikely. Waiting lists would likely deter moves motivated by the existence of SOI laws. Those voucher recipients who already have vouchers could in theory use portability to transfer their voucher to another jurisdiction. But unless SOI laws do indeed facilitate movement into more advantaged neighborhoods, such moves would not result in qualitatively different locational outcomes. If the attitudes and behaviors of voucher recipients who choose to move into jurisdictions with SOI laws lead to different locational outcomes, these attitudes and behaviors should have led to their residing in more advantaged neighborhoods before they moved to the jurisdictions with SOI laws. Consequently, the absence of specific measures for self-selection should not bias the results. Locational outcomes were chosen to correspond with prevailing concerns among policy makers including the tracts poverty rate, racial composition, and ratio of voucher recipients to non-recipients residing in the tract The poverty rate is of interest because access to lower poverty neighborhoods is thought to contribute to a higher quality of life (Khadduri 2001). The racial composition of the voucher recipients tract is pertinent because racial segregation has been a defining feature of urban America and has often times been exacerbated by federal housing programs (Massey and Denton 1993). Finally, the 27 proportion of residents who also hold vouchers in the recipients tract will give an indication of the extent to which there is a clustering of voucher recipients. The notion that voucher holders are clustering together is one that has captured the attention of both journalists and scholars alike (Briggs and Dreier 2008; Rosin 2008). Data for Analysis of Locational Outcomes The voucher data used in the study were obtained from HUD and are for the years 1995-2008. Because neighborhood level data from the census bureau is not available every year data from the 2000 census were used to measure locational outcomes for the years 1995-2003 and the 2005-2009 American Community Survey (ACS) data were used to measure locational outcomes for the years 2004-2008. The decennial census is a well-known source of data but use of the ACS deserves some comment. The ACS replaced the long form of the decennial census. The ACS collects data from a sample of approximately 3 million addresses every year. Like the decennial census, ACS data are available at different levels of geography. Because the sample size of the ACS is relatively small, however, multi-year samples are necessary to produce reliable estimates for small units of geography like tracts. Consequently, the ACS estimates can be conceived of as average values over the 2005-2009 period (Bureau 2009). The results of the analyses presented in this chapter should not be biased by the use of two different data sets to measure locational outcomes because the two different data sources are used to measure locational outcomes for both voucher recipients in jurisdictions with SOI laws and voucher recipients in jurisdictions without such laws. The equation below models the difference-in-differences approach that will be used to estimate the relationship between the adoption of SOI laws and locational outcomes. 28 TRACTTRAIT;= ao + b,SOI; + b2SOIPERIOD; + b3SOI;* SOIPERIOD;+ b,COMPARISONGROUP; + b5LHA; + + u, , Where ao= An intercept TRACTTRAIT,= the locational outcome of interest (i.e. tract poverty rate, tract percent white,proportion of tract who are voucher recipients) SOI;= A dummy variable indicating whether the voucher recipient lives in a jurisdiction that adopted or repealed a SOI law during the study period SOIPERIOD; = A dummy variable indicating if the year is after the adoption/repeal of a SOI law in that jurisdiction and the adjacent jurisdiction SOI,*SOIPERIOD;= an interaction term between the two variables defined above COMPARISON GROUP;= A dummy variable indicating which comparison group (e.g. treatment and control LHAs for the City of Los Angles) belongs to LHA; = A dummy variable indicating the LHA who issued the voucher. u; = is an error term Because the data is in person-year format,meaning each family contributes multiple records to the data set for each year they are observed, Huber-white robust standard errors are estimated to account for dependence among observations. To account for dependence 29 among voucher recipients who are clients of the same LHA and the some comparison group, fixed effects (i.e. a dummy variable representing each category) are used. Table 4 provides descriptive statistics for the locational outcomes analysis. The interaction term in the above equation will reveal if the difference in locational outcomes between voucher recipients in SOI jurisdictions and voucher recipients in jurisdictions without SOI laws changed after the adoption or repealing of a SOI law. If this interaction term is statistically significant and substantively meaningful, it will provide compelling evidence that SOI laws do indeed affect locational outcomes for voucher recipients. Such a finding would show that the difference in locational outcomes between voucher recipients in jurisdictions with and without SOI laws changed after the adoption or repealing of SOI laws. If SOI laws are making discrimination against voucher recipients less likely, and subsequently increasing recipients' range of neighborhood options, the SOI laws would certainly seem to be the most plausible explanation for this dynamic. Observations Mean Standard Deviation Min Max 142,730 .04 .04 0.00 .18 142,730 .31 .33 0.00 1 142,730 .24 .14 0.00 1 1189528 2.54 1.68 0.00 15 Frequency Percent Percent 96,822 68.25% • C 69,451 48.95% 30,128 21.24% 3,866 2.72% 610 0.43 30,859 21.75% Results: Difference-in-Differences Analysis of Locational Outcomes 30 Table 5 illustrates the results of regression models estimating the relationship between SOI laws and locational outcomes using a difference-in-differences approach. These models excluded New York City and adjacent jurisdictions from the analysis because as was described in Chapter two New York City's SOI law was only passed in 2008. The variable "SOI law in Effect' represents the years when the SOI law was in effect in the jurisdictions that passed SOI laws and for their adjacent counterparts the same period of time, although no SOI laws were in effect in these jurisdictions. The coefficient is statistically significant in the Percent White and Percent Voucher recipients columns, respectively. The result in the third column for percent white indicates that on average, voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the percentage white was one point lower. The result in the fourth column indicates voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the percentage of voucher recipients was two percentage points higher. The variable, "In a Jurisdiction that adopted SOI law," is only statistically significant for the outcome Percent Voucher recipients. This variable indicates whether the voucher recipient lived in a jurisdiction that had a SOI law during the study period. The coefficient is significant and negative indicating the proportion of voucher recipients in these tracts was one percentage point lower than that found in jurisdictions that did not have SOI laws during the study period. 0.00 -0.01*** 0.02*** (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) -0.01 -0.23 -0.01*** (0.008) (1.957) (0.004) 31 . . iWITM i i -0.01*** 0.005*** -0.005*** (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) 0.09*** 0.97*** 0.00*** (0.03 (o.000) (o.000) 1,592,360 1,592,367 1,592,338 0.700 0.432 Model estimated using OLS with robust standard errors in parentheses Unit of analysis: Individual Voucher Recipients *** p<0 . 01, ** p<0. 05, * p<0. 1 The variable "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI low was in effect" provides a direct test of whether differences in locational outcomes between voucher recipients in SOI jurisdictions and those in adjacent non SOI jurisdictions changed with the passage or repeal of SOI laws. For all three locational outcomes the variables are statistically significant and have the direction that suggests SOI laws enable voucher recipients to move to more advantaged neighborhoods. Column two shows that voucher recipients lived in tracts where the poverty rate was one percentage point lower during the time the SOI law was in effect if they lived in a jurisdiction with a SOI law. But the magnitude of the other relationships shown in columns three and four is even weaker. For the percent white and percent voucher recipients as outcomes the differences in respective neighborhood characteristics is approximately half a percentage point. Such a small difference would hardly seem to be of much consequence. 32 Stratified Analyses —To test whether the experiences of certain subsets of the voucher population differed from those described in the preceding paragraphs a set of stratified analyses were conducted for families with five or more members, the elderly,blacks and Hispanics. Stratified analyses were chosen because they are easier to interpret than three way interaction terms. Families with five or more members and the elderly were chosen as the foci of the stratified analyses because prior research suggests these groups often experience the greatest difficulty in terms of successfully using the voucher program (Finkel and Buron 2001, p. iii). Finkel and Buron also found male voucher recipients to have difficulty using their voucher, but they attributed this to a special program in New York City targeted at homeless men. Because New York City voucher recipients were not included in the analysis and there is no evidence that other cities had adopted such a program, stratified analyses were not conducted for males. Although racial/ethnic minorities have been found to have lower success rates this has been attributed to other factors such as the housing markets these groups were concentrated in Finkel and Buron 2001, p. iii). But black and Hispanic voucher recipients have been found to cluster in more disadvantaged neighborhoods (Devine, Gray et al. 2003). For that reason, stratified analyses for blacks and Hispanics were also included here. Table Six illustrates the results of the stratified analyses for elderly families and those with at least five members. As before, the standard errors are adjusted to account for dependence among observations and fixed effects are used for the LHA that issued the voucher and to identify the comparison area. The models were estimated using OLS regression. For the purposes of brevity only the interaction term "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI law was in effect' is discussed. The top panel of Table six provides results for regression models estimated for voucher recipients with at 33 least five members in their family. Only the coefficient for the percent voucher recipients is both statistically significant and substantively meaningful. In the period when SOI laws were in effect,voucher recipients in large families who lived in jurisdictions with SOI laws resided in tracts where the proportion of voucher recipients was two percentage points lower than that found among voucher recipients in large families who lived in jurisdictions without SOI laws. -0.00 -0.01*** 0.03*** (0.001) (0.002) (0.001) -0.02 -0.16 0.02 (.01) (62.36) (0.019) -0.005** 0.00 -0.02*** (0.002) (0.003) (0.001) 0.13*** 0.97*** 0.01 (0.018) (0.004) (0.019) 181,642 181,642 181,613 0.559 0.708 0.646 -0.005*** -0.01*** 0.01*** (0.001) (0.002) (0.000) 0.25*** -0.44*** 0.06*** 34 (0.031) (0.052) (0.009) -0.01*** 0.03*** -0.00*** (0.001) (0.002) (0.000) -0.05 0.60*** -0.04*** (0.040) (0.080) (0.012) 360,427 360,427 360,424 0.414 0.593 0.280 Model estimated using OLS with robust standard errors in parentheses Unit of analysis: Individual Voucher Recipients *** p<0 . 01, ** p<0. 05, * p<0. 1 The second panel in Table six provides results for elderly families. The variable "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI law was in effect" is statistically significant and substantively meaningful for the poverty rate and percent white outcomes, respectively. Column two indicates that voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the poverty rate was one percentage point lower than voucher recipients that lived in jurisdictions without such laws, during the time when the laws were in effect Column three indicates that elderly voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the proportion white was three percentage points higher than voucher recipients that lived in jurisdictions without such laws, during the time when the laws were in effect. 35 Table seven illustrates the results for blacks and Hispanics. The standard errors are adjusted to account for dependence among observations and fixed effects are used for the LHA that issued the voucher and to identify the comparison area. The models were estimated using OLS regression. For the purposes of brevity only the interaction term "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI law was in effect" is discussed. The top panel of Table 7 illustrates the results for Hispanics. The only outcome where there is a statistically significant and substantively meaningful relationship is for the percent white. Column three shows that that Hispanic voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the proportion white was one percentage point lower than that found for voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions without such laws, during the time when the laws were in effect This is one result in our analyses of locational outcomes where the result is statistically significant, substantively meaningful but the direction of the sign is opposite of what was hypothesized. -0.00*** -0.01*** 0.01*** (0.001) (0.002) (0.000) 0.00 -0.80 -0.01 (.) (383.493) O 0.00 -0.01*** -0.00 (0.001) (0.003) (0.000) 0.15*** 0.98*** -0.01*** (0.001) (0.002) (0.000) 36 217,449 217,449 217,449 0.403 0.557 0.175 Poverty Rate Percent White Percent Voucher Recipients -0.00*** -0.00 0.01*** (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) 0.10 -0.52 -0.05 �) �) (3.937) -0.01*** -0.002** 0.001*** (0.001) (0.001) (0.000) -0.03 1.24 -0.04 (.) 32.712 (.) 795,671 795,678 795,678 0 0.537 0.217 Model estimated using OLS with robust standard errors in parentheses Unit of analysis: Individual Voucher Recipients *** p<0 . 01, ** p<0. 05, * p<0. 1 The bottom panel of Table seven illustrates the results for black voucher recipients. Here the relationships between SOI laws and locational outcomes are statistically significant and substantively meaningful only for the poverty rate. Column two shows that that black voucher recipients living in jurisdictions with SOI laws lived in tracts where the poverty rate was one percentage point lower than that found for voucher recipients who lived in jurisdictions without such laws, during the time when the laws were in effect. The variable 37 "Difference between SOI jurisdiction and Control jurisdiction while SOI law was in effect" was statistically significant for the percent white and percent who are voucher recipients too. But the magnitude of these relationships, two-tenths and one tenth of a percentage point respectively, is too small to be considered meaningful. Summarizing the Relationship between SOI Laws and Locational Outcomes Taken together the results presented in this chapter suggest SOI laws have a modest but not particularly powerful effect on locational outcomes. With the exception of one case for Hispanics, all of the coefficients that were statistically significant and substantively meaningful had signs that were consistent with the notion that SOI laws make it easier to move into more advantaged neighborhoods. Because this is consistent with the hypothesized relationships this is evidence that SOI laws do indeed facilitate movement into more advantaged neighborhoods. Moreover, strongest and most substantively meaningful relationships were found for groups who in the past have been found to have an especially hard time using vouchers. This last finding is also consistent with the notion that SOI laws facilitate movement into more advantaged neighborhoods. The relationship between SOI laws and locational outcomes, however, must be considered modest at best. Substantively meaningful relationships were not found for all of the models. Furthermore, even in the case where the relationships were substantively meaningful they were not especially dramatic. This is admittedly a subjective characterization and perhaps over a longer study period even larger impacts would be observed. Furthermore, the results Hispanics, the third largest group of voucher recipients provided no evidence of SOI laws facilitating movement into more advantaged neighborhoods. Thus, the results presented here can only be characterized as a modest relationship between SOI laws and locational outcomes. 38 39 CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Housing vouchers have come to supplant production programs as the preferred way to provide housing assistance to the poor. Tenant-based housing vouchers offer greater efficiency and superior choices for the housing assistance recipients. The superiority of these vouchers, however, is predicated on voucher recipients being able to find landlords willing to accept their vouchers. For several reasons, including negative stereotypes of voucher recipients, some landlords prefer not to lease their units to voucher recipients. SOI laws,which make illegal such discrimination, would seem to have the potential to make it easier for voucher recipients to secure housing. This could lead to at least two types of outcomes. First, utilization rates among housing authorities in jurisdictions with SOI laws might be higher. Second,voucher recipients might find themselves with a more expansive set of housing options and, consequently, find units in less disadvantaged neighborhoods. The research reported here tested these hypotheses. The evidence is consistent with the notion that SOI laws facilitate the utilization of housing vouchers. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the analyses presented earlier in this paper showed that utilization rates were higher in jurisdictions with SOI laws when compared to utilization rates in jurisdictions without such laws,while the laws were in effect These results are consistent with the findings of Finkel and Buron (2001) who found success rates to be higher in jurisdictions with SOI laws. The evidence for SOI laws having an impact on locational outcomes was more equivocal. In several instances there was a statistically significant relationship between residence in a jurisdiction with a SOI law and locational outcomes. Moreover, with one exception in the instances where the relationship was statistically significant and substantively meaningful the direction of the relationship was consistent with the 40 hypothesized notion that SOI laws facilitate access to more advantaged neighborhoods. Finally, analyses of groups that in the past have had particularly difficult times successfully usingvouchers found somewhat stronger relationships in the hypothesized direction between SOI laws and locational outcomes. Despite this evidence the relationship between SOI laws and locational outcomes is best categorized as modest,because although in several instances the relationships between SOI laws and locational outcomes were statistically significant, they were often not substantively meaningful. Furthermore, even when the relationships were substantively meaningful they were not especially dramatic. Finally, Hispanics did not appear to reap any locational benefits from residence in a jurisdiction with SOI laws. If the results presented in this report are accurate then it appears that SOI laws have a more substantial impact on utilization rates than locational outcomes. One interpretation of this pattern would be that while SOI laws reduce discrimination by landlords, this in and of itself does not open up a substantially wider range of neighborhoods. Voucher recipients may be more successful in their searches but the neighborhoods where they find apartments might not be that different or indeed in the some neighborhoods as to when SOI laws were not in effect. Another possible interpretation of the pattern described in the preceding paragraph would be if the neighborhoods that voucher recipients moved in themselves changed after voucher recipients moved in. Galster, Tatian et al. (1999) found that the location of vouchers recipients could affect property values. Quite plausibly the settling of voucher recipients into a neighborhood could have an impact on the demographics of a neighborhood as well. More affluent neighbors might flee the neighborhoods that voucher recipients have migrated into due to stereotyped perceptions of the voucher program. SOI 41 laws might facilitate voucher recipients moving into more advantaged neighborhoods. But these neighborhoods themselves might then change in ways that resulted in these neighborhoods resembling the neighborhoods of voucher recipients living in jurisdictions without SOI laws. In this case SOI laws might not appear to have much of an impact on locational outcomes especially when data to measure locational outcomes is only available intermittently. Even aside from white or middle class flight the movement of voucher recipients into a more advantaged neighborhood might be expected to change the neighborhood's demographics due to the voucher recipients' contribution to the neighborhood's demographic profile. This too would make it harder to detect if voucher recipients were moving to more advantaged neighborhoods. Finally, the changes in locational outcomes due to SOI laws may not be that great simply because range of neighborhoods with units affordable to voucher recipients is not that much more expansive then the current spatial distribution of voucher recipients. For example, if in a given city there were no units available that were affordable to voucher recipients outside the neighborhoods where voucher recipients currently live, a SOI law might not make much difference in terms of locational outcomes. Indeed McClure (2010) suggests the availability of housing affordable to voucher recipients outside of neighborhoods currently inhabited by voucher recipients is not that great It is beyond the scope of this report to confirm or refute any of the aforementioned hypotheses for why the SOI laws appear to have a more significant impact on utilization rates than locational outcomes. But these hypotheses can help us make sense of the pattern of results. Moreover, the hypotheses described in the preceding paragraphs provide a roadmap for future research on SOI laws. It should also be mentioned that the measure of SOI laws used in this report did not take into account the possibility that these laws are 42 enforced differently across jurisdictions. Although there is no apparent reason that differential enforcement of SOI laws would lead to the pattern of results whereby the impacts of such laws appear to be greater for utilization rates than for locational outcomes, it is a possibility. In addition, differential enforcement of SOI laws may have affected the results in other unknown ways. Here, too, is an avenue for further research. Implications for Policy At present a number of states and local jurisdictions have laws that forbid housing discrimination on the basis of source of income, including housing vouchers. The question that flows from this state of affairs is whether these SOI laws should be maintained or extended. The answer to the question depends on a cost-benefit calculus weighing the costs and benefits of such laws and a moral calculus that considers how just it is to deny individuals housing on the basis of their income source. The findings of this research do not speak to the latter social justice calculus. But the results described earlier can inform the cost-benefit calculus. The results presented in this report make clear that higher utilization rates are a likely benefit of SOI laws. Policy makers in local jurisdictions can consider this on the plus side of the ledger. The observed impact was an increase in utilization rates of between four and 11 points. In a LHA with 10,000 vouchers this would represent between 400 and 1,100 additional units successfully leased. This is not an inconsequential number. The costs imposed by SOI laws would have to be substantial to warrant a cost-benefit calculus not coming out in its favor. When turning to the issue of locational outcomes, the benefits of SOI laws are more modest. While there does appear to be a relationship between SOI laws and locational outcomes in the hypothesized direction (i.e. SOI laws lead to residence in more advantaged 43 neighborhoods), the relationship is not very strong and not applicable to all groups. Only in some circumstances do SOI laws appear to be associated with improved locational outcomes at a level that is substantively meaningful. Yet these modest impacts point toward an expansion of SOI laws for at least two reasons. First, expanding the set of neighborhoods available to voucher recipients is currently one of the goals of federal housing policy (Devine, Gray et al. 2003; HUD 2008). Thus, even if SOI laws have only a modest impact on locational outcomes, this still would be moving toward current policy objectives. It is certainly not the case that SOI laws alone would be expected to expand the geography of opportunity available to voucher recipients and other policies can help achieve the goal of an improved geography of opportunity. Second, although the impacts on locational outcomes were modest SOI laws could be expanded in a way that might be expected to have a more dramatic effect The SOI laws studied in this report were enacted at the state or local level. But a federal SOI law would likely be more visible and thus have a larger impact. Moreover, a federal law would be enforced by federal authorities who in most instances would be able to bring more resources to bear than a state or local jurisdiction. This should increase the deterrent effect of SOI laws and result in a larger impact for SOI laws. In sum, the policy choices about SOI laws rest on two sets of calculations, a moral one that weighs the justice of excluding persons based on the source of their income (or gives property owners the right to do so) and a cost-benefit one that considers the benefits and costs of such laws. While the research presented here does not speak to the first calculus, the findings do spell out some of the benefits associated with the implementation of SOI laws. Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and, for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas. Given the dearth of affordable housing options in many communities, this is not insignificant. 44 References Alba, R. D. and J. R. Logan (1993). "MINORITY PROXIMITY TO WHITES IN SUBURBS - AN INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL ANALYSIS OF SEGREGATION."American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1388-1427. Berry, W. B., Evan Ringquist, Richard Fording, and Russell Hanson. 1998. "" 42: 327-48. (1998). "Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93." American Journal of Political Science 42: 327-348. Bostic, R. W., K. C. Engel, et al. (2008). "State and local anti-predatory lending laws: The effect of legal enforcement mechanisms."Journal of Economics and Business 60: 47-66. Bostic, R. W. and R. W. Martin (2005). "Have anti-discrimination housing laws worked? Evidence from trends in black homeownership." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 31(1): 5-26. Briggs, X. d. S. and P. Dreier (2008) "Memphis Murder Mystery? No, Just Mistaken Identity." Shelterforce. Buck, Y. (2004). I'm a Soldier. Straight Outta Cashville, Interscope Records. Bureau, U. S. C. (2009). A Compass for Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What Researchers Need to Know. C. Department. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office. Collins, W. J. (2004). "The housing market impact of state-level anti-discrimination laws, 1960- 1970." Journal of Urban Economics 55(3): 534-564. Daniel, T. H. (2010). "Bringing Real Choice to the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Addressing Voucher Discrimination Under the Federal Fair Housing Act."Georgetown Law Journal 98: 769-794. Devine, D. J., R. W. Gray, et al. (2003). Housing Choice Voucher Location Patterns: Implications For Participants And Neighborhood Welfare. Washington, D.C., HUD. Fernandez, M. (2008). Despite New Law, Subsidized Tenants Find Doors Closed New York Times. New York. Finkel, M. and L. Buron (2001). Study on Section 8 Voucher Success Rates: Volume I Quantitative Study of Success Rates in Metropolitan Areas. Washington D.C., Abt Associates. 1. Finkel, M., J. Khadduri, et al. (2003). Costs and Utilization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Washington, D.C., Abt Associates. Freeman, L. (2002). "Does spatial assimilation work for black immigrants in the US?" Urban Studies 39(11): 1983-2003. Freeman, L. (2003). "The impact of assisted housing developments on concentrated poverty." Housing Policy Debate 14(1-2): 103-141. Freeman, L. (2010). "African American Locational Attainment before the Civil Rights Era." City& Community 9(3): 235-255. Frieden, B. J. (1980). 'WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM THE HOUSING ALLOWANCE EXPERIMENT." Habitat International 5(1-2): 227-254. Friedman, S. and E. Rosenbaum (2007). "Does suburban residence mean better neighborhood conditions for all households?Assessing the influence of nativity status and race/ethnicity." Social Science Research 36(1): 1-27. Galster, G. C., P. Tatian, et al. (1999). "The impact of neighbors who use section 8 certificates on property values." Housing Policy Debate 10(4): 879-917. Goering, J. (2003). Political Origins and Opposition. Choosing a Better Life. J. G. a. J. Feins. Washington, D.C., Urban Institute Press. Goering, J. (2005). Expanding Choice and Integrating Neighborhoods: The MTO Experiment. The Geography of Opportunity. X. d. S. Briggs. Washington, D.C., Brookings: 127-149. Goff, B., Alex Lebedinsky, Stephen Lile (2009). A Matched Pairs Analysis of State Growth Differences. Bowling Green, Western Kentucky University. Government, U. (1995). Low Income Housing Assistance. (42U.S.C. 6 1437(f)). U. Government. Gross, A. B. and D. S. Massey (1991). "SPATIAL ASSIMILATION MODELS - A MICRO-MACRO COMPARISON." Social Science Quarterly 72(2): 347-360. Housing, P. s. C. o. (1982). Report of the Preseident's Commission on Housing. Washington, 45 D.C. Housing, U. S. P. s. C. o. U. (1968). U.S. President's Committee on Urban Housing, A Decent Home. Washington, D.C., U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. HUD (2008). Expanding Housing Opportunities and Mobility. Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook. Q. C. Corporation. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Khadduri, J. (2001). "Deconcentration: What do we Mean?What do we Want?"Cityscape 5(2): 69-84. Logan, J. R. and R. D. Alba (1993). "LOCATIONAL RETURNS TO HUMAN-CAPITAL- MINORITY ACCESS TO SUBURBAN COMMUNITY RESOURCES." Demography 30(2): 243-268. Logan, J. R., R. D. Alba, et al. (1996). "Making a place in the metropolis: Locational attainment in cities and suburbs." Demography 33(4): 443-453. Logan, J. R., B. J. Stults, et al. (2004). "Segregation of minorities in the metropolis: Two decades of change." Demography 41(1): 1-22. Lowry, I. S. (1971). Housing Assistance for Low-Income Urban Families: A Fresh Approach. Papers Submitted to Subcommittee on Housing Panels. Washington, D.C., Committee on Banking and Currency, House of Representatives, 92d Congress, First Session: 489- 524. Macdonnell, J. G., Bruce E. Kahn (2005). In Search of Decent Housing in the D.C. Metropolitan Area: The Affordable Housing Crisis for Section 8 Voucher Holders. Washington D.C. Manye, B. and S. Crowley (1999). Scarcity and Success: Perspectives on Assisted Housing. Washington D.C., National Low Income Housing Coalition. Massey, D. S. and N. A. Denton (1993). American Apartheid. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Massey, D. S. and N. A. Denton (1993). American apartheid : segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. McClure, K. (2008). "Deconcentrating Poverty With Housing Programs." Journal of the American Planning Association 74(1): 90-99. McClure, K. (2010). "The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice Voucher Households to High- Opportunity Neighborhoods" Cityscape 12(3): 102-124. Meyer, B. (1995). "Natural and Quasi-Natural Experiments in Economics."Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 12: 151-162. Newman, S. J. and A. B. Schnare (1997). ""... And a suitable living environment": The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality." Housing Policy Debate 8(4): 703- 741. Polikoff, A. (2005). "A Vision for the Future: Bringing Gautreaux to Scale." Keeping the Promise:Preserving and Enhancing Housing Mobility in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program: 137-150. Rohe, W. M. and L. Freeman (2001). "Assisted housing and residential segregation -The role of race and ethnicity in the siting of assisted housing developments."Journal of the American Planning Association 67(3): 279-292. Rosin, H. (2008). American Murder Mystery. The Atlantic. New York. Sard, B. (2001). "Housing Vouchers Should Be a Major Component of Future Housing Policy for the Lowest Income Families."Cityscape 5(2): 89-111. Scrappy, L. (2006). Livin in the Projects. Bred 2 Die Born 2 Live, Reprise/Wea. Shroder, M. (2003). Locational Constraint, Housing Counseling, and SUccessful Lease-Up. Choosing a Better Life. J. G. a. J. Feins. Washington D.C., Urban Institute Press: 59-80. Spivack, M. S. (2009). Rights Groups Allege Rental Discrimination. Washington Post. Washington, D.C. Tegeler, P., M. Cunningham, et al. (2005). Keeping the Promise: Preserving and Enhancing Housing Mobility in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Conference Report of the Third National Conference on Housing Mobility. Washington, D.C., Poverty& Race Research Action Council. Tegeler, P., Mary Cunningham, & Margery Austin Turner, Editors (2005). Keeping the Promise: Preserving and Enhancing Housing Mobility in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher 46 Program Conference Report of the Third National Conference on Housing Mobility. Washington, D.C., Poverty& Race Research Action Council. Weicher, J. C. (1990). The Voucher/Production Debate. Building Foundations. D. D. a. L. C. Keyes. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press: 263-292. Williamson, J. B. (1974). "Stigma of Public Dependency- Comparison of Alternative Forms of Public Aid to Poor." Social Problems 22(2): 213-228. Winnick, L. (1995). 'The triumph of housing allowance programs: how a fundamental policy conflict was resolved."Cityscape 1(3): 95-122. 47 APPENDIX 48 Table Al. States and Jurisdictions with SOI Laws STATES Connecticut Maine Massachusetts Minnesota New Jersey North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Utah Vermont Washington D.C. Wisconsin .1 IJRISDICTIONS Corte Madera,Marin CounTy, CA YEAR ADOPTED 1989 1975 1989 1990 (undermined 2003) 2002 1983 &1993 1985 1995 (repealed 2008) 1989 1987 2006 1980 2000 East Palo Alto, San Mateo,CA2000 Los Angeles, Los Angeles CounTy, CA2002 San Francisco,CA1998 1994 1990 2009 2000 1975 1995 2002 1992 1991 1980 1992 1992 1994 1978 2000 49 Champaign, Champaign County,IL Chicago, Cook County,IL Harwood Heights,Cook CounTy,IL Naperville, IL Urbana,Champaign County,IL Wheeling, IL Frederick,Frederick CounTy,MD Howard CounTy,MD Montgomery CounTy,MD Boston, Suffolk County,MA Cambridge,Middlesex CounTy,MA Quincy,Norfolk CounTy,MA Revere, Suffolk CounTy,MA Ann Arbor,W ashtenaw CounTy,MI Grand Rapids,Kent CounTy,MI Buffalo,Erie CounTy,NY Nassau County,NY New York City, Bronx-Kings-Queens- Richmond-New York Counties,NY West Seneca,Erie CounTy,NY Borough of State College,Centre County,PA Philadelphia,Philadelphia County,PA Bellevue,King CounTy,WA King County,WA Seattle, King CounTy,WA Dane CounTy,WI Madison,Dane County,WI Ripon, Fond du Lac County,WI Sun Prairie,Dane County,WI Wauwatosa,Milwaukee County,WI Iowa CiTy,IA1997 St. Louis CiTy,MO Table A2. Source of Income Discrimination Research Project Methodology for Legal Research Component • Step 1: Confirm Date of Enactment o Verify correct enactment date through researching the general statute and ordinances i.e. when adopted,when enacted,etc. o Make sure it is not an amendment of an earlier law. o See if there are reported cases that cite this date.Verify whether statutory citation is proper and cite as needed. • Step 2: Confirm Enforcement/Legal Status of Law o Review relevant case law.Research cases that uphold or interpret the constitutionality of the statute. o Confine applicability to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. • Step 3: Describe Enforcement System o Research what kind of enforcement system(i.e. administrative or judicial)is in place through reviewing the statute and online sources. o Cite to source of this information,i.e. case law or language included in the statute. o Are attorney's fees for successful plaintiffs? • Step 4: Local Advocacy Environment o Research whether there are organizations that help victims of source of income discrimination bring their complaints. (Internet and phone research . • Look up list of local groups and call them to ask. o Is there enough funding for enforcement? • Step 5: Enforcement Record o Research volume of complaints brought under the statute using the most recent agency annual report. o Call organizations that file these cases,if any. o Develop simple typology to"rank"enforcement systems. • Step 6: Review o General verification and editing,updating national inventory. o Are there other policies in place that could affect success of the law i.e.,HUD policies that affect mobility? o Note any local studies or media coverage of source of income discrimination and enforcement. Step 7: Review o Review parallel jurisdictions selected by Professor Freeman to ensure no source of income laws in effect. Sources: Westlaw(for statutes,case law,and most local ordinances),state legislative websites (for additional legislative history,local housing codes,state human rights agency annual reports,phone interviews with selected staff at fair housing organizations. 51 Jurisdiction PHA—CODE Housing Authority Washington D.C. DC001 D.0 Housing Authority DC880 Community Connections DC101 Kenilworth Parkside RMC Washington D.C. Controls VA028 Arlington County Dept. of Human Services VA004 Alexandria Redevelopment&Housing Authority MD015 Housing Authority of Prince Georges County Camden County, NJ NJ073 Borough of Clementon Housing Authority NJ115 Cherry Hill Housing Authority NJ118 Pennsauken Housing Authority Camden County, NJ PA012 Montgomery County Housing Authority Controls Gloucester County,NJ NJ204 Gloucester County Housing Authority Gloucester County, NJ PA007 Chester Housing Authority Control Hunterdon County, NJ NJO84 Hunterdon County Division of Housing NJ215 Burlington County Housing Authority NJ212 Hamilton Township HA Hunterdon County, NJ PA051 Bucks County Housing Authority Controls Warren County, NJ NJ102 Warren County Housing Authority NJO89 Clifton Housing Authority NJO88 Phillipsburg DCD Warren County, NJ Controls PA011 Bethlehem Housing Authority PA024 Easton Housing Authority PA076 Northampton County Housing Authority Passaic County,NJ NJO13 Passaic Housing Authority NJ021 Paterson Housing Authority NJO89 Clifton Housing Authority NJ090 Passaic County Housing Authority NJ091 Housing Authority of the City of Paterson Passaic County, NJ controls NY051 Housing Authority of Newburgh NY125 Village of Highland Falls NY134 Port Jervis CDA NY158 Village of Kiryas Joel HA 52 Bergen County, NJ NJ011 Housing Authority of the Borough of Lodi NJ055 Englewood Housing Authority NJ067 Bergen County Housing Authority NJ070 Cliffside Park Housing Authority NJ071 Fort Lee Housing Authority NJ075 Edgewater Housing Authority Bergen County, NJ controls NY084 Town of Ramapo Housing Authority NY114 Village of Nyack HA NY138 Village of New Square PHA NY148 Village of Spring Valley HA NY160 Village of Kzser City of Los Angeles, CA CA004 Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles City of Los Angeles, CA CA103 Housing Authority of the City of Redondo Beach controls CA111 Housing Authority of the City of Santa Monica CA114 Housing Authority of the City of Glendale CA117 Pico Rivera Housing Assistance Agency CA118 Housing Authority of the City of Norwalk CA120 Housing Authority of the City of Baldwin Park CA123 Housing Authority of the City of Pomona CA126 Hawthorne Housing CA139 Housing Authority of the City of Lomita CA068 City of Long Beach Housing Authority CA071 City of Compton Housing Authority CA079 Housing Authority of the City of Pasadena CA082 Housing Authority of the City of Inglewood CA105 Housing Authority of the City of Burbank CA110 Housing Authority of Culver City CA119 Housing Authority of the City of South Gate CA121 Housing Authority of the City of Torrance CA135 Housing Authority of the City of Lakewood CA136 Housing Authority of the City of Hawaiian Gardens CA137 Housing Authority of the City of Paramount CA138 Housing Authority of the City of Lawndale CA145 Housing Authority of the City of West Hollywood CA147 Housing Authority of the City of Santa Fe Springs City of Buffalo, NY NY002 Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority NY409 City of Buffalo NY449 Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority 53 City of Buffalo, NY controls NY091 Town of Amherst NY400 Kenmore Municipal Housing Authority NY405 City of North Tonawanda Grand Rapids, MI MI073 Grand Rapids Housing Commission Grand Rapids, MI controls MI093 Rockford Housing Commission MI115 Wyoming Housing Commission Nassau County,NY NV894 Family and Children's Association 1%V147 Village of Sea Cliff 1%V151 Village of Farmingdale HA 1%V159 Village of Rockville Centre NV892 Town of Hempstead Dept. of Urban Renewal 1%V085 Village of Hempstead HA 1%V086 North Hempstead Housing Authority NV023 Freeport Housing Authority 1%V121 Glen Cove CDA NV120 Village of Island Park HA Nassau County, NY controls NY035 Town of Huntington Housing Authority NY077 Town of Islip Housing Authority NY127 Riverhead Housing Development Corporation NY128 Village of Patchogue CDA NY130 Town of Babylon NY141 Town of Southampton NY146 Village of Greenport Housing Authority NY149 Town of Brookhaven HCDIA NY152 North Fork Housing Alliance Inc. NY154 Town of East Hampton NY155 Town of Smithtown NY888 Mercy Haven Inc. NY891 Options for Community Living Multnomah County,OR OR002 Housing Authority of Portland Multnomah County, OR WA008 Housing Authority of the City of Vancouver control San Francisco,CA CA001 Housing Authority of the City& County of SF San Francisco, CA controls CA003 Oakland Housing Authority CA058 CITY OF BERKELEY HOUSING AUTHORITY CA062 CITY OF ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTHORITY 54 CA067 ALAMEDA COUNTY HSG AUTH CA074 HSG AUTH OF THE CITY OF LIVERMORE CA014 County of San Mateo Housing Authority CA052 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COUNTY OF MARIN Frederick County,MD MD003 Frederick Housing Authority Frederick County, MD MD006 Hagerstown Housing Authority controls MD028 Housing Authority Of Washington County New York City, NY NY005 New York City Housing Authority NY110 New York City Department of Housing Preservation& Dev. New York City, NY, NY038 Mount Kisco Housing Authority controls NY057 Greenburgh Housing Authority NY094 Village of Ossining Section 8 Program NY101 Village of Mamaroneck HA NY111 Town of Eastchester NY113 City of New Rochelle Housing Authority NY114 Village of Nyack HA NY115 City of White Plains Community Dev. Prog. NY116 Village of Pelham HA NY117 Town of Mamaroneck HA NY118 Village of Port Chester NY123 City of Peekskill NY132 Town of Yorktown NY165 Tuckahoe HA,Village of NY176 Village of Mount Kisco Clay County,MN MN017 MOORHEAD PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY MN164 CLAY COUNTY HRA Clay County,MN controls ND001 Housing Authority of Cass County ND014 Fargo Housing and Redevelopment Authority Winona County, MN MN006 HRA of WINONA,MINNESOTA Winona County, MN control VA 166 Trempealeau County Housing Authority Washington County, MN MN212 WASHINGTON COUNTY HRA Washington County, MN VA060 River Falls Housing Authority control St. Louis County, MN MN007 HRA of VIRGINIA,MINNESOTA 55 MN003 HRA of DULUTH,MINNESOTA St. Louis County, MN VA001 Housing Authority of the City of Superior control Note:LHAs in jurisdictions that had a SOI at some point during the study period are in bold. Figure Al. r e-' � F r �D O (D 9 n vi n W T � L' 3 n � n p N � o u N n 0 0 O 1 3 M io 0 3' as 0 r v ria N A-I Nm D o _W nA $ M }8 MO M Z M 0 56 — ^ [ on ( | / � \ R ) 57 - . ! ! 4 Q R & ! e4 « PRRAC Poverty & Race Research Action Council 1200 18' St.NW• Suite 200• Washington,DC 20036 • 202/906-8023 • Fax 202/842-2885 w .prrac.org APPENDIX B: State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination Updated May 2014 Set out below is a compilation of state, local, and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in the housing market based on source of income. Please use the hyperlinks on this page to navigate through the document. This compilation updates research originally compiled by PRRAC in 2009 and also drawing on earlier work prepared by the National Housing Law Project and the Center for Policy Alternatives. The list was updated for the Fourth National Housing Mobility Conference in 2012 and has been regularly updated since then. Thanks also to Christie Marra and Helen O'Beirne Hardiman of the Virginia Poverty Law Center; LeAnna Ware, Wisconsin Equal Rights Division; Ed Johnson, Oregon Law Center; Mary Hahn, Washington Lawyer's Committee; Ralph Menendez, NJ Division of Civil Rights; Rachel Batterson, Vermont Legal Aid; Connie Pascale, NJ Legal Services; Marty Blaustein, Utah Legal Services; Ken Shiotani, NDRN; Michael Miller, Legal Aid Oklahoma; Jeffrey Dillman, Housing Research and Advocacy Center, Cleveland; Jay Wilkinson, Legal Aid of Minnesota, the Tenant Resource Center, WI, and Ebony Gayles, Lawrence Laws, and Jason Small at PRRAC. If you discover any errors in this document or have additional material to add, please contact Ebony Gayles at PRRAC(egaylesAyrrac.org). Outline I. STATE STATUTES A. California B. Connecticut C. District of Columbia D. Maine E. Massachusetts F. Minnesota G. New Jersey H. North Dakota L Oklahoma J. Oregon K. Utah L. Vermont M. Wisconsin Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 1 II. LOCAL ORDINANCES A. Cities in California Al. Corte Madera A2. East Palo Alto A3. San Francisco B. Cities in Illinois B1. Chicago B2. Cook County B3. Harwood Heights B4. Naperville B5. Urbana B6. Wheeling C. Iowa City, Iowa D. Counties in Marvland D1. Frederick D2. Howard Countv D3. Montgomery County E. Cities in Michigan E1. Ann Arbor E2. Hamburg E3. Grand Rapids F. Saint Louis, Missouri G. Counties/Cities in New York Gl. Buffalo G2. Hamburg G.3 Nassau Co G2. New York City G3. West Seneca H. Cities in Ohio H1. Wickliffe L Cities in Pennsvlvania Il. Borough of State College I2. Philadelphia J. Memphis, Tennessee K. Counties/Cities in Washington Ll. Bellevue L2. King Countv L3. Seattle L. Cities in Wisconsin M1. Cambridge M2. Dane Countv M3. Madison M4. Ripon M5. Sun Prairie M6. Wauwatosa N. Miami-Dade Countv Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 2 III. PROPOSED LEGISLATION A. Hawaii B. Maryland C. New York D. Austin. Texas (Resolution) IV. FEDERAL LAWS A. HOME Program B. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program C. Mark to Market D. Multifamilv Units Purchased from HUD E. HUD Regulations and Notices F. Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 V. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Law Review Articles on Source-of-Income Discrimination Recent Studies of Source-of-Income Discrimination Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 3 STATE LAWS California The California source of income discrimination law does not protect Section 8 voucher tenants. See SAKI v. Sterling, 183 Cal.App.4th 916 (2010). However,the law is supplemented by ordinances in several California cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, East Palo Alto, Corte Madera, and Woodland, which do bar voucher discrimination. In California Government Code Section 12955(p)(1): "Source of income' is defined as 'lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant. For purposes of this section, a landlord is not considered a representative of a tenant." California's Fair Employment and Housing Department has held, therefore, that landlords are not required to accept Section 8 housing choice vouchers under the "source of income" discrimination prohibitions. Moreover, even if a landlord accepts a section 8 voucher, a tenant must meet other requirements for tenancy and have the financial resources to pay any rental amounts not covered by a voucher. In California Government Code Section 12921(b): The opportunity to seek, obtain, and hold housing without discrimination because of source of income or any other basis prohibited by Section 51 of the Civil Code is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right. Date Enacted Source of income discrimination was added to §12955 in January 2000 and further amended in 2005. Cal.Gov.Code § 12921 effective January 1, 2014 Relevant Case Law: Morrison v. Vineyard Creek, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 414 (2011): Landlord did not harass or discriminate against tenant, based on her source of income, when it advised tenant of its good faith belief that tenant could not operate day care in apartment premises, as required for tenant to be entitled to attorney's fees under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act; objection was based on lease's express limitation of the use of the apartment to private residential purposes; landlord's prohibition was against all nonresidential uses, not just family day care homes, and landlord was aware at time of rental that tenant's primary source of income was from her work as a nanny. Sabi v. Sterling, (2010) 183 C.A.4th 916, 933, 939, 107 C.R.3d 805. Government assistance payments paid to a landlord under the program known as "Section 8" are not Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 4 part of a tenant's income for purposes of Govt.C. 12955, and a landlord's refusal to participate in the program does not constitute source of income discrimination. Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc., 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 719, 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (finding that despite the language of subsection (p)(1), protection against discrimination on the basis of source of income is not limited to landlords and tenants and may be applied to borrowers and lenders). Operative Language: Cal. Gov't Code § 12955; effective January 1, 2005 (Section of the Fair Employment and Housing Act): "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." Rules Pertaining to Source of Income Source of income discrimination applies to landlords; real estate brokers, home sellers, mortgage companies, and banks may not refuse to deal with you because of the source of your income. They also cannot charge a higher deposit or treat you differently because of your source of income. A landlord cannot advertise or state a preference for certain sources of income. However, a landlord can have a minimum income requirement, such as two or three times the rent. A landlord can require each person in the household to meet the minimum income requirement separately only if he or she would make a husband and wife who applied each meet the income requirement separately. Otherwise, the landlord must consider all household members' incomes combined to determine whether the household as a whole meets the minimum income requirement. If the applicant receives a governmental rent subsidy, such as Section 8 or Shelter Plus Care, landlords can only use a minimum income requirement that relates to the tenant's portion of the rent. For example, suppose a landlord requires that a tenant's income must be three times the rent of $900. If an applicant has a Section 8 voucher with a tenant- portion of the rent being only $200 (because of her income), then the landlord can only require her income to be $600 (three times her portion of the rent), not $2700 (three times the total rent). A landlord can ask what an applicant's source of income is as long as he/she do not discriminate based on that information. The fair housing protections for source of income apply to all housing EXCEPT a home in which the landlord lives and rents out only one room. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 5 Enforcement Process The Fair Employment and Housing Act may be enforced under § 12980 by filing a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing(DFEH). One can also file a civil action in an appropriate court. The DFEH can be contacted at(800) 884-1684. See also: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Complaints.htmfor general information about complaints and htty://esg5.houdiniesg.com/dfeh2/esq/reg/to directly file a complaint online. If the department indicates that it will not issue a notice of the complaint, the complainant has the right to bring a civil action against the person named in the verified complaint. (§ 12980(h)). A filing with the department for a discrimination claim does not bar an individual from seeking redress in the courts, but once an individual files a civil action, the department shall terminate its proceedings. A civil action must be brought within 2 years after the "occurrence or the termination of an alleged discriminatory housing practice, or the breach of a conciliation agreement entered into, whichever occurs last." § 12989.1. Attorney's Fees connecticnt Connecticut's source of income discrimination statute, Connecticut General Statutes, section 46a-64c, was passed in 1989. The law prohibits discrimination against all lawful forms of income, including state and federal housing vouchers, federal welfare or disability assistance, etc. The statute has been challenged twice in court; in both cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the law. See Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 739 A.2d 238 (Conn. 1999); Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan, 939 A.2d 541 (Conn. 2008). In Connecticut, each of the following programs are considered a lawful source of income: Section 8 housing voucher; state housing assistance, such as the Rental Assistance Program (RAP) and Transitionary Rental Assistance Program (T-RAP); and using the Security Deposit Guarantee Program in lieu of paying cash for a security deposit. Date Enacted Connecticut's source of income discrimination statute was enacted in 1989. Relevant Case Law Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan Associates, 739 A.2d 238 (Conn. 1999) (Sullivan I) (upholding the statute and finding that landlords may only consider the Section 8 recipient's personal rent obligation and other reasonable obligations associated with the rental when assessing sufficiency of income). Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities ex rel. Palmer v. Burkamp. , CVH7749, 2012 WL 2850985 (Conn. Super. May 21, 2012) (Housing assistance which is public or state administered is a lawful source of income.) Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 6 Francia v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., CV084032039S, 2012 WL 1088544 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 6, 2012). Denying motion to strike complaint by landlord against insurance company and insurance broker for refusing to provide general liability insurance on his multi-family property because more than 20% of his tenants paid with HCV. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities Ex Rel.Arnold v. Forvil, 302 Conn. 263, 274 (Conn. 2011) (Security Deposit Guarantee issued by the State is a lawful source of income under statute). Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Sullivan, 939 A.2d 541 (Conn. 2008) (upholding the statute and affirming Sullivan I). Operative Language Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 46a-63: "`Lawful source of income' means income derived from Social Security, supplemental security income, housing assistance, child support, alimony or public or state- administered general assistance." Enforcement Process The Connecticut source of income law can be enforced either through the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities or in state court. Complaints may be filed with the Commission's Fair Housing Unit at(860) 541-3403 or(800) 477-5737 eat. 3403. See also: http://www.ct.gov/chro/cwp/view.asp?a=2524&Q=316274 The Commission's responsibilities include issuing a complaint of its own volition if discrimination is suspected; investigating and mediating discriminatory practice complaints; and holding hearings relating to any matter under investigation. A private cause of action remains after the Commission's release, which can be filed in the superior court for the judicial district in which the discriminatory practice is alleged to have occurred. Any action involving state agency or official may be brought in the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford. A private cause of action may be brought in certain circumstances, but must be brought within one year of the alleged discriminatory practice or of a breach of a conciliation agreement entered into pursuant to this chapter. Attorney's Fees The Commission can award attorney fees, or seek them in court on the complainant's behalf. See, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Sullivan 939 A.2d 541 (Conn. 2008) (finding that a landlord challenging prospective tenant's claim for attorney fees had the right to call the tenant's attorney as a witness in order to question her regarding her affidavit and billing records and test reasonableness of fees); see also, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities v. Litchfield Housing Authority, 978 A.2d 136 (Conn. 2009). (seeking an award of costs and reasonable attorney's fees) Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 7 Organizations Helping Victims of Discrimination Victims of source of income discrimination can contact the Connecticut Fair Housing Center at(888) 247-4401. nictrirt of Cohimhin The D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977 (D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.21) prohibits discrimination on the basis of income or its derivation, including Section 8 voucher assistance. Date Enacted Source of Income discrimination was added to the D.C. Human Rights Act(DCHRA) on February 9, 2005. Relevant Case Law Bourbeau v. Jonathan Woodner Co., 549 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D. D.C. 2008) (holding that the DCHRA, prohibiting source of income housing discrimination against federally funded rental assistance voucher holders, did not alter, amend, or conflict with federal statute establishing Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP), permitting landlords to accept as many or as few voucher holders as they chose, as required for preemption of DCHRA, under the Supremacy Clause, since preemption would affect District's power to regulate matter of local concern, and DCHRA's nondiscrimination requirement neither compelled nor permitted parties to violate any provision of HCVP and advanced HCVP's objective of aiding low-income families in obtaining decent place to live). Feemster v. BSA Limited Partnership, 471 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2007) (mem.) (stating that DCHRA requires a showing that a landlord's refusal to accept vouchers is based on discrimination rather than the desire to ready the property for sale). Operative Language D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1401.02: Definition of Source of Income: "`Source of income' means the point, the cause, or the form of the origination, or transmittal of gains of property accruing to a person in a stated period of time; including, but not limited to, money and property secured from any occupation, profession or activity, from any contract, agreement or settlement,from federal payments, court- ordered payments, from payments received as gifts, bequests, annuities, life insurance policies and compensation for illness or injury, except in a case where conflict of interest may exist." D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1402.21(e): "The monetary assistance provided to an owner of a housing accommodation under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, approved August 22, 1974 (88 Stat. 662; 42 U.S.C. § 1437f), either directly or through a tenant, shall be considered a source of income under this section." Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 8 D.C. Code Ann. § 42-2851.06(c): "The owner of a housing accommodation shall not refuse to rent a dwelling unit to a person because the person will provide his or her rental payment, in whole or in part,through a Section 8 voucher." Enforcement Process The D.C. source of income law can be enforced either through the Commission on Human Rights or in the D.C. courts. The DCOHR maybe contacted at(202) 727-4559. Fore more information on fair housing, go to http://www.ohr.waswngtondc.gov/ohr/cwp/view,a,3,g,627574,ohrNav,%7C30953%7C.asp or see http://ohr.dc.gov/complaint for more information about how to file a complaint. The commission can hear and decide cases of unlawful discrimination. Additionally, a private cause of action can be filed as provided in Sec. 2-1403.16 for anyone claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice. Attornev's Fees The District of Columbia Human Rights Act does not require courts to award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing parties, but rather, confirms court's discretionary authority over attorney's fee applications. See, D.C.Code 1981, §§ 1-2501 et seq., 1-2553, 1- 2553(a)(1), 1-2556, 1-2556(b); see also, Thompson v. International Assn of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 664 F. Supp. 578 (1987) (holding that the goal of awarding attorney's fees in civil rights cases is to attract competent counsel for these cases, but not to provide them with windfalls). Organizations Helping Victims of Discrimination • Equal Rights Center httn://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/PageServer?nagename issues housing • Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs (established in 1968)with pro bono assistance from private law firms. htro://www.washlaw.or2/nroiects/fair-housin2 Maine The Maine Human Rights Act protects recipients of both state and federal housing assistance from discrimination on the basis of their status as a recipient. ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 4582. Date Enacted In 1975 the Maine Human Rights Act was amended to include a provision prohibiting the refusal to rent or the imposition of different tenancy terms to individuals receiving public assistance. The law was further amended in 1985, making the provisions applicable to any person furnishing public accommodations, and made discrimination unlawful where refusal to rent or imposition of different tenancy terms is done primarily because an individual is receiving public assistance. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 9 Operative Language ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 4581-A: "It is unlawful housing discrimination, in violation of this Act: For any person furnishing rental premises or public accommodations to refuse to rent or impose different terms of tenancy to any individual who is a recipient of federal, state or local public assistance, including medical assistance and housing subsidies primarily because of the individual's status as recipient." Enforcement Process The Maine Human Rights Act may be enforced by filing a charge with the Maine Human Rights Commission. The Commission must issue a right-to-sue letter before a civil complaint may be filed in state court. The Commission can investigate all conditions and practices that allegedly "detract from the enjoyment, by each inhabitant of the State, of full human rights and personal dignity," including investigating all forms of discrimination, whether carried out legally or illegally, and whether by pubic agencies or private persons." (ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 4566). The Commission may hold hearings on any case being investigated and may also file an action in the superior court. Attorney's Fees Attorney's fees are covered under § 4614. Attorneys'fees and costs may be awarded in the court's discretion to the prevailing party, other than the commission, under ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 4614. Housing applicant was "prevailing party" in his action alleging that federally subsidized housing project owner's use of application that inquired into nature of person's disability was illegal, and thus, applicant was entitled to attorney's fee award under Maine Human Rights Act.Robards v. Cotton Mill Associates, 713 A.2d 952 (Me. 1998). Organizations Helping Victims of Discrimination Advocacy Groups and Legal Resources Maine Volunteer Lawyers Maine Equal Justice Disability Rights Center Project Project Statewide Hotline: 800- Tel: 1-800-442-4293 Tel: 207-626-7058 or 452-1948 866-626-7059 Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 10 Massachusetts Massachusetts source of income discrimination law, Mass. GEN. Laws ANN. ch. 15113, § 4, prohibits discrimination against individuals or families receiving public assistance or rental subsidies, or because of any of the requirements of these programs. Date Enacted Amendments Source of income was originally included in subsection 10 of the Massachusetts law on Aug. 31, 1971. The law was later amended in 1989 to clarify language in order to overcome a damaging State Supreme Court interpretation. Relevant Case Law DiLiddo v Oxford StreetRealty, Inc., 876 N.E.2d 421 (Mass. 2007) (holding that the terms of the voucher program lease are requirements that cannot be rejected by landlords or their agents, and that agents can be held liable for discrimination). Attorney Gen. v. Brown, 511 N.E.2d 1103 (Mass. 1987) (finding that because a landlord did not discriminate against a Section 8 voucher holder"solely" on the basis of the tenant's status as a participant in the program, that the landlord's actions were lawful. The legislature subsequently removed "solely" and added new language that made it unlawful for a landlord to discriminate either because the person is a housing subsidy recipient or because of any requirements of the program.). Operative Language Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B § 4: "It shall be an unlawful practice: . . . For any person furnishing credit, services or rental accommodations to discriminate against any individual who is a recipient of federal, state, or local public assistance, including medical assistance, or who is a tenant receiving federal, state, or local housing subsidies, including rental assistance or rental supplements, because the individual is such a recipient, or because of any requirement of such public assistance, rental assistance, or housing subsidy program." Enforcement Massachusetts source of income discrimination law can be enforced through the Human Rights Commission or the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination. A plaintiff can file a complaint with the Commission against Discrimination. If the Commission finds probable cause,then it can commence a suit against the offender. If the offender so chooses, this suit may be resolved in the Superior Court. Additionally, the injured party can substitute herself in this suit so as to seek damages against the landlord. Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B § 3(1-7). Attorney's Fees Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 11 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 151B § 9 requires that a prevailing petitioner be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs "unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust." See also,Bandera v. City of Quincy, 220 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D. Mass. 2002). (holding that mediation fees were includable as part of the reasonable attorney fees and costs allowed by court under Massachusetts civil rights statute). Organizations Helping Victims of Discrimination If you have a question, or believe you have been a victim of housing discrimination, you may contact: Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (www.state.ma.us/mcad/) Boston Office Worcester Office (617) 994-6000 (508) 799-8010 Springfield Office New Bedford Office (413) 739-2145 (508) 990-2390 Minnesota Minnesota's source of income ("public assistance") law was enacted in 1990. It was later undermined by judicial interpretation in 2003. MINN. STAT. ANN. § 363A.09. Date Enacted Minnesota's source of income ("public assistance") law was enacted in 1990. Relevant Case Law Edwards v. Hopkins Plaza Ltd. Partnership, 783 NW.2d 171 (Minn. App., 2010) held that participation in Section 8 programs was voluntary and thus it is not"unlawful for property owners to either refuse to rent, or refuse to continue renting,to tenant-based Section 8 recipients based on a legitimate business decision not to participate in Section 8 programs." Operative Language MINN. STAT. ANN. § 363A.09: "`Status with regard to public assistance' means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements." Enforcement: In Minnesota, unfair discriminatory practice must be brought as a civil action pursuant to section 363A.33, subdivision 1,filed in a charge with the Department of Human Rights Commission pursuant to section 363A.07, subdivision 3. One may also file a private cause of action as granted in Sec. 363A.28. • The department can issue complaints, receive and investigate charges alleging unfair discrimination, determine whether probable cause exists for a hearing, Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 12 subpoena witnesses, take testimony, require production of materials for examination, attempt to eliminate unfair discriminatory practice (Sec. 363A.06). • There is a private cause of action granted in Sec. 363A.28. Any person can either bring a civil action or file a verified charge with the commissioner. Attorney's Fees Minn. Stat. Ann. § 363A.33 governs allocation of attorney's fees and allows for an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party at the court's discretion. New .Tercet' The New Jersey's housing discrimination laws were amended in 2002 to include source of income discrimination. New Jersey law makes it illegal for a landlord to refuse to rent to a person because the person has a Section 8 voucher or another type of housing assistance. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 10:5-12(g). This applies to tenants who obtain Section 8 assistance while already tenants in a house or apartment and to tenants who are seeking to rent from a landlord for the first time. A landlord cannot refuse to accept rental assistance from a tenant and then turn around and sue to evict that tenant for nonpayment of rent. See Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602 (1999). Date Enacted The New Jersey's discrimination laws: N.J. STAT. ANN. §10: 5-12 was amended in 2002 to include source of income discrimination. Relevant Case Law Bell v. TowerMQmt. Services, L.P., A-3165-08T3, 2010 WL 2346651 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. June 11, 2010). Reversing and remanding dismissal of complaint alleging SOI and reasonable accommodation violations by landlord refusing to accept housing subsidy for persons with disabilities because it didn't meet annual income limitations. "The complaint clearly states a cause of action for discrimination based on the adoption of a policy that is allegedly not justified by business necessity but which allegedly has the impact of excluding almost all applicants who intend to pay their rent through an S-RAP subsidy." The leading case on section 8 voucher law,Pasquince v. Brighton Arms Apartments, 378 N.J. Super. 588 (App. Div. 2005), has not set positive precedent in the state, but is very fact specific. In Pasquince, the court held that a person with a Section 8 voucher could be denied an apartment if he/she had a poor credit history, even though the poor credit was a result of disability. Franklin Tower One v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602 (1999) (upholding the statute stating that Section 8 vouchers are covered by source of income protection because the statute prohibits discrimination not only against source of income but also against the source of a lawful rent payment). Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 13 T.K. v. Landmark West, 802 A.2d 527, (N.J. Super. App., 2002) (finding that trial court did not violate statute and substitute its standards for landlord's business judgment in determining tenant's creditworthiness when it found that tenant's disputed credit problems were used by landlord as a pretext;though statute did not limit landlords from refusing to rent based on creditworthiness, it was up to trial court to make assessment of credibility). Operative Lan2na2e N.J. STAT. ANN. §10:5-4 (2002): "All persons shall have the opportunity to obtain employment, and to obtain all the accommodations, advantages,facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation, publicly assisted housing accommodation, and other real property without discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, familial status, disability, nationality, sex or source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments, subject only to conditions and limitations applicable alike to all persons. This opportunity is recognized as and declared to be a civil right." Enforcement Housing discrimination claims in New Jersey can be handled either administratively, through the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights, or via civil action. Attornev's Fees N.J. STAT. ANN. 10:5-27.1 governs attorney's fees and allows the prevailing party to be awarded "reasonable attorney's fees"but also includes a bad faith exception. Organizations Helping Victims of Discrimination Low-income New Jerseyans can get free legal help by calling toll-free hotline at 1-888- LSNJ-LAW (1-888-576-5529), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Outside of New Jersey;they can call 732-572-9100 and ask to be transferred to the hotline. North Dakota The North Dakota Code Chapter 14-02.4 and 14-02.5,the Human Rights laws and Housing Discrimination code, govern source of income discrimination ("status with regard to public assistance"). Source of income discrimination is specifically prohibited under N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-02.5-07, passed in 1999. It became the policy of North Dakota not to discriminate based on source of income in 1983 under N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-02.4-01. Date Enacted Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 14 N.D. CENT. CODE, § 14-02.4-01 was passed in 1983 N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-02.5-07 was passed in 1999. Operative Language: N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-02.4-02: "`Status with regard to public assistance' means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements." Enforcement North Dakota's source of income discrimination can be enforced through filing a complaint with the Human Rights Division within the Department of Labor, or by filing a private right of action. If the department determines that there is probable cause but cannot resolve the complaint through negotiations or conciliation, the department will provide for an administrative hearing. Attornev's Fees § 14-02.5-44 governs the allocation of attorney's fees and provides for the allocation of "reasonable attorney's fees"to the prevailing party. Oklahoma The Oklahoma's source of income discrimination law, OKLA. ST. tit. 25, § 1452 was added by Laws 1985, c. 289, § 2 and amended by Laws 1991, c. 177, § 3. Date Enacted Oklahoma's source of income discrimination law was added in 1985 and amended in 1991. Operative Language OKLA. ST. tit. 25, § 1452: "A. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory housing practice for any person, or any agent or employee of such person: . . . 8. To refuse to consider as a valid source of income any public assistance, alimony, or child support, awarded by a court, when that source can be verified as to its amount, length of time received, regularity, or receipt because of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, familial status, or handicap...." Enforcement Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 15 Oklahoma's source of income discrimination law may be enforced by filing a complaint with the Human Rights Commission or by filing a private cause of action suit within the required statutory period. Attornev's Fees Attorney's fees are governed by OKLA. ST. tit. 25, §1506.8, which provides for "reasonable attorney's fees"to the prevailing party. Oregon Oregon illegal discrimination law, OR. REV. STAT. § 659a.421, was passed in 1995. The Housing Choice Act of 2013 was passed in 2013 (HB 2639). It will be effective July 1, 2014 (Oregon Laws Chapter 740). - Amends ORS 659A.421(1)(d)to include federal rent subsidy payments under 42 U.S.0 1437f, and any other local, state, or federal housing assistance, in the definition of the term "source of income." Date Enacted Oregon's illegal discrimination law, OR. REV. STAT. § 659a.421, was passed in 1995. Operative Language OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.421: "`Source of income' does not include federal rent subsidy payments under 42 U.S.C. 1437f, income derived from a specific occupation or income derived in an illegal manner." "A person may not, because of the race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, familial status or source of income of any person: (a) Refuse to sell, lease or rent any real property to a purchaser. . . ." AMENDMENT WITH BILL: A landlord may not refuse to rent to an applicant or tenant, or treat an applicant or tenant differently from others, because their source of income is a Section 8 voucher or other form of housing assistance. o Under Oregon's current fair housing law, a landlord cannot discriminate against an applicant or a tenant based on the tenant/applicant's source of income. However, current law exempts housing assistance from the definition of the term "source of income." o HB 2639 removes this exemption, effective July 1, 2014, and provides that Oregon's "source of income"fair housing protections apply to applicants and tenants who are voucher holders or recipients of federal, state, or local housing assistance. o Under the new law, a landlord may not refuse to rent to a person or treat a person differently from other applicants or tenants because their source of income is a Section 8 voucher or other form of housing assistance. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 16 Enforcement Enforcement is governed by OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.825. The statute may be enforced by filing a complaint with the Bureau of Labor and Industries or by filing a private cause of action in circuit court. A complaint may similarly be filed by the Attorney General. Attorney's Fees The allocation of attorney's fees is governed by OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.885. Reasonable attorney's fees are allowable at the court's discretion subject to certain exceptions. In a housing discrimination case, the court "shall award reasonable attorney fees to the commissioner if the commissioner prevails in the action." OR. REV. STAT. § 659A.885(8). IJtah Utah's Fair Housing Act, UTAH CODE ANN. § 57-21-5, was passed in 1989 and amended to add source of income discrimination in 1993. Date Enacted UTAH CODE ANN. § 57-21-5 was amended to add source of income discrimination in 1993. Relevant Cases There are no cases citing the source of income provision. There are no cases pending. According to practitioners, the eviction laws favor landlords so extremely, that they are reluctant to take on section 8 recipients for fear of being subjected to additional federal requirements. If you are interested in additional information regarding Utah, please contact Marty Blaustein at mblaustein@utahlegalservices.org, (801)328-8891 x 3328. Operative Language: UTAH CODE ANN. § 57-21-5: "(1) It is a discriminatory housing practice to do any of the following because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, source of income, or disability: (a)refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental, or otherwise deny or make unavailable any dwelling from any person; (b) discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of any dwelling or in providing facilities or services in connection with the dwelling; or (c)represent to any person that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when in fact the dwelling is available." Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 17 Enforcement: Utah's source of income discrimination laws may be enforced pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 57-21-(8-12)by filing a complaint with the Division of Antidiscrimination and Labor under the Labor Commission. One may also file a private right of action. A civil action may be filed by an individual or by the division. Attornev's Fees Reasonable attorney's fess are provided for under UTAH CODE ANN. § 57-21-11 at the court's discretion. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 18 Vermont Vermont's source of income (referred to as public assistance) discrimination law is codified at VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 4503 and was passed in 1987. Date Enacted Vermont's source of income discrimination law VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 4503 was passed in 1987. Statutory Language VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 4503: "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person: (1) To refuse to sell or rent, or refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling or other real estate to any person because of the race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, marital status, religious creed, color, national origin, or handicap of a person, or because a person intends to occupy a dwelling with one or more minor children, or because a person is a recipient of public assistance." Enforcement: Vermont source of income discrimination may be enforced pursuant to VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 4506 by filing a claim with the Human Rights Commission established under sec. 4551, or a private right of action in state or federal court. The commission has jurisdiction to investigate and enforce complaints of unlawful discrimination, including that based upon receiving public assistance. Attornev's Fees Under VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 4506 (b), "the court may award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to an aggrieved person who prevails in an action . . ." Organizations Helnin2 Victims of Discrimination Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides free civil legal services including for housing issues. Phone: 800-889-2047 The Vermont Human Rights Commission is a Vermont State Agency that investigates and adjudicates charges of housing discrimination. It is a neutral body. Phone: 800-416-2010 Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO)'s Fair Housing Project does intake and referral of housing discrimination victims to the HRC and to VLA. Phone: 802-862-2771 Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 19 Wisconsin WIS. STAT. § 106.50 was amended in 1980 to include lawful source of income discrimination protection and authorizes the Department to promulgate such rules as are necessary to carry out this section. Lawful source of income includes: wages, a voucher having monetary value, social security, public assistance or other related payments. However, Wisconsin state law has held that lawful source of income does not include Section 8 federal rent assistance. See Knapp v. Eagle Property Management Corp., 54 F.3d 1272 (Wis. 1995). Date Enacted WIS. STAT. § 106.50 was amended in 1980 to include lawful source of income discrimination protection. Relevant Case Law Knapp v. Eagle Property Management Corp., 54 F.3d 1272 (Wis. 1995) (finding that Section 8 federal rent assistance vouchers were not"lawful source of income" within meaning of Wisconsin Open Housing Act provision prohibiting landlords from discriminating in housing on basis of lawful source of income). Fernandez-Tome v. Joseph(LIRC, 07/25/90) (finding a violation of the statute where Respondent stated he preferred to rent to "two working people"where complainant was known to accept social security). Statutory Language WIS. STAT. § 106.50 - Open housing "(1) Intent. It is the intent of this section to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry and it is the duty of the political subdivisions to assist in the orderly prevention or removal of all discrimination in housing through the powers granted under ss. 66.0125 and 66.1011. . . 1(m) Definition: (h) "Discriminate"means to segregate, separate, exclude or treat a person or class of persons unequally in a manner described in sub. (2), (2m) or(2r) because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, lawful source of income, age or ancestry." Enforcement Wisconsin's source of income discrimination law may be enforced by filing a complaint with the Equal Rights Division, or by filing a private cause of action in court. Individuals can file complaints charging discrimination violations. Attornev's Fees WIS. STAT. §106.50(6) allows for reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing complainant. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 20 Organizations Helnin2 Victims of Discrimination Fair Housing Council • Fair Housing Council can help one understand one's rights under the law and outline a variety of ways to pursue a complaint. • To determine if a Fair Housing Council serves your area of the state, contact the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council at(414) 278-1240. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 21 LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES California* *Please consult a California attorney for advice on the applicability of the following local ordinances. The case of ApartmentAss'n,Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 136 Cal. App. 4th 119(2006)held that a Los Angeles ordinance,LAMC 151.04,which prohibits landlord from raising the rent after opting out of the Section 8 voucher program,was preempted by state law. The precedent created by this decision may also affect the source of income discrimination protections in the local ordinances below. Corte Madera: Citation: Anti-Discrimination Ordinance, Chapter 5.30 Date passed: 2000 (unverified) Operative Language: "It is unlawful for the owner or manager of rental housing to discriminate against an existing tenant on the basis of that tenant's use of a Section 8 rent subsidy. It is a violation of this prohibition for a property owner or manager to refuse to accept a Section 8 rent subsidy for which an existing tenant qualifies, or to terminate the tenancy of an existing tenant based on the property owner's or manager's refusal to participate in a Section 8 rent subsidy program for which an existing tenant has qualified." Administrative or court enforcement: Both(mediation or civil action for damages/injunctive relief) East Palo Alto: Citation: East Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 14.16.010 Date passed: 11/06/2000 Operative Language: "For purposes of this subsection, `source of income' means all lawful sources of income or rental assistance program, homeless assistance program, security deposit assistance program or housing subsidy program. Source of income includes any requirement of any such program or source of income or rental assistance." Administrative or court enforcement: Court San Francisco: Citation: San Francisco Police Code Art. 33, §3304 Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 22 Date passed: 07/31/1998 Operative Language: "For purposes of this Subsection (a), "source of income" means all lawful sources of income or rental assistance from any federal, State, local, or nonprofit-administered benefit or subsidy program. "Source of income" also means a rental assistance program, homeless assistance program, security deposit assistance program or housing subsidy program. "Source of income" includes any requirement of any such program or source of income, or rental assistance." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Discretionary Illinois Chicago: Citation: Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance §5-08-030 Date passed: 1990 Operative Language: "Source of income: means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Discretionary Cook County: Citation: Cook County Code of Ordinances Sec. 42-37, 42-38 Date passed: 5/8/2013 (and to become effective 90 days after) Operative Language: "`Source of income' means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents." *** After the new ordinance was passed on 5/8/2013, "source of income" now includes protections for Housing Choice Voucher Holders. Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Attorneys fees: Yes Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 23 Harwood Heights: Citation: Harwood Heights Municipal Code Title 19 Date passed: 8/13/2009 Operative Language: "It is declared to be the public policy of the Village of Harwood Heights ("village"), in the exercise of its power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare, to assure fair housing and freedom from discrimination throughout the community, to protect the community from the effects of residential segregation based upon a person's race, color, sex, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, military discharge status, source of income, gender identity, or housing status, and to secure its citizens the economic, social, and professional benefits of living in a stable, integrated society." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative with right of judicial review Attorneys fees: No Naperville: Citation: Naperville Ordinance 00-92 Date passed: 6/6/2000 Operative Language: "Unlawful Discrimination: Discrimination against a person because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, familial status, physical or mental handicap or disability, military status, sexual orientation, or legal source of income." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Urbana: Citation: Urbana City Code Ch. 12 Date passed: 11/17/1975 Operative Language: "Source of income. The point or form of the origination of legal gains of income accruing to a person in a stated period of time; from any occupation, profession or activity,from any contract, agreement or settlement, from federal, state or local payments, including Section 8 or any other rent subsidy or rent assistance program, Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 24 from court ordered payments or from payments received as gifts, bequests, annuities or life insurance policies." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative, pursuant to judicial review of commission decision. Wheeling: Citation: Wheeling Human Rights Ordinance Ch. 6.14 Date passed: 1995 Operative Language: "'Source of income' means the lawful manner by which an individual supports himself or herself and his or her dependents." BUT: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this title, nothing contained in this chapter shall require any person who does not participate in the federal Section 8 Housing Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. 1437f)to accept any subsidy, payment assistance, voucher or contribution under or in connection with such program or to lease or rent to any tenant or prospective tenant who is relying on such a subsidy, payment assistance, contribution or voucher for payment of part of the rent for such housing accommodation." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Maryland Frederick: Citation: Frederick City Code, Appendix F Date passed: 5/16/2002 Operative Language: "'Source of Income' means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing including: (1) Any lawful profession or occupation; (2) The condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local government assistance, including medical assistance, subsidies, rental assistance, or rent supplements; (3) Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support,trust or investment accounts, or other consideration or benefit; and (4) Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Attorneys fees: Yes Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 25 Howard County: Citation: Howard County Fair Housing Ordinance §§12.200-12.218. Date passed: 1992 Operative Language: "Source of income means any lawful source of money that is paid to or for the benefit of a renter or buyer of housing, including: (1) A lawful profession or occupation; (2) A Federal, State or local government assistance, grant or loan program; (3) A private assistance, grant or loan program . . . ." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative, civil action only if authorized by the Human Rights Commission Attorneys fees: Discretionary Montgomery County: Citation: Montgomery County Code, Ch. 27 Date passed: 1991 Operative Language: "Any lawful source of income (grant, gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, government or private assistance) or occupation must be considered in determining qualifications for rental or sale of property and these sources of income and occupation may be verified." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Only upon finding of§27-8 violation. Massachusetts Note that Massachusetts also has a statewide voucher discrimination law Boston: Citation: City of Boston Municipal Code Ch. 10-3 Date passed: 1980/2002? Operative Language: "It is the policy of the City of Boston to see that each individual, regardless of his/her race, color, religious creed, marital status, military status, handicap, Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 26 children, national origin, sex gender identity or expression, age, ancestry, sexual preference or source of income shall have equal access to housing and to encourage and bring about mutual understanding and respect among all individuals in the City by the elimination of prejudice, intolerance, bigotry and discrimination in the area of housing." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Cambridge: Citation: Cambridge Municipal Code § 14.04.030 Date passed: 1992 Operative Language: "'Source of income' means public assistance recipiency. "Source of income" shall not include income derived from criminal activity." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: No Quincy: Citation: Quincy Municipal Code § 2.150.010 Date passed: 1992/93? Operative Language: "'Source of income' means public assistance recipiency. "Source of income" shall not include income derived from criminal activity." Administrative or court enforcement: Court Revere: Citation: Revere Municipal Code §9.28.080 Date passed: 1994 Operative Language: "'Source of income' means the manner or means by which an individual supports herself or himself and his or her dependents, except in this chapter it shall not include any criminal activity from which a source of income is derived." Administrative or court enforcement: Human Rights commission can "refer individuals with complaints to the appropriate state or federal agency of any violation [based on source of income]." Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 27 Michigan Ann Arbor: Citation: Ann Arbor City Code Ch. 112, § 9:150 et seq. Date passed: 03/17/1978 Operative Language: "Source of income. Any legal source from which a person obtains money." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Hamburg: Citation: Hamburg Local Law Ch. 109-3 Date passed: 3/14/2005 Operative Language: "It shall be unlawful: A: To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or to deny any dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, disability, national origin, source of income, sexual orientation or because the person has a child or children." Administrative or court enforcement: Court Attorneys fees: Discretionary Grand Rapids: Citation: Grand Rapids City Code Ch. 160, §9.361 et seq. Date passed: 07/11/2000 Operative Language: "Source of lawful income means consistent income derived from wages, social security, supplemental security income, all forms of federal, state or local assistance payments or subsidies, Section 8 assistance, child support, alimony and public assistance which can be verified and substantiated." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 28 New York Buffalo: Citation: Buffalo Code of Ordinances §154-12 et seq. Date passed: 5/2/2006 Operative Language: "Source of Income: Payments from a lawful occupation or employment, as well as other payments including, but not limited to, public assistance, supplemental security income, pensions, annuities, unemployment benefits, government subsidies such as Section 8 or other housing subsidies." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Hamburg: Citation: Hamburg General Code Ch. 109 Date passed: 3/14/2005 Operative Language: "Source of Income: Any income or source of rent payment from lawful sources." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Nassau County: Citation: Nassau County Administrative Code §21-9.7 Date passed: Dec. 13, 2000 Operative Language: "`Source of income' means any lawful source of income, including federal, state, local, non-profit assistance or subsidy program." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 29 New York City: Citation: New York Administrative Code Tit. 8, Ch.1, §8-101 New York City Human Rights Law N.Y., Code § 8-107 Date passed: 3/26/2008 Operative Language: "The term "lawful source of income" shall include income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance including section 8 vouchers." §8-107(5): Housing accommodations, land, commercial space and lending practices. (a) Housing accommodations. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for the owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or an interest therein, or any agent or employee thereof: (1) To refuse to sell, rent, lease, approve the sale, rental or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons such a housing accommodation or an interest therein because of any lawful source of income of such person or persons. (2) To discriminate against any person because of any lawful source of income of such person. (3) To declare, print or circulate or cause to be declared, printed or circulated any statement, advertisement or publication, or to use any form of application for the purchase, rental or lease of such a housing accommodation or an interest therein or to make any record or inquiry in conjunction with the prospective purchase, rental or lease of such a housing accommodation or an interest therein which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to any lawful source of income. Relevant Cases to § 8-107(5) L.C. V. LeFrak OrQanization Inc. (2013 WL 6569868): Plaintiffs stated plausible claims under NYCHRL for intentional disability discrimination and discrimination based on source of income. Wilson v. Phoenix House (42 Misc.3d 677): Focuses on gender discrimination but uses above law. Administrative or court enforcement: Both Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 30 West Seneca: Citation: West Seneca Fair Housing Code Ch. 71 Date passed: 3/5/1979 Operative Language: "It shall be unlawful:http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=WE0417&Quid-6842330&i=23 A. To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, national origin, source of income or because the person has a child or children." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Discretionary Westchester: Citation: Local Law No, 6057-2013, Chapter 700, Article II, Sec Date passed: 06/17/2013 Operative Language: "It shall be unlawful:http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=WE0417&Quid-6842330&i=23 A. To refuse to sell or rent or refuse to negotiate for the sale or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, handicap, national origin, source of income or because the person has a child or children." "`Source of income' shall mean, as it relates to unlawful discriminatory real estate practices, lawful, verifiable income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance or housing assistance, grant of loan program, including the federal housing subsidy known as `Section 8,' any disability payment, and assistance, or grant or loan program from a private housing assistance organization." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Discretionary Relevant Cases 35 Ossining LLC v. Thornton (981 N.Y.S.2d 503) County of Westchester v. U.S. Dept. ofHousing and Urban Development(2013 WL 4400843): In order to receive certain federal funding from HUD, the County must certify that it will meet a variety of fair housing obligations, including that the County will affirmatively further fair housing("AFFIT). See 42 U.S.C. § 5304(b)(2).1 As part of its Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 31 duty to AFFIL the County was required to conduct an analysis of impediments, or AI, that analyzes the existence and impact of racial discrimination in barriers to housing opportunities. In the 2009 Opinion, the Court ruled that the County's certifications to HUD were false as a matter of law. Later that year, on August 10, 2009, the United States and the County entered into a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal ("Settlement"), which required the County inter alia to complete a revised Al analyzing impediments to fair housing based on race that must be deemed acceptable by HUD; promote a model zoning ordinance to advance fair housing; and promote legislation to ban source-of-income discrimination in housing. District Court affirmed and held for HUD which penalized the county. Ohio City of Wickliffe, Ohio: Citation: Chapter 1103, codified ordinances of the City of Wickliffe http://www.conwgygreene.com/wickliffe/lpext.dll?f—templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0 Date passed: Ord. 2009-30. Passed 6-8-09 Operative Language: "Source of Income" is not defined in the ordinance, but all forms of housing discrimination based on source of income are prohibited. Administrative or court enforcement: Court Attorneys fees: None listed Pennsylvania Borough of State College: Citation: Code of Ordinances of the Borough of State College Ch. V, §501 et seq. Date passed: 3/9/1993 Operative Language: "'Source of income' means income received through any legal means including, but not limited to, wages, salaries, interest, dividends, child support, alimony, public assistance, pensions or other retirement benefits, social security or other documentation of ability to pay. Nothing herein shall be construed to mean a landlord must rent to someone who does not have the ability to pay." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative. If mediation fails, subsequent civil enforcement may be available. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 32 Attorneys fees: Yes Philadelphia: Citation: Philadelphia Code Ch. 9-1100 et seq. Date passed: 1980 Operative Language: "Source oflncome. Shall include any lawful source of income, and shall include, but not be limited to, earned income, child support, alimony, insurance and pension proceeds, and all forms of public assistance, including Aid For Dependent Children and housing assistance programs." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Washington Bellevue Citation: Bellevue City Code 9.20.045 Date passed: 1/30/1990 Operative Language: "No person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant solely on the basis that the applicant proposes to rent such unit pursuant to a Section 8 voucher or certificate issued under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 USC 1437(F)); provided this section shall only apply with respect to a Section 8 certificate if the monthly rent on such residential unit is within the limits of fair market rent as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: No King County Citation: King County Code 12.20.040 Date passed: 3/2006 Operative Language: "`Discriminate' means any action or failure to act, whether by single act or as part of a practice, the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 33 between or among individuals or groups of individuals, because or race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, gender, marital status, parental status, participation in the Section 8 program, sexual orientation, disability, or use of a service or assistive animal by an individual with a disability." "'Participation in the Section 8 program' means participating in a federal, state or local government program in which a tenant's rent is paid partially by the government,through a direct contract between the government program and the owner or lessor of the real property, and partially by the tenant." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Redmond Citation: City of Redmond Ordinance No. 2645, Ch. 6.38.010, 6.3 8.020 Date passed: 2/7/2012 Operative Language: "(A)No person shall refuse to rent a dwelling unit to any rental applicant solely on the basis that the applicant proposes to rent such a unit pursuant to a Section 8 voucher or certificate under the House and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 USC 1437(F)); provided this section shall only apply with respect to a Section 8 certificate if the monthly rent on such residential unit is within the allowable rent as established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. `Dwelling unit' shall have the meaning set forth in RZC 21.78." Exceptions for this ordinance included permanent residents who are renting, sub-renting, leasing, or subleasing a single-family dwelling(6.38.030(A)(1)) or religious organizations wishing to rent to the same religion (6.38.030(A)(3)). Seattle Citation: Seattle Municipal Code 14.08.040 Date passed: 12/11/1989 Operative Language: "`Discrimination' means any conduct, whether by single act or as part of a practice, the effect of which is to adversely affect or differentiate between or among individuals or groups of individuals, because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, parental status, sexual orientation, gender identity, political ideology, honorably discharged veteran or military status, Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 34 participation in a Section 8 program, the presence of any disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person." "`Section 8 program' means a federal, state or local government program in which a tenant's rent is paid partially by the government program (through a direct contract between the government program and the owner or lessor of the real property), and partially by the tenant." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: Yes Wisconsin Note that Wisconsin also has a statewide voucher discrimination law Cambridge Citation: Village of Cambridge Wisconsin Code of Ordinances § 9.36.010 Date passed: Operative Language: "It is declared to be the policy of the village to assure equal opportunity to all persons to live in adequate housing facilities regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap, sexual preference, marital status of persons maintaining a household, lawful source of income, place of birth, or age, and, to that end, to prohibit discrimination in housing by any persons." Note, however, that although it is `declared policy' that source of income discrimination is impermissible, the subsequent sections of the code only specifically protect"race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, handicap, marital status, sexual preference, sex, age, or place of birth." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Dane County Citation: Dane County Code Ch. 31 Date passed: 8/6/1987 Operative Language: "Discriminate and discrimination mean to segregate, separate, exclude or treat any person or class of persons unequally because of race, gender, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status of the person maintaining the household, family status, mental illness, physical condition, appearance, lawful source of income, including receipt of rental assistance under 24 Code of Federal Regulations Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 35 Subtitle B, Chapter VIII [the "Section 8"housing program], student status, arrest or conviction record, sexual orientation, military discharge status or political beliefs." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Attorneys fees: No Madison Citation: Madison Code of Ordinances §39.03 Date passed: 10/29/1977 Operative Language: "Source of income includes, but shall not be limited to, moneys received from public assistance, pension, and Supplementary Security Income (SSI). Source of income shall be limited to legally derived income." "Housing. It shall be an unfair discrimination practice and unlawful and hereby prohibited for any person having the right of ownership or possession or the right of transfer, sale, rental or lease of any housing, or the agent of any such person: (a) To refuse to transfer, sell, rent or lease, to refuse to negotiate for the sale, lease, or rental or otherwise to make unavailable, deny or withhold from any person such housing because of sex, race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry, age, handicap/disability, marital status, source of income, including receipt of rental assistance under 24 Code of Federal Regulations Subtitle B, Chapter VIII [the "Section 8" housing program] . . ." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Attorneys fees: No Ripon Citation: Ripon Municipal Code § 12.48 Date passed: 12/21/1988 Operative Language: "In connection with any of the transactions set forth in this section which affect any housing accommodation on the open market or in connection with any public sale, purchase, rental, financing or lease of any housing accommodation, it is unlawful within the city of Ripon for a person, owner, financial institution, real estate broker or real estate salesman, or any representative of the above,to: A. Refuse to sell, purchase, rent or lease, or deny to or withhold any housing accommodation from a person because of his or her race, color, religion, age, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, marital status,familial status, lawful source of income, or place of birth" Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 36 Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Sun Prairie Citation: Sun Prairie Code of Ordinances § 9.20.010 Date passed: 10/6/2007 Operative Language: "`Protected class' includes persons of a specific race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap, sexual preference, marital status of person maintaining a household, lawful source of income, place of birth, age or other federal or state designated protected classes for purposes of fair housing." "'Discrimination' or `discriminatory housing practice' means any difference in treatment based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or any act that is unlawful under this chapter. Discrimination as defined in this chapter does not include, and specifically exempts defining any of the following as protected classes for purposes of fair housing discrimination unless required by state statute or federal law: . . . 5. Refusal of Section 8 housing tenants, if not otherwise income qualified, if the owner has either refused all Section 8 tenants or if they have previously set capacity controls on the number of Section 8 units allowed within the property." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative Attorneys fees: ? Wauwatosa Citation: Wauwatosa Municipal Code § 15.22 Date passed: 8/5/1986 Operative Language: "'Discriminate' and `discrimination' mean to segregate, separate, exclude or treat any person unequally only because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation as defined in Section 111.32(13m) of the Wisconsin Statutes, handicap, religion, national origin, familial status, sex or marital status of the person maintaining a household, lawful source of income, age or ancestry." Administrative or court enforcement: Court Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 37 Other Local Ordinances Wilmington, Delaware: Citation: Wilmington City Code, Art. III, §35-76 et seq. Date passed: Operative Language: "Except as provided in section 35-80 it shall be an unlawful practice for any person because of race, age, marital status, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, national origin, or economic or family status to: (1) Refuse to sell or rent to those who are welfare recipients, or who are dependent upon other fixed incomes, or to a parent with minor children, or to handicapped persons, if such refusal is based only upon the status of the applicant as stated above. . . ." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Miami- Dade County, Florida: Citation: Florida, Code of Ordinances Sec.1 1A-11(12) Date passed: August 3, 2009 Operative Language: "Source of income shall mean the lawful, verifiable income paid directly to a tenant or paid to a representative of a tenant, including, but not limited to, Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, Supplemental Security Income, Social Security, pensions and other retirement benefits." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Iowa City, Iowa: Citation: Iowa City Code, Tit. 2, Ch 5, §1 et seq. Date passed: 05/28/1997 Operative Language: "It shall be an unlawful or discriminatory practice for any person to: A. Refuse to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest therein, to any person because of the age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 38 marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income of that person." Administrative or court enforcement: Both Saint Louis, Missouri Citation: St. Louis City Ordinance 67119 Date passed: 06/13/2006 Operative Language: "It shall be a prohibited housing or realty practice and shall constitute a discriminatory housing practice: (a) For any person, including, without limitation any real estate broker, salesman or agent, or any employee thereof,to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, legal source of income, disability, national origin or ancestry, with respect to the use, enjoyment or transfer, or prospective use, enjoyment or transfer, of any interest whatsoever in realty . . ." Administrative or court enforcement: Administrative and then judicial review Attorneys fees: Yes Memphis, Tennessee: Citation: City of Memphis Fair Housing Ordinance, Ord. 4932 §10-36-1 Date passed: 3/5/2002 Operative language: "'Source of income' means a regular, verifiable income, or its equivalent, from which an individual can pay rental, mortgage or other payments associated with the provision of housing. The term shall specifically include Section 8 vouchers or certificates issued by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development" Administrative or court enforcement: both Attorneys fees: yes Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 39 PROPOSED LEGISLATION HAWAII Citation: Hawaii Senate Bill No. 805 Status as of April 2014: Carried over to 2014 Regular Session Operative Lanauaae: ""Source of income"means any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including: (1) Any lawful profession or occupation; (2) Any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including low-income housing assistance certificates and vouchers under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended;" http://capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=805 Citation: Hawaii House Bill No. 676 Status as of April 2014: Carried over to 2014 Regular Session Operative Lanauaae: ""Source of income"means any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including: (1) Any lawful profession or occupation; (2) Any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including low-income housing assistance certificates and vouchers under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended;" http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber-676 MARYLAND Citation: Maryland House Bill 168 Status as of April 2014: Unfavorable Report by Environmental Matters Withdrawn Operative Lanauaae: "'Source of Income"'means any lawful source of money paid directly or indirectly to, or on behalf of, a renter or buyer of housing. Source of income includes income from: (1) A lawful profession, occupation, or job; (2) Any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including low-income housing assistance certificates and vouchers issued under the United States Housing Act of 1937." htti):Hmlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/hbO 168.htm Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 40 Citation: Maryland Senate Bill No. 643 Status as of April 2014: Referred to Committee Operative Language: "SOURCE OF INCOME" INCLUDES INCOME FROM: (I) A LAWFUL PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, OR JOB; (II) ANY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE ASSISTANCE, GRANT, LOAN, OR RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, INCLUDING LOW-INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE CERTIFICATES AND VOUCHERS ISSUED UNDER THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937; htty://mlis.state.and.us/201 lrs/billfile/sb0643.htm Citation: Maryland Senate Bill No. 487 Status as of April 2014: Recommitted to Judicial Proceedings Operative Language: SOURCE OF INCOME" INCLUDES INCOME FROM: (I) A LAWFUL PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, OR JOB; (II) ANY GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE ASSISTANCE, GRANT, LOAN, OR RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, INCLUDING LOW-INCOME HOUSING ASSISTANCE CERTIFICATES AND VOUCHERS ISSUED UNDER THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937 http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sbO487F.pdf NEW YORK Citation: New York Senate Bill No. 3702 Status as of April 2014: Referred To Investigations and Government Operations Operative Language: "The term "source of income", when used in this article, means any lawful source of income paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including: (a) any lawful profession or occupation; (b) any government or private assistance, grant or loan program;" http://open.Liysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S3702-2011 Citation: New York Senate Bill No. 2885 Status as of April 2014: Referred To Investigations and Government Operations Operative Language: The term "lawful source of income" shall include, but not be limited to, the federal housing subsidy known as "section eight'. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 41 httv:Hopen.nvsenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2885-2011 Citation: New York Assembly Bill No. 10163 Status as of April 2014: Amended on third reading Operative Language: "The term "source of income" shall include: wages from lawful employment; child support; alimony; foster care subsidies; income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance; housing and rental subsidies and assistance, including section 8 vouchers; savings, investment and trust accounts; and any other forms of lawful income." http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default fld=&bn=A10163&term=2011&Summar y=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Teat=Y Citation: New York Assembly Bill No. 3812 Status as of November 2012: Introduced January 2011 Operative Language: "he term "source of income", when used in this article, means any lawful source of income paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including: (a) any lawful profession or occupation; (b) any government or private assistance, grant or loan program;" http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A03812&term=2011 Citation: New York Assembly Bill No. 1121 Status as of April 2014: Referred To Investigations and Government Operations Operative Language: "The term "source of income" shall include: wages from lawful employment; child support; alimony; foster care subsidies; income derived from social security, or any form of federal, state or local public assistance; housing and rental subsidies and assistance, including section 8 vouchers; savings, investment and trust accounts; and any other forms of lawful income." httv:Hassemblv.state.nv.us/leg/?default fld=%OD%OA&bn=1121&term=2011&S ummary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y AUSTIN, TEXAS On April 17, 2014 the Austin City Council a resolution directing the City Manager to process an ordinance that amends Chapter 5-1 (Housing Discrimination) of the City Code to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's "source of income,"to seek stakeholder recommendations, to present the proposed code amendment to certain City commissions, and to bring the proposed code amendment back to Council. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 42 httv://austin.siretechnoloRies.com/sirepub/agdocs.asvx?doctyye—agenda&itemid-31979 FEDERAL LAWS HOME PROGRAM 42 USC 12745 (a)(1)(D): "(a)(1) Housing that is for rental shall qualify as affordable housing under this subchapter only if the housing— (D) is not refused for leasing to a holder of a voucher or certificate of eligibility under section 1437f of this title because of the status of the prospective tenant as a holder of such voucher or certificate of eligibility" 24 CFR 92.252(d): "(d)Nondiscrimination against rental assistance subsidy holders. The owner cannot refuse to lease HOME-assisted units to a certificate or voucher holder under 24 CFR part 982 Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance: Unified Rule for Tenant-Based Assistance under the Section 8 Rental Certificate Program and the Section 8 Rental Voucher Program or to the holder of a comparable document evidencing participation in a HOME tenant-based rental assistance program because of the status of the prospective tenant as a holder of such certificate, voucher, or comparable HOME tenant-based assistance document Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program 26 U.S.C. § 42(h)(6)(B)(iv): "(6) Buildings eligible for credit only if minimum long-term commitment to low-income housing... (B) Extended low-income housing commitment. For purposes of this paragraph, the term `extended low-income housing commitment' means any agreement between the taxpayer and the housing credit agency... (iv) which prohibits the refusal to lease to a holder of a voucher or certificate of eligibility under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 because of the status of the prospective tenant as such a holder..." 26 C.F.R. § 1.42-5(c)(1)(xi): Regulations Relating to IRS "(c) Certification and review provisions (1) Certification. Under the certification provision, the owner of a low-income housing project must be required to certify at least annually to the Agency that, for the preceding 12- month period (xi) An extended low-income housing commitment as described in section 42(h)(6)was in effect(for buildings subject to section 7108(c)(1) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, 103 Stat. 2106, 2308-2311), including the requirement under section 42(h)(6)(B)(iv)that an owner cannot refuse to lease a unit in the project to an Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 43 applicant because the applicant holds a voucher or certificate of eligibility under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437f(for buildings subject to section 13142(b)(4) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 312, 438-439)" Mark-to-Market United State Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f 24 C.F.R § 401.556: Regulations Relating to HUD "A Restructuring Plan must prohibit any refusal of the owner to lease a unit solely because of the status of the prospective tenant as a section 8 voucher holder." Multifamily Properties Purchased from HUD National Housing Act, 12 U.S.0 § 1701z-12 "The Secretary shall require any purchaser of a multifamily housing project owned by the Secretary which is sold on or after October 1, 1978, to agree not to refuse unreasonably to lease a vacant dwelling unit in the project which rents for an amount not greater than the fair market rent for a comparable unit in the area as determined by the Secretary under section 1437f of Title 42 to a holder of a certificate of eligibility under that section solely because of such prospective tenant's status as a certificate holder." 24 C.F.R § 290.19: Regulations Relating to Multifamily properties purchased from HUD "The purchaser of any multifamily housing project shall not refuse unreasonably to lease a dwelling unit offered for rent, offer to sell cooperative stock, or otherwise discriminate in the terms of tenancy or cooperative purchase and sale because any tenant or purchaser is the holder of a Certificate of Family Participation or a Voucher under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), or any successor legislation. This provision is limited in its application, for tenants or applicants with Section 8 Certificates or their equivalent(other than Vouchers), to those units which rent for an amount not greater than the Section 8 Fair Market Rent, as determined by HUD. The purchaser's agreement to this condition must be contained in any contract of sale and also may be contained in any regulatory agreement, use agreement, or deed entered into in connection with the disposition." 24 C.F. R § 290.39: Regulations Relating to Multifamily properties purchased from HUD "(a)Nondiscrimination requirement. For any mortgage described in paragraphs (c) or(d) of this section that HUD sells without FHA mortgage insurance, the project owner shall not unreasonably refuse to lease a dwelling unit offered for rent, offer to sell cooperative stock, or otherwise discriminate in the terms of tenancy or cooperative purchase and sale because any tenant or purchaser is a certificate or voucher holder under 24 CFR part 982... Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 44 (c) Applicability to mortgages securing unsubsidized projects receiving project-based assistance (partially-assisted projects) or securing subsidized projects. (1) The nondiscrimination requirement in paragraph (a) of this section applies to the project owner upon the sale of a mortgage without FHA mortgage insurance if, at the time HUD offers it for sale, the mortgage secures: (i) An unsubsidized project that receives any of the forms of assistance enumerated in paragraphs (4)(i)to (4)(iv) of the "subsidized project" definition in § 290.5; or (ii) A subsidized project, as defined in § 290.3. (2) This requirement shall continue in effect until the mortgage debt is satisfied. (d) Covenant requirement for all delinquent mortgages sold without FHA mortgage insurance. This paragraph (d) applies to the sale of any mortgage that is delinquent at the time HUD offers it for sale without FHA mortgage insurance, without regard to the subsidy status of the project. The mortgage purchaser and its successors and assigns shall require the mortgagor to record a covenant running with the land as part of any loan restructuring or final compromise of the mortgage debt and shall include a covenant in any foreclosure deed executed in connection with the mortgage. The covenant shall set forth the nondiscrimination requirement in paragraph (a) of this section. The covenant shall continue in effect until a date that is the same as the maturity date of the mortgage sold by HUD." HUD Regulations and Notices See also HUD Notice PIH 2002-15 (HA) (June 7, 2002) Reinstatement- Notice PIH 2001-2 (HAs), Prohibition of Discrimination against Families with Housing Choice Vouchers by Owners of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME Developments (This Notice reinstates Notice PIH 2001-2 (HA), same subject, indefinitely. Notice PIH 2001-2 (HA) expired January 31, 2002) Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008—engrossed and referred to Senate committee In response to the federal loan and foreclosure crisis in the United States, the House of Representatives passed legislation which provided a loan and grant program for the distribution of money to areas severely impacted by foreclosures and predatory lending. Participants in this program cannot discriminate against holders of Section 8 vouchers. Section 8(h) of H.R. 5818. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 45 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Annotated Bibliograptiy: Law Reviews and Studies Law Review Articles on Source-of-Income Discrimination Paula Beck,Fighting Section 8 Discrimination: The Fair Housing Act's New Frontier, 31 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 155 (1996). Author discusses the failures of the section 8 program to promote integration, reviews the effectiveness of current state and federal laws to protect against source-of-income discrimination, and suggests that an amendment to the Fair Housing Act is needed. By prohibiting discrimination on the basis of source-of- income, the social and economic burdens of section 8 vouchers will be shifted from low income renters to the landlords and middle-income renters who are in a better position to absorb them. Kim Johnson-Spratt, Note,Housing Discrimination and Source oflncome:A Tenant's Losing Battle, 32 Ind. L. Rev. 457 (1999). Author presents an overview of source-of-income litigation and discusses remedies for the lack of protection given to source-of-income under federal law. Previous discrimination cases have met with success by molding source-of- income discrimination into discrimination of a protected category such as familial status or gender. In jurisdictions where source-of-income protection does exist, results have been mixed and suggest that existing protections are inadequate. Without a federal law banning source-of-income discrimination, section 8 voucher holders lack a meaningful choice in obtaining housing. The author examines Paula Beck's proposal to amend the Fair Housing Act and rejects the proposed amendment as incomplete and unlikely. The author further suggests that given legislative intent and the purpose of the section 8 statute and Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, protection against source-of-income discrimination may be implied in both laws. Given the public's fears of judicial activism, however,the best approach may be for HUD to promulgate a rule prohibiting discrimination on the basis of income source. Laura Bacon, Note, Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey: Creating a Meaningful Choice for Housing Choice Voucher Holders, 55 DePaul L. Rev. 1273 (2006). Author offers Chicago and its local law barring source-of-income discrimination as a potential model for creating a realistic solution to discrimination against section 8 voucher recipients. Focusing on the HCVP in Chicago,the author discusses the history of the program and its limited effectiveness in the face of source-of-income discrimination. The city's ordinance, subject to challenge in Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey, was upheld by the Illinois Appellate Court. The case may serve as an example to other cities and municipalities of the legal viability of local fair housing ordinances. Although there are shortcomings to the local Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 46 legislative approach, if states and cities add source-of-income protection to their legislative agendas, the goals of HCVP can be more likely realized. Tamica H. Daniel, Note,Bringing Real Choice to the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Addressing Voucher Discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act, 98 Geo. L.J. 769 (2010). Author provides an overview of the status of voucher discrimination under federal law and argues for an amendment to the Fair Housing Act which would add voucher holders as a protected class. The author analogizes to a similar legal climate as existed prior to the addition of familial status as a protected class under the Fair Housing Act in the 1980s. The author argues that current State, county and city statutes and ordinances which protect against source-of-income discrimination do not go far enough to significantly reduce the occurrences of voucher holder discrimination. The author argues that in lieu of a Congressional amendment to the Fair Housing Act,the courts could allow voucher holders to bring disparate impact claims for voucher discrimination, and thereby support the goals and purposes of the federal legislation. Related Law Review Articles Mark A. Malaspina, Note,Demanding the Best:How to Restructure the Section 8 Housing-Based Rental Assistance Program, 14 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 287 (1996). Author reviews the flaws in the section 8 program, noting that many of the program's problems result from inappropriate use of supply-side housing policies in a demand-side program (including federal eviction standards, housing quality requirements, and fixed payment structure which may fail to motivate voucher- holders). Author further suggests reforms to (1) improve the administration of the program by replacing local public housing authorities with regional government agencies, (2) increase mobility through the implementation of counseling services and extended deadlines for finding an acceptable apartment, and (3) introduce a new payment structure. Landlord acceptance of section 8 vouchers could be further increased by a federal nondiscrimination provision, barring source-of- income discrimination. Paul Boudreaux, Vouchers, Buses, and Flats: The Persistence of Social Segregation, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 55 (2004). Author presents an analysis of the failure of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in the face of the social trend towards racial and socio-economic segregation,the scarcity of affordable housing in many cities, and the difficulties of finding a landlord who will accept the voucher. Despite its goals,the rental subsidy program fails to protect its recipients from the discrimination that promotes segregation. Unless landlords are prevented from discrimination on the basis of source-of-income, real integration will not be possible. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 47 Kristine L. Zeabart, Note,Requiring a True Choice in Housing Choice Voucher Programs, 79 Ind. L.J. 767 (2004). Author offers an overview of the Gautreaux litigation and suggests that its remedies should be adopted by HUD, ensuring metropolitan-wide mobility. Author also argues that the HCVP is inadequate to meet its goals of increasing disbursement of public housing residents throughout an area and decreasing segregation. In looking at segregation,focus is given to the individual, community, and programmatic barriers that limit true housing choice. Through increased counseling, heightened enforcement against hate crimes, mobility grants, and equity insurance, the government may better promote low-income renters' moves to integrated areas. At the same time, the continued need for public housing stock suggests the possibility of redevelopment of demolished buildings as mixed communities. Kinara Flagg, Mending the Safety Net Through Source of Income Protections: The Nexus Between Antidiscrimination and Social Welfare Law, 20 Colum. J. Gender& L. 201 (2011). Margery Austin Turner et al.,Housing Discrimination against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012 (2013) available at htty://www.huduser.ore/nortal/Publications/vdf/HUD-514 HDS2012.ndf This summary report presents findings from HUD's fourth such study of discrimination by private real estate agents and rental properties, which applied paired-testing methodology in 28 metropolitan areas to measure the incidence and forms of discrimination experienced by black, Hispanic, and Asian renters and homebuyers. They found that while the most blatant forms of housing discrimination have declined, their data demonstrates that well-qualified minority homeseekers are just as likely as equally qualified white homeseekers to get an appointment and learn about at least one available housing unit, but minority homeseekers are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites. Recent Studies of Source-of-Income Discrimination Susan J. Popkin & Mary K. Cunningham, The Urban Institute, CHAC Section 8 Program: Barriers to Successful Leasing Up (1999). This Urban Institute study examines the reasons behind voucher holders' unsuccessful searches for housing in Chicago. The authors describe four types of discrimination: (1)racial discrimination; (2) discrimination against families with children; (3) discrimination against Section 8 tenants; and (4) discrimination against former public housing high rise residents now attempting to use Section 8 vouchers. Although the study found that many factors may contribute to families' difficulty in locating housing, discrimination against voucher holders particularly Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 48 demonstrates the need for mobility services to facilitate the transition to less segregated housing. Susan J. Popkin & Mary K. Cunningham, The Urban Institute, Searching for Rental Housing with Section 8 in Chicago Region (2000). This Urban Institute report examines the challenges facing a growing population of Section 8 voucher holders in Chicago and seeks to build on their 1999 study of unsuccessful voucher holders. The authors find that Chicago voucher holders have special needs as a group that will require a more intensive approach to housing counseling. Additionally,they find that few differences exist between those voucher holders who are successful at finding housing and those holders who are unsuccessful. Discrimination,financial barriers, and participants' personal problems create barriers to finding housing through Section 8 in Chicago. Housing authorities must strategize as to how these difficulties can be managed. Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, Inc.,Locked Out:Barriers to Choice for Housing Voucher Holders, Report on Section 8Housing Choice Voucher Discrimination (2002). This study by Lawyers Committee for Better Housing seeks to substantiate the accounts of discrimination encountered by Section 8 voucher holders in the Chicago area. LCBH worked with two fair housing centers to conduct phone and in-person testing. The study finds that(1) voucher holders are routinely discriminated against, (2) evidence exists indicating increased discrimination against vouchers seeking to rent in an area designated by the Chicago Housing Authority as an "exception rent area," and (3) evidence shows that vouchers face increased discrimination due to race and ethnicity. As a result, LCBH recommends: mandatory landlord education, education for voucher holders regarding their rights and remedies, increased enforcement of Chicago's Fair Housing Ordinance, increased landlord testing for noncompliance with fair housing laws, greater inclusion source-of-income protection of county and state laws, and implementation of a media campaign to debunk myths of renting to voucher holders. New York ACORN,Housing for Everyone:New York City, Section 8, and Source of Income Discrimination (2007). ACORN conducted three series of tests to document discrimination experienced by Section 8 voucher holders seeking to rent in New York City. Results indicated that only a limited number (less than 21%) of property management companies offered apartments within voucher rent limits. Of these, less than half would accept a Section 8 voucher. In addition, only 13% of those apartments identified by common rental listing sources would accept vouchers. ACORN also found that over 40% of the units listed in the New York City Housing Authority's own rental materials were unavailable. To remedy this, ACORN recommends that Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 49 New York City adopt source-of-income/Section 8 protection similar to than in place in a number of other states and cities. Fred Freiberg and Diane L. Houk, Fair Housing Justice Center,No License to Discriminate: Real Estate Advertising, Source oflncomeDiscrimination, and Homelessness in New York City(2008). The Fair Housing Justice Center examines whether real estate brokers in New York City comply with the March 2008 addition of a prohibition on source-of- income discrimination to local fair housing law. The report focuses on the listings placed by brokers on the www.craigslist.org website during the month of July 2008. During that period, at least 363 postings used discriminatory language that made unavailable housing units based on receipt of Section 8 vouchers or of other "program" assistance. Seventy-six percent of those advertised units were priced at rates affordable to low- and moderate-income renters, and many were within the fair market rent allowed for voucher-holders. In response, the FHJC makes a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening and expanding fair housing enforcement activity: (1) City government should support systemic testing investigations: (2)fair housing organizations should increase efforts to notify state authorities when there is evidence of discrimination; and (3)fair housing enforcement should emphasize remedies that end discrimination, provide redress, and promote future compliance with fair housing laws. Additionally,the FHJC recommends that appropriate standards be created to evaluate the fair housing training received by brokers and that such training be required of all brokers. Finally,the FHJC also recommends that source-of-income protection be included in New York State fair housing law. Lance Freeman and Yunjing Li. "Do Source of Income (SOI) Anti-Discrimination Laws Facilitate Access to Better Neighborhoods?"Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy and Management Fall Research, Baltimore, MD, November 8, 2012. In recent decades vouchers have come to be seen as a tool for promoting economic and racial/ethnic integration. The advantages of vouchers over project- based housing assistance depend on the ability of voucher recipients to locate a landlord who will accept the voucher. Some landlords wish to avoid the administrative burden associated with the voucher program. Other landlords perceive voucher recipients to be undesirable tenants and/or fear their other tenants would object to voucher recipients as neighbors. This type of discrimination based on SOI could hinder the use of vouchers to move to more desirable neighborhoods. State and local SOI anti-discrimination laws are one policy response to address this issue. SOI laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against voucher recipients solely on the basis of their having a voucher. The research presented here tested whether SOI laws improve locational outcomes for voucher recipients. This research found that SOI laws appear to have a modest impact on locational outcomes. Martha Galvez. "Defining Choice in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Role of Market Constraints and Household Preferences in Location Outcomes"PhD diss., Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, 2011. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 50 This dissertation examines neighborhood concentration and quality outcomes for Housing Choice Voucher holders in 315 metropolitan areas (MSAs) in 2004, coupled with an in-depth analysis of move preferences and outcomes for a sample of new voucher holders in Seattle, Washington, in 2009. Results show that voucher holders lived in nearly all MSA neighborhoods and few experienced extremely high neighborhood poverty rates. However, assisted households were unevenly distributed in a manner similar to black residential segregation. On average, neighborhood quality for voucher holders was no better than that of similarly poor households or Low Income Housing Tax Credit unit locations. Results are consistent for the Seattle sample of households, who tended to shift from one low opportunity neighborhood to another. Results are more promising for black households specifically: on average nationally, black voucher holders lived in lower poverty, less distressed neighborhoods compared to similarly poor blacks in the same MSAs. Regression analyses suggest voucher holders are more concentrated and live in higher poverty rate neighborhoods in MSAs that are more racially segregated, and where a larger share of voucher holders is minority. Average neighborhood poverty rates for voucher holders were slightly lower in areas with source of income anti- discrimination laws in place. Survey results for the Seattle sample suggest location outcomes mirrored pre- program mobility preferences. Respondents who wanted to change neighborhoods tended to do so, and respondents who wanted to lease in place likely did so. Respondents who were dissatisfied with pre-program neighborhood quality were more likely to change neighborhoods and to experience improvements in quality. In contrast, place attachments and market perceptions were only weakly correlated with move preferences or outcomes. Importantly, dissatisfaction with pre-program neighborhood quality was the exception and not the norm. The majority of the sample was satisfied with their pre-program neighborhoods, despite living in areas that offered limited access to economic mobility opportunities. Other Resources The web site of the National Housing Law Project(http://www.nhlp.org). Click on "Section 8" and "Source of Income Discrimination Protections for Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance in California,"which contains both California and national information regarding source of income. Poverty&Race Research Action Council 2014 www.prrac.org 51 THE CITY OF Dubuque DuB E 01aICRY Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2007 2012 Ip„ TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director DATE: December 8, 2014 RE: Human Rights Commission Source of Income Recommendation The purpose of this memorandum is to forward to the City Council for consideration a recommendation from the Human Rights Commission. Background The Human Rights Commission has spent the last several months gathering information on whether or not to recommend to the City Council that "lawful source of income" be added to the non-discrimination ordinance. They have reviewed information from the Housing & Community Development Department and from other jurisdictions, have drafted three potential versions of a proposed ordinance, and have obtained public input through conversations at their monthly meetings and through a public forum they hosted in October. At the regularly scheduled Commission meeting on November 10, the Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. Based on the discussion at their meeting, the Human Rights Commission has submitted a recommendation letter along with the following attachments for the City Council's consideration: 1) Source of Income Report; 2) Fair Housing Coach Newsletters for June and July; 3) Impact of Source of Income Laws; 4) Poverty and Race Research Action Council Report. In addition, I am submitting the minutes from the Commission meetings at which this agenda item was discussed, including the minutes of the public forum the Commission hosted in October. Discussion While the Commission is not recommending adoption of an ordinance at this time, it is important to understand that any ordinance adopted would make it illegal to refuse to rent or sell a dwelling to someone because of any "lawful source of income" that the person receives. It is equally important to understand that "lawful source of income" would be explicitly defined by the ordinance itself. In other words, lay persons may have varied understandings of what "lawful source of income" means. Many people may think that "income" only includes cash or checks that can be used by the recipient in any way that the recipient chooses. As the Commission was conducting research, they reviewed laws from other jurisdictions that have defined "lawful source of income" in differing ways. These laws are included in the Source of Income Report the Commission has provided. From those laws, the Commission drafted a proposed ordinance that includes three, alternative versions of the legal definition of"lawful source of income." These three alternative definitions are included in the attached document entitled Draft of Potential Ordinance Amendment. Option 1 on page 2 is the broadest definition. Under this definition, a variety of items would be considered a 'lawful source of income" for purposes of the ordinance. Option 2 on page 2 is identical to Option 1 with one exception — a Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) would not be considered a 'lawful source of income" for purposes of the ordinance. Other types of housing vouchers, such as those offered to veterans or those with disabilities through the Shelter Plus Care program would still be considered a "lawful source of income" for purposes of the ordinance. Option 3 on pages 2-3 is the narrowest definition. Under this definition, all housing vouchers, whether through the Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8), another HUD program, or any other state or federal program would be excluded from the definition of"lawful source of income." Action Requested The action requested is that you forward this information to the City Council for consideration. 2 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF May 12, 2014 Commissioner Jackson called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 3:34 p.m. on Monday, Mayl2, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Tom LoGuidice Andrea Beacham Chris Ostwinkle Miquel Jackson RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Absent: Howard Lee Andrea Helgager Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Manisha Paudel ICMA Fellows — Manisha Paudel Manisha introduced Angela de Jesus and Dulce Guterres, officials from the nation of Timor-Leste who are here learning about legislative processes. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Beacham moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 14, 2014. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The April 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report Commissioner Allen reported that the NAACP met and that they are in the processes of organizing committees and selecting chairpersons. Commissioner Jackson is the Membership chair, and he has been actively seeking new members. They are trying to organize a youth chapter, so they have a newly appointed youth committee chairperson. The BMC has been taking youth to local colleges The Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC) is in the process of completing the update to the bylaws. When completed, they will meet with the Police Protective Association and the NAACP to review and approve the changes. Commissioners Jackson, LoGuidice and Allen are part of the Inclusive Dubuque Community Engagement Committee, and are looking at ways to get DIFL coaches and parents involved. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Standing Items: Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Commissioners reviewed census demographics from 2010. The Police Department will be purchasing new software that will hopefully include more of these racial and ethnic categories. It was suggested to have a discussion at the local level about what other data and information Page 1 of 3 we need to collect, what we see as the problem, and how will we proceed from there. It was suggested that a subcommittee be formed to plan this event. This group will then present the plan to the full commission at the July meeting. Commissioner Beacham nominated Commissioner LoGuidice to chair this subcommittee. Commissioner Allen volunteered to serve on the planning subcommittee. He stated that the NAACP has an interest in this topic as well, and that he would be willing to act as a liaison to the NAACP. He will seek approval from NAACP members at the meeting tomorrow night. New Business: Discuss Proposed Chanaes to Administrative Rules and Ordinance Section 8-4-7 After reviewing changes made by the State to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission's rules and regulations since 2011, and the recent opinion in the Toppert v. Northwest Mechanical, Inc., Assistant City Attorney Crenna Brumwell recommended changes to the Dubuque Ordinance and Administrative Rules that relates to the authority to issue right-to-sue letters and an administrative release. Local commissions are not authorized to issue right-to-sue letters; therefore, it is necessary for the Iowa Civil Rights Commission to issue the letters. Commissioner Stewart identified a duplicate paragraph in section 1.2(10) that could be removed. An additional change was in the housing provisions related to advertising for older persons. Commissioner Ostwinkle suggested perhaps defining the term executive session. It was suggested added wording such as "...executive session in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law." Commissioner Beacham moved to approve the proposed updates to the Administrative Rules and Ordinance and the changes discussed here at the meeting today. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. Juneteenth Carol distributed a volunteer sign-up sheet for the June 14`h Juneteenth Celebration in Comiskey Park. Two hour blocks of time are available from noon to 3:00 p.m. Source of Income Commissioner Stewart stated that 12 states currently include Source of Income as a protected class. Discussion ensued as to what the pros and cons of adding this as a protected class. Crenna stated that Section 8 properties are inspected more frequently— every 11 months, and landlords feel it takes more time and money for repairs they feel are unnecessary, although both the Housing Code and Section 8 Housing Code are considered minimum code standards. Commissioner Stewart added that Oregon and Iowa City do not include housing vouchers in source of income. Kelly asked if there were certain things they would want more information on. They requested information on the percentage of rental units that do and don't take Section 8, and any other stats that would be helpful. Along with sample ordinances from Iowa City, Minnesota, and Wisconsin ordinances. Crenna is meeting with the Landlord Association tomorrow morning and will mention that the commission is considering adding this as a protection. Homelessness —Jeff Lenhart Commissioner Lenhart will be conducting a needs assessment survey of homeless people in Dubuque. He recently learned that the Homeless Coalition at the state level is working on a Homeless Bill of Rights. He will also be attending a meeting on homelessness at Drake University in early June to gain more resources. Commissioners expressed a real need for shelters for families and teenage males. Old Business: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC Relationships -Allen, Beacham, Helgager, Jackson, Lenhart, Ostwinkle Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Beacham reminded commissioners of the May 10`"free meal prep at St. Luke's Food for the Soul on May 10. They should arrive at 4:00 p.m. and it goes to approximately 7:00 p.m. Goal #2: Improving Effectiveness and quality of meetings— Beacham. Helgaqer, Lee, LoGuidice, Ostwinkle Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing —Allen, Lee. Lenhart, Stewart Kelly stated that they are waiting for approval of trainers from HUD. Once approval is received, staff will contact commissioners to get registered for a training sessions. Additionally, staff will be working to update the Analysis of Impediments. Goal #5: Particioate in Inclusive Dubuque process: Allen, Helgaqer. Jackson, Lenhart. LoGuidice, Stewart Commissioner Stewart spoke to the Downtown Neighborhood Association on April 22ntl, and she will will be speaking about the commission's powers and duties to members of the International Speakers Bureau on May 22, at 8:30 a.m. Senator Harkin's Report on ADA Generation — R.R.S. Stewart In follow-up to last month's discussion, Commissioner Stewart provided census data breaking down the disability status of the non-institutionalized population. Commissioner Stewart had noticed that the monthly caseload reports repeatedly show an increase in disability claims, so she suggested that perhaps for next years goals that they provide education and outreach on disability rights to employers. Commissioner Allen suggested that they meet with PAD to see what kind of outreach and education they provide. Commissioner Beacham announced that the next PFLAG meetings is May 201" at 7:00 p.m. at St. Luke Methodist Church. This meeting is the second of a two-part series on LGBTQ faith issues and they will be viewing the film For the Bible Tells Me So. Commissioner Beacham will review and edit the letter to the editor she prepared to send regarding the incident at the Dog House Lounge. She is contemplating inviting the owner to a PFLAG meeting. She will work on preparing a general statement that will be submitted on behalf of the Commission. Consent Items: Commissioner Stewart distributed the application form to the Diamond Jo Casino requesting a donation for the DBQ Community BBQ event in September. It was suggested they put more emphasis on the Human Rights BBQ and that we are working in collaboration with the International Day of Peace. Commissioner Allen will review and provide input by the May 17`" deadline. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Beacham. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Commissioner Lee will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, June 9, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: , Minutes approved as corrected: Page 3 of 3 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF June 9, 2014 Commissioner Lee called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 3:33 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Tom LoGuidice Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Howard Lee RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Absent: Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Manisha Paudel Approval of Minutes: Commissioner LoGuidice moved to approve the meeting minutes of May12, 2014. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The May 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report Commissioner Allen reported that he is working with the NAACP to help them get reorganized and restructured. The BMC and the Human Rights Commission will be sponsoring informational booths at the Juneteenth event Saturday, June 14, 2014 from noon to 3:00 p.m. at Comisky Park. Members of the NAACP are reviewing the revised by-laws of the Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC). They hope to have those revisions approved within the next two months. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Old Business: Administrative Rule 2.16(9) Issuance of Right-to-Sue Letter After last month's approval of removing 2.16(9) paragraph b., Commissioner Stewart contacted staff recommending that paragraph b. be reinstated to protect the complainant in the event a Right-to-Sue was issued in error by the ICRC. She thought without this language a complainant might just think they have no recourse. Commissioner LoGuidice moved to reinstate section (b.) into Administrative Rules 2.16(9). Commissioner Jackson seconded. For clarity, Kelly recommended that they change the wording when it refers to "the Commission,"to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. All in favor. Source of Income Jerry Maro, Margie White and Jim Dix from the Landlord's Association were present for this discussion. Ordinances from Iowa City, Minnesota and Wisconsin that include source of income as a protected class were distributed. Some of these ordinances exclude Section 8 housing vouchers. As many as 40 states and local jurisdictions have adopted source of Page 1 of 3 income protection into their law. Commissioner Stewart had recommended this discussion as this is a current fair housing issue and thought they should perhaps consider adding source of income to the Dubuque ordinance. Commissioner Ostwinkle suspended the rules to allow guests to provide input on this issue. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. The guests asked for clarity as to what "source of income" actually meant. There were concerns that they wouldn't be able to use established income criteria. It was explained that landlords can maintain their current income criteria, they would need to consider social security and/or Section 8 Vouchers as a source of income in determining that income criteria. There were concerns about individuals being removed from the Section 8 Program and suddenly they are unable to pay monthly rent, along with landlords being unable to recoup damage expenses as they are not able to garnish social security income. The guests felt that landlords should have a choice in determining whether or not they want to rent to Section 8 recipients because of the mandatory time consuming paperwork and inspections involved. A question was raised whether there were vouchers available and not units. Commissioner Stewart asked Kelly to seek information from Housing as to whether there are more units than vouchers or vouchers than units available. Commissioner Stewart explained that this is just the beginning of the conversation and that this will take time. More dialogue, research, and training will be needed prior to any recommendations being made. It was recommended to continue to work together for what is best for the citizens of Dubuque. The Landlord Association meets regularly on the second Tuesday of the month at Hills & Dales on Stoneman Road at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners are willing to attend the August 12`h meeting to answer any questions or address any concerns. They will confirm that date and get back to Anthony. Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to end public input. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. All in favor. New Business: Title VI Provision and LEP Plan — Commissioner Stewart Copies of the Title VI and LEP Plan for the City of Dubuque transit services were distributed. Commissioner Stewart, as a member of the Transit Advisory Commission, will recommend that the Director of Transit Operations take proposed changes to the Compliance Agreement to the Transit Advisory Board for their consideration. Those recommendations are: 1) page 3 to expand beyond "Civil Rights Act of 1964" and include specific reference to subsequent amendments that added protected classes; and 2) page 9-10 to include a listing of the specific protected classes that are covered. A question was raised as to why protection for sexual orientation and gender identity was not included in the eligibility requirements for filing a complaint. It was explained that the document was created to comply only with what is covered under federal law, which does not include sexual orientation and gender identity, but that it could be added so people know they have State rights as well. Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to recommend to the Transit Advisory Board that they add Iowa protected classes to the Title VI and LEP Plan Document. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. All in favor. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Strengthen DHRC Relationships & Improving Effectiveness/Quality of Meetings The group scheduled their next meeting for Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Jitterz. Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Commissioner LoGuidice is chair of this subcommittee. They will discuss set meeting times at the next meeting. Page 2 of 3 Commissioner Allen clarified that Inclusive Dubuque is planning on holding a number of public forums throughout the community in the upcoming year. One of the forums will be a panel discussion or facilitated discussions about race relations looking at the citizen point of view. Our commission is talking about racial disparities in regards to connecting with professionals working in the criminal justice system to ask why there are disparities. Commissioners Allen and LoGuidice met with Kelly to discuss work that John Paul Chaisson-Cardenas, Director of the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission, has done in the area equity. The subcommittee would like to call a special meeting of the Human Rights Commission on June 24 th, where John Paul would educate them on the process they used to develop the Cedar Rapids Equity Report. Commissioner Allen moved to hold a special Human Rights Commission on June 24, 2014 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Ostwinkle seconded. All in favor. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Commissioner Allen suggested tabling discussion until after the August VCA fair housing training. Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process Commissioner Allen stated that Inclusive Dubuque is looking for facilitators for the forums they are planning. A pilot forum is being planned for July 23 with the topic of residency. DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update Letters to past and potential sponsors were signed and are ready to be mailed out. This year's BBQ will be held on Saturday, September 20th from 2:00 to 6:00 p.m. in Clarke's Kehl Center. Consent Items: Commissioner Stewart distributed a copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Proclamation for comments and corrections. The Proclamation will be presented at 6:30 p.m. at the July 7th City Council meeting. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Jackson, second by Commissioner Lenhart. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Lenhart will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, July 14, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 3 of 3 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF July 14, 2014 Commissioner Lenhart called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 3:40 p.m. on Monday, July 14, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Tom LoGuidice Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Howard Lee RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Commissioner Allen reordered the agenda and called for Old Business related to source of income to be discussed at this point. Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to not limit debate to the table. Second by Commissioner Lee. All in favor. Source of Income — Jerry Maro, President of the Dubuque Landlord's Association Mr. Maro distributed a highlighted list of the Safe Community Task Force's (SCTF) recommendations that are related to landlord issues for"Making Dubuque a Safer Community." The Association had agreed to work with the SCTF to do what they could amongst their group to help improve the neighborhoods. Mr. Maro conveyed that the majority of Association members don't want to see source of income added as a protected class to the ordinance as they feel it limits their choice of who they rent to. Most landlords have established criteria of three times their rental amount in order to pay the rent and utilities and then be able to recover any damages that may occur. Source of income creates a burden for landlords because they cannot access federal or state entitlements when trying to recover costs for damages, and therefore, they have to take a loss. In addition, some landlords felt that the inspections are too restrictive and time consuming when it comes to the Section 8 Housing Program. Kelly that the ordinance wouldn't take away a landlords right to have their income criteria, but that they have to take into consideration a person's monthly SSI, Section 8, or any other federal or state income when calculating their income criteria. If a prospective tenant doesn't meet the established criteria including those sources, then a landlord does not have to rent to that individual because they don't meet their criteria. A concern for landlords is that there is a higher risk for loss when dealing with individuals receiving income from government sources. There was a request for: 1) data showing how many people actually graduated out of those programs: 2) to gather information from Iowa City and Marion to see the effects or negative issues that have come up since the inclusion of source of income to their ordinances; and 3) determine whether there has been any discussion on this issue at the state level. More dialogue, research, and training will be needed prior to any recommendations being made. It was recommended to continue to work together for what is best for the citizens of Dubuque. Commissioner Allen will plan on attending the Landlord Association meeting in August. Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to end public input. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. All in favor. Landlords were invited to stay to hear discussion on the proposed source of income ordinance amendment. Page 1 of 4 Approval of Minutes: Commissioner LoGuidice requests that the minutes reference the July 2013 Fair Housing Coach that was discussed in June. Commissioner Stewart corrected the name of the NAACP to the Dubuque Branch of the NAACP. Commissioner LoGuidice moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 9, 2014 as corrected. Commissioner Stewart seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The June 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report Commissioner Allen continues to work with the NAACP to help them get reorganized and restructured. The Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC) will meet August 4`h to finalize the By- Laws. The Black Man Coalition (BMC) has completed their strategic planning. They will begin a rite of passage graduation for the young men who go through the mentoring program, and then complete the Road to Success Program. Inclusive Dubuque's first forum on residency will be offered August 5`h . They are seeking facilitators to conduct forums on many issues. The training for facilitators will be July 25`h from 9:00 to 3:00. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Old Business: Review Proposed Source of Income Ordinance Amendment Housing provided data that indicated that, on average, 2/3 of the vouchers issued end in a leased unit, and normally it takes a little over two months to find a unit. And of the 1/3 who do not end up leasing a unit, there are no comprehensive records for the reason that occurs. Copies of the proposed amendment were distributed. Commissioner Stewart prepared two different options for use in the proposed ordinance amendment. One includes Section 8 vouchers and other does not. Kelly stated that the Assistant City Attorney routinely reviews any proposed ordinance amendments prior to proceeding to the City Council. The Commission needs to decide whether they want to include source of income as a protected class, and then decide whether they want to include or exclude Section 8 vouchers. New Business: Mary Sawyer— Culture of Non-violence Coalition Mary was unable to make it this meeting. She will be sharing information about the Coalition and showing a video to members of the NAACP at a later date. Commissioners are invited to attend that meeting. Anthony will ask her to send the link to that video to this group. Election of Vice-Chair The Chair called for nominations for Vice-Chairperson. Commissioner Lee nominated Commissioner Stewart. She accepted and is willing to have a co-vice-chair if anyone was interested. Nominations were closed. Hearing no objections, Commissioner Stewart will serve as Vice-Chair. Page 2 of 4 Update Rotating Chair Meeting Schedule It was decided to continue rotation through December. Ostwinkle will chair August 11`h meeting; Allen — September 8; Jackson — October 13; Lee — November 10; and Lenhart— December 8. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Sub. Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC relationships as well as relationships between the community A revised goal sheet was distributed. Commissioner Ostwinkle reported that he and Commissioner LoGuidice met to discuss recommendations. They are recommending that priority be placed on working as a team with racial disparity and housing issues, and to drop initiative "c" (already removed in February) related to sponsoring a community meal, and replacing "f with Department/Commission displays be organized(created by staff and commissioners. Displays to be posted for one month each at the Library. Multicultural Family Center, Hillcrest(Main Street location) and other locations. Sub. Goal #2: Ensure DHRC feel their roles are meaningful/productive by improving effectiveness and quality of meetings. Recommendations: 1) They are recommending that subcommittees set dates for action on each of the goals so each is fully addressed by December. 2) That the rotation of members assigned to chair meetings be examined at the December goal setting session. 3) That formal meetings be held in Council Chambers or other formal settings for goal #3 & 4. 4) That action agenda items be used 5) Evaluations at the end of July and August meetings allowing commissioners to address what went well and what could have gone better. Commissioner Ostwinkle agreed to chair Goal 1 & 2. Commissioner Stewart moved to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee. Seconded by Allen. All in favor. Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Commissioner LoGuidice reported that they are not prepared to bring forward suggestions for a format at this point. The subcommittee is meeting again on August 1. He stated that the subcommittee includes individuals from the community, and that they have had open discussion that he feels will lead to decisions about a format and a date. Alvin Nash, Jessica Rose and Chrissy Johnson should also receive meeting notices for the Planning Subcommittee. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Commissioner Allen suggested tabling discussion until after the August VCA fair housing training. Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update The subcommittee will meet July 17`h. They are waiting to hear back on the status of the Sustainable Dubuque Grant that they submitted last month. Page 3 of 4 Consent Items: Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Stewart. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Ostwinkle will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, August 11, 2014 at 3:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 4 of 4 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF August 11, 2014 Commissioner Ostwinkle called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, August 11, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Tom LoGuidice Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Jeff Lenhart RRS Stewart Susan Stone Absent: Howard Lee Ashley Melchert Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Approval of Minutes: Commissioner LoGuidice moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 14, 2014 as submitted. Commissioner Lenhart seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The July 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report Commissioner Allen continues to work with the NAACP. Commissioners LoGuidice, Stewart and Lee worked on updating the NAACP By-Laws to make them more consistent with the other boards and commissions throughout the city. The Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC) met August 4`h to finalize the By-Laws. The formal name change from Dubuque Community Advisory Panel (DCAP) to Community Police Relations Committee has been approved. They are now working with the Police Chief, Dubuque Police Protection Association (DPPA) and the City Manager to update membership. The Dubuque Independent Football League will be making a contribution to help with expenses for the DBQ Community BBQ. The Black Man Coalition (BMC) has completed their strategic planning. They will begin setting up the mentoring program for this school year. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Old Business: Source of Income City of Marion Source of Income Ordinance Kelly provided a memo which gave information on the City of Marion's ordinance that relates to source of income, as wells as data showing the number of people who moved off of government assistance. Page 1 of 4 Discuss process to follow on proposed Source of Income Amendment It was suggested that the Commission come up with some a process to follow in addressing the source of income issues in a public forum. A copy of the Dubuque County's "General Rules for Public Participation" was provided. Consensus was that they didn't want to rush the process. They felt it was important to continue dialogue and gather input from members of the Landlord Association as well as members of the general public. Within the next month they will select a date for a special meeting to allow for public input on this issue. It was suggested that this forum be held in the Library Auditorium. —American Planning Association Article on Housing Support System Commissioner Stewart shared an article from the American Planning Association which focuses on supportive housing for the homeless. —Jerry Maro, President of the Landlord Association Commissioner Allen moved to suspend rules limiting debate to open discussion to members present from the Landlord Association. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. All in favor. Mr. Maro thanked commissioners for the opportunity to convey some concerns about the proposed source of income amendment. He stated that Association members are displeased with this proposal. They specifically had concerns about the lack of recovery for damages to their property, the red tape involved in participating in the Section 8 program, and concerns about being forced into participating in the Section 8 Program. The landlords feels that there is a higher risk for loss when dealing with individuals receiving income from Section 8 due to the inability to garnish or file small claims against tenants receiving government assistance. Landlords were asked if they had any options/ideas for recovery. An idea suggested was the possibly of a property tax adjustment of some sort since the Section 8 Program no longer helps with that recovery. There were also concerns about insurance companies charging higher rates for Section 8 units, adding that those added costs to landlords would ultimately be passed along to the tenants. There were questions about using temporary sources of income when calculating eligibility criteria. It was reiterated that the ordinance wouldn't take away a landlords right to have their income criteria, but that they have to take into consideration a person's monthly SSI, Section 8, or any other federal or state income when calculating their income criteria. If a prospective tenant doesn't meet the established criteria including those sources, then a landlord does not have to rent to that individual because they don't meet their criteria. A question was raised as to whether or not the area of credit, as far as home ownership, should also include source of income as a protected class. Staff will attempt to find sample ordinances. Three main issues were identified that both the Commission and the Landlord Association could collaborate on: 1) partnership on holding a public forum; 2) clarifying the various types of sources of income and the three definitions being proposed; and 3) landlords' provide some solutions for recovery of damages of their properties. Page 2 of 4 To accommodate work schedules, a 7:00 p.m. starting time for the public forum was recommended. They will also look into scheduling a worksession with the City Council on this proposed amendment. It was suggested that staff send the Marion, Iowa City, Minnesota and ordinance and data received today along with ordinances from Iowa City, Minnesota and Wisconsin and the various fair housing publication to Housing and Legal and ask for their input and opinion on this process as well. No objections. Commissioner Allen moved and Commissioner LoGuidice seconded to close public comment. All in favor. New Business: Commissioner Stewart moved to change the meeting location to the Library and the start time to 4:00 p.m. for the September and October meetings. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. Commissioner Allen offered a friendly amendment to change the regular meeting starting time to 4:30 p.m. with the location remaining here at the City Hall Annex. Commissioners Stewart and LoGuidice accepted the friendly amendment. All in favor. Commissioner Stewart reported on workshop topics at the Local and Regional Government Alliance on Race & Equity Conference she attended earlier this month. Kelly asked Commissioner Lenhart to print comments from his Facebook page related to the proposed source of income ordinance amendment. Copies were distributed. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Sub. Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC relationships as well as relationships between the community Members discussed Sub Goal 1(e) creating an informational display. They will be meeting with Manisha to determine what educational information is already available for the display. Sub. Goal #2: Ensure DHRC feel their roles are meaningful &productive by improving effectiveness and quality of meetings. Commissioner Allen summarized results of the evaluation of last month's meeting: What went well? Commissioners are engaged Specifics of the agenda were addressed What could have gone better? Arguing/debating procedure with guests present Spent too much time on source of income agenda item Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Commissioner LoGuidice presented a proposal for action entitled Developing a Plan for Sustainable Change, subtitled "Reducing racial, ethnic, and social class disparity in the criminal justice system in the City of Dubuque by providing access and opportunity for all." The group will soon be announcing the date for this fall's Race Disparity Public Forum. He will inform commissioners at the September 8`h meeting. The next subcommittee meeting is August 22 at 4:00 p.m. in Conference Room I. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Commissioner Stewart reminded commissioners of the Fair Housing Training being presented August 14-16 and August 21-23. Page 3 of 4 Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update Subcommittee members have been looking at alternate sources of funding since they were not awarded a Sustainable Dubuque grant. A copy of the International Day of Peace brochures were available for review. Inclusive Dubuque Commissioner Jackson stated that he is a member of the Inclusive Dubuque community engagement subcommittee, and that he is currently identifying team members to work on the community outreach format. He thanked commissioners for joining the committee. Commissioners should let him know which area they would like to work on. He will keep commissioners informed of upcoming meeting dates. Appoint Liaisons to CPRC and DDRC The Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC) meets quarterly and then on an as needed basis depending on complaints. Kelly and Chief Dalsing will present a training session to CPRC members on October 27 from 5:30 —8:30. Appointments were tabled until next month's meeting. Consent Items: Day of Peace Proclamation Commissioner Allen moved and Commissioner Stork seconded to approve the Day of Peace Proclamation. All in favor. Commissioner LoGuidice abstained. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Allen, second by Commissioner Jackson. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Commissioner Allen will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, September 8, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 4 of 4 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF September 8, 2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 4:38 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Tom LoGuidice Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Howard Lee RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Susan Stone Absent: Ashley Melchert Staff: Carol Spinoso Kelly Larson Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Stone stated that her name was misspelled in the minutes. Commissioner LoGuidice moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 11, 2014 as corrected. Commissioner Lee seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The August 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report Commissioner Allen reported that he will be giving a presentation on intercultural competence to a sociology class at Loras College tomorrow. A nominating committee for the election of NAACP officers has been established and new leadership should be in place next month. Commissioners LoGuidice, Lee and Stewart have worked to update the By-Laws for the NAACP and should be approved at Wednesday's meeting. Commissioner Allen submitted names to the City Manager for approval and appointment to the Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC). The Black Men Coalition's annual mentoring program has begun at Hempstead and Senior. They are hoping to begin working with seventh and eighth graders as well. The Community Engagement subcommittee of Inclusive Dubuque will begin meeting again this week. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Old Business: Source of Income Discuss Source of Income FAA's Commissioner Stewart presented FAQ's which were researched and written by the University of Iowa Legal Clinic. It addresses source of income in credit transactions when it comes to home ownership. Commissioner Stewart moved to approve the draft Page 1 of 3 of the Frequently Asked Questions so the commission can share with the public. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. The Director recommended that the FAQ's be sent to the Legal Department for review prior to public distribution. Commissioner Stewart offered a friendly amendment to forward the document on to Legal for their review. Commissioner LoGuidice accepted the amendment. Commissioner Stewart asked to have Legal staff clarify specifics about the inclusion of food stamps. All in favor. Discuss/modify/adopt General Rules for Public Participation Commissioner Stewart presented a draft of the Human Rights Commission General Rules for Public Participation. It was suggested that since #5 stated a time limit, that they include that in #1 as well. Consensus was to change the wording in #1 to "Speaking time will be at the discretion of the Chairperson or the Commissioner chairing the meeting"; and #5 to "A speaker may speak on one issue per meeting as time permits at the discretion of the Chairperson or the Commissioner chairing the meeting." Commissioner Stewart moved to approve as corrected. Commissioner LoGuidice seconded. Al I in favor. —Public Forum Planning The date for the public forum for community discussion on the source of income proposed amendments was tentatively set for Thursday, October 16 at 7:00 p.m. Staff will see if the Auditorium is available for the forum. Commissioners Stewart and Allen will contact the Housing Commission and the Residents Advisory Board to let them know about the forum, and they will prepare a media release. New Business: ADA Service Animal Species Restrictions (Stewart) Commissioner Stewart distributed copies of an article that lays out the species restrictions that are now being implemented in relations to the American with Disabilities Act. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Sub. Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC relationships as well as relationships between the community Members met to design a Human Rights Commission informational display. Commissioner Ostwinkle asked for feedback. They have arranged to have the display at the Library in October, the Multicultural Family Center in November, and the Roshek Building in December. They will be meeting again September 17`h at 4:00 to finalize the display. Sub. Goal #2: Ensure DHRC feel their roles are meaningful &productive by improving effectiveness and quality of meetings. Commissioner Allen summarized results of the evaluation of last month's meeting: Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Commissioner LoGuidice reported that they are making revisions to the plan for sustainable change. They will be meeting with panel members on October 15 at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the plan and possible changes. They will also be meeting on January 28, 2015 with the panelist to discuss how they are interpreting the data in the plan and discuss what they feel the implications of the data are for public policy in Dubuque. One week later there will be a public meeting at Prescott School. As a result of those two meetings, the subcommittee will move items onto the agenda for commission action. Commissioners asked that the charts contained in the plan that were received form Chief Dalsing be updated to include more current data. Kelly explained that in August 2014 they Page 2 of 3 began using new software that more easily tracks the data they are interested in. Commissioners requested data be forwarded to them quarterly. Commissioners questioned how the Police Department decides on the locations of additional stations. Kelly stated that the Police use Territory Accountability Design to look at statistics and analyze calls for service by area to see where the need is. They requested that Chief Dalsing attend the October 13" meeting to explain territorial accountability design. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update Subcommittee members reported that planning for the September 20" BBQ is complete. Commissioner Jackson will be meeting with Kate Zanger at Clarke to go over set-up and food. Inclusive Dubuque Commissioners want to invite Jessica Rose to the November meeting so she can provide an update on Inclusive Dubuque. Appoint Liaisons to CPRC and DDRC Commissioner Stewart was appointed primary and Commissioner Ostwinkle alternate to the Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC). Commissioner LoGuidice volunteered to serve as the alternate liaison to the Dubuque Dispute Resolution Center(DDRC). Consent Items: Proclamation Commissioner Stewart presented a proclamation for National Disability Employment Awareness Month and a press release to be presented to the City Council next month. Public Input: Local landlords were present to voice concerns about the proposed source of income amendment to the Fair Housing Ordinance. Specifically, they had concerns related to damages recovery and the inspection process for Section 8 vouchers. The Landlord Association would like to keep working with the Commission and looks forward to the discussion on October 16. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Jackson, second by Commissioner Stewart. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 6:04 p.m. Commissioner Jackson will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, October 13, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 3 of 3 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF October 13, 2014 Commissioner Jackson called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 4:35 p.m. on Monday, October 13, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Ashley Melchert Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Howard Lee RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Susan Stone Absent: Tom LoGuidice Staff: Kelly Larson Carol Spinoso Manisha Paudel Oath of Office The oath of office was administered to Ashley Melchert. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to approve the meeting minutes of September 8, 2014 as submitted. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report The September 2014 caseload report was received and filed. Chairperson's Report The Black Men Coalition's is meeting tonight to discuss the mentoring program that has begun at Hempstead and Senior. Andre Lessears will be presenting information on My Brother's Keeper. The NAACP By-Laws have been updated and new NAACP officers have been established and should be in place by November. The NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet is November 15. Community Police Relations Committee (CPRC) completed a hearing. Training will be offered to committee members October 27. Several people involved with Inclusive Dubuque traveled to Cedar Rapids to facilitate a two- day long discussion through the Department of Justice's SPIRIT (School Problem Identification and Resolution of Issues Together) process. They assisted Darryck Dean from the Department of Justice with facilitation, and also learned about the process to see feasibility of applying it in the Dubuque community as Inclusive Dubuque's Community Dialogue sessions. Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Page 1 of 4 Old Business: Source of Income — Follow-up Information The media release was sent out on October 6. The forum is scheduled for Thursday, October 16 at 6:30 p.m. at the Library in the Auditorium. Ed Anderson had contacted Kelly for information on Thursday's event. Copies of the various informational documents will be available for those attending that evening. ADA Service Animal Species Restrictions (Stewart) Commissioner Stewart circulated the ADA Proclamation. She asked if there were any questions regarding the article that lays out the species restrictions that are now being implemented in relations to the American with Disabilities Act. New Business: Lunch & Learn Commissioner Stewart reported that One Iowa has been presenting programs on various topics throughout the State. She asked if the Commission would be interested in co- sponsoring such an event here in Dubuque. It was determined that an evening session would work better to accommodate work schedules. Commissioner Allen moved to contact One Iowa about possibly holding an event here in Dubuque. Commissioner Ostwinkle seconded. All in favor. Commissioner Stewart will follow up with One Iowa. AHRC Logo Support for Awareness Walk for Transgender Issues Manisha Paudel is working with a group of transgender individuals and supporters called Dubuque Transgender, who are organizing an awareness walk. The group received a grant from Sustainable Dubuque for this event. They are requesting that the Human Rights Commission logo be placed on the t-shirts. Commissioner Allen moved to offer support by way of logo for the t-shirt for the awareness walk for transgender issues in Dubuque. Commissioner Stone seconded. All in favor. Approve Recommendation of DHRC #4381 to Proceed to Public Hearing Kelly stated that the case involves racial harassment in employment. The case has been investigated with a finding of probable cause. Conciliation attempts were unsuccessful. Staff is looking for approval and a decision is needed on how that public hearing will be set up. Commissioner Allen moved to approve that DHRC#4381 proceed to a public hearing. Commissioner Stone seconded. All in favor. Discussion ensued as to the process to use. Commissioner Stone moved that the hearing be conducted using two commissioners and an administrative law judge. Commissioner Allen seconded. All in favor. Commissioners Stewart, Lenhart, Melchert and Ostwinkle could be available to sit on that hearing panel. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Sub. Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC relationships as well as relationships between the community The Human Rights Commission informational display is currently on display at the Library. It will move to the Multicultural Family Center in November. Sub. Goal #2: Ensure DHRC feel their roles are meaningful &productive by improving effectiveness and quality of meetings. Commissioner Allen summarized results of the evaluation of last month's meeting: Page 2 of 4 Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Chief Dalsing Up-Date The Chief distributed statistical information on territory alignment and assignment, and reviewed the 2013 Territory Accountability Design Projects and calls for service. He also discussed the new software that they began using in August that has a feature that allows them to better track stop demographics. Demographic data is now available for 20012 and 2013 and will be sent to commissioners. There currently is no set location for a new Police sub-station but they continue to examine the options on the West End and the Washington Neighborhood. Statistics from Dubuque Community Schools Commissioner Stewart provided copies of the School District Facts and Figures brochure from 2010-2011, and a document with data from 2013-2014. She is working with Mike Cyze at the District to see about getting more specific data on students for the last three years. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Information related to the organization list and inquiry letters were provided for new commissioners. The organization list was updated. Commissioner Stone stated that Loras has a Peace and Justice week with many public opportunities. She will speak to those involved to see if they would want to be included on the list. Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process Inclusive Dubuque/Community Outreach Format Informational sheets were provided on Inclusive Dubuque. DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update The event was successful. The subcommittee will be meeting October 17 to approve invoices and work on thank you letters. The group is seeking any suggestions or criticism in regards to improving the event. Survey data has been collected and will be distributed to commissioners. Public Input: Local landlords were present to voice concerns about the proposed source of income amendment to the Fair Housing Ordinance. Jerry Maro requested clarification as to whether the amendment would mandate that landlords accept Section 8 vouchers. It was explained that this is still part of their discussion, and that they will need to define the definition of source of income. If they would recommend a definition that includes Section 8, then Section 8 would have to be taken. If it was decided that Section 8 was not part of the definition, then the opposite is true, so both are options at this point. Mr. Maro stated that the problem remains with the addition of Section 8 and food vouchers and the inability of the landlord to recover any damages with those types of government assistance. The input gathered at the public forum from citizens and landlords will be important in evaluating which option would work best for the needs of this community. Page 3 of 4 Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Stewart, second by Commissioner Allen. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Commissioner Lee will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, November 10, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 4 of 4 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF November 10, 2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 4:33 p.m. on Monday, November 10, 2014, at the City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street, Conference Room II, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Ashley Melchert Miquel Jackson Chris Ostwinkle Tom LoGuidice RRS Stewart Absent: Jeff Lenhart Susan Stone Howard Lee Staff: Kelly Larson Approval of October 13, 2014 Minutes: It was noted that Commissioner Ostwinkle would not be available for the public hearing as stated on page 2 of the October 13`h minutes, and that Commissioner Jackson is available to serve. Also ad "Dubuque Branch" in front of NAACP, page 1 under Chairperson's Report. Also noted was a date change on page 3, first paragraph from 20012 to 2012. Commissioner LoGuidice moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 13, 2014 as corrected. Commissioner Ostwinkle seconded. All in favor. Reports: Caseload Report No report available. Chairperson's Report President Obama issued a challenge to cities, towns and counties across the country to become My Brother's Keeper Communities. Currently the Black Men Coalition is collaborating with different organizations to launch the My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge in Dubuque. The training/orientation for members of the Community Police Relations Committee has been rescheduled to November 20. The Dubuque Branch NAACP elections are this Wednesday, and the Freedom Fund Banquet is November 15 at the Diamond Jo. Commissioners Allen, Jackson and Stewart will be attending a conference sponsored by the Iowa/Nebraska NAACP Chapter on November 17, and Commissioners Allen and Stewart will be attending the Iowa Civil Rights Commission Symposium on November 14. Anthony attended a program that was sponsored by the Coalition for Nonviolence at Loras. The speaker was a mother that lost her child in the Sandy Hook School shooting. Commissioners Allen and Jackson led a discussion on culture and ethnicity for Susan Stone's class at Loras College. Page 1 of 3 Director's Report: A written report was submitted. Old Business: Source of Income — Follow-up Information An Activity Summary Report was distributed. There was discussion about appointing a task force. Commissioner Stewart suggested that they have a recommended ordinance stating that the task force has one year to make concrete changes to reach the goals that were established in 2010. If no progress has been made by the end of the year, then recommend the City Council pass the source of income ordinance. Tom moved to establish a task force in regards to source of income with a sunset of one-year. Commissioner Stewart seconded. Commissioner Stewart moved to table the motion for fifteen minutes so they can hear public comments. Commissioner Ostwinkle seconded. All in favor. Guests providing comments regarding source of income: Keith Nilles, Jerry and Janet Maro, JoEllen Reed, and Pauline Chilton. Commissioner Ostwinkle moved to remove motion from table. Commission Stewart seconded. All in favor. Commissioner Stewart offered an amendment to the previous tabled motion stating that they recommend to the City Council that they create a source of income task force that would consist of Human Rights Commissioners and staff and Housing Commissioners and staff to discuss utilization rates, greater access, (from Voluntary Compliance Agreement) for 90 days. Also offer that the task force members be available for a City Council work session. Commissioner LoGuidice accepted the amendment. All in favor of accepting the motion as amended. Commissioner LoGuidice asked to keep lawful source of income on the agenda for the December meeting. The guests in attendance asked that meeting agendas be forwarded to them as well. One Iowa Update Commissioner Stewart will follow-up with One Iowa and will request a date for a program presentation. New Business: Meeting Time Change Consensus is to keep the meeting time at 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday of the month. Date for Goal Setting Session To be determined at the December meeting. Possibly a date in February. Standing Items: Review and Discuss Goals Goal #1 & 2: Sub. Goal #1: Strengthen DHRC relationships as well as relationships between the community The Human Rights Commission informational display is currently on display at the MFC and will move to the Roshek Building in December. Sub. Goal #2: Ensure DHRC feel their roles are meaningful &productive by improving effectiveness and quality of meetings. Goal #3: Discuss Criminal Justice procedures as they relate to racial disparities Racial Disparities Forum Planning Subcommittee Update Page 2 of 3 The subcommittee will be meeting November 19`h to review the final invite list and to finalize remaining meeting dates. There will be both a long and abridged version of the report. Goal #4: Education and communication regarding Housing Organization list/letters of inquiry This will be discussed at next month's meeting. Goal #5: Participate in Inclusive Dubuque process Inclusive Dubuque The committee is s working with the Mission Partners to identify facilitators, and will then will provide training for them. DBQ BBQ Subcommittee Update Survey data has been collected and survey results will be provided at the December meeting. Consent Items: There were no objections to Commissioner Stewart forwarding the Tinker proclamation on to the Dubuque Community School Board. Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Jackson, second by Commissioner Ostwinkle. All in favor. The meeting of the Human Rights Commission adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Lenhart will lead the next regular meeting scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2014 at 4:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Page 3 of 3 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC FORUM October 16, 2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2014, at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, 11`h & Locust Streets, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Anthony Allen, Chair Chris Ostwinkle Miquel Jackson RRS Stewart Jeff Lenhart Susan Stone Ashley Melchert Absent: Tom LoGuidice Howard Lee Staff: Kelly Larson Anthony Allen reviewed the public comment rules and asked commissioners to introduce themselves. R.R.S. Stewart explained the origin of the Human Rights Commission decision to review and consider source of income. R.R.S. explained that the Human Rights Commission attempts to hold one forum per year and in the past years has held forums on the Americans with Disabilities Act, access to Transit, and education on LGBT issues through Better Together Dubuque. The public was then invited to address the Commission related to the question of whether or not to recommend to the City Council that the human rights ordinance be amended to include Source of Income. Members of the public were invited to identify themselves as they provided their comments and the following people spoke: Jerry Maro, Judy Schmitt, Ken Bichell, Julie Beck, Vicki Bechen, Jo Ellen Reed, Ernestine Moss, Dan Pusateri, Sue Kearns, Dean Thompson, Al Kroger, John Jaeger, Helene Hill, Corey Gausen, Steve Bracken, Keith Nilles, Pauline Chilton, Carol Copeland, Margie White, Diane McClain, Suzie Cronic, Deb May, Michelle Jacoby. The comments have been arranged by topic and are attached to these minutes. At the conclusion of comments, Anthony thanked people for coming, expressed the desire to continue working together, and stated that the commission would likely continue to discuss this item at upcoming meetings. He invited people to attend commission meetings on the second Monday of the month at 4:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room at 1300 Main Street, and to watch for public notices of meetings. Kelly invited people to sign up for"notify me" through the City's website to receive notices of upcoming meetings. Anthony also invited people to submit additional comments through the Human Rights Department Office. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes approved as submitted: Minutes approved as corrected: Public comments organized by general category/topic Page 1 of 4 Financial Considerations: • If a tenant damages that unit and has wage income, wages can be garnished making it more likely a landlord can collect damages. Funds in the form of a government subsidy cannot be collected on if damaged. • If a tenant loses their job, there may be similar recovery challenges • Inspection process can delay ability to rent immediately, causing income loss for landlords • The rental business is a financial loss and both section 8 and non-section 8 tenants cause damage • Used to accept section 8 and stopped when HUD stopped reimbursing for damages • Rental property is retirement investment and need to protect it • Recovery fund will be a taxpayer burden • If affected financially by this, landlords may raise rents and that will affect everyone • Insurance companies ask "do you have section 8 tenants" and charge higher premiums if do • There is financial cost to landlords when accused of discriminating and have to prove innocence • If people with money damage property, can get the money back • As more protected classes are added, the chances of being sued by more people increases and there is time and cost involved in responding to claims • There is no guarantee tenant will remain on section 8 program and continue to have that income on an ongoing basis. • Only own a four-plex and would go bankrupt if it was trashed • HUD requirements, such as re-painting entire exterior when paint is chipped in a small area, are too costly. • Already taking a risk with the investment and cannot afford increased risk • Compensation for damages very important because more often cannot recover if the tenant receives section 8 • It is easy to get to the point of having insufficient profit to continue • It is not uncommon for someone to file a lawsuit because angry they were turned down and for the landlord to have had no ill will and yet still need to defend self. • No money in rental property and having difficulty selling units • 98% of tenants are good tenants but the 2% can cause significant damage • Insurance companies are dropping coverage and raising premiums because of neighborhood property is located in Screening Considerations: • Challenging to tell if getting someone who has repeatedly caused damage to departments • Have lived next to a landlord who rents to both section 8 and non-section 8 and the property has been a problem for 20 years • As a landlord, I accept section 8 and base my decisions on the individual and their ability to meet my criteria, such as credit history, criminal records, income guidelines, and ability to live in a community with others. • I screen my tenants very carefully and I am still operating at a financial loss • Neighborhood renters damaging property of other neighbors and causing financial losses that cannot be recouped by the property owner • Cannot just assume people on section 8 will damage property— choose tenants based on criteria Source of Income Definition/Scope: Page 2 of 4 • Alimony and child support are available to landlord only if the person responsible for paying them actually pays • Food stamps should not be included • Consider source of income laws that do not include section 8 • Social security, corporate pensions, investment income are all importance sources of income and have experienced landlords not wanting to count these as "income." • Look more closely at the sources—food stamps are not like social security income. • Banks do not include food stamps as income for mortgage qualification Additional Considerations: • There is a need to support people with limited resources • Do not expect anyone to live where I would not want to live • There are people who need it and there are landlords who are willing to meet that need • Limited number of properties accepting section 8 forces people to live only in certain areas of town. • Should have a right to live in any community can afford to live in, counting all sources of income. • 1 was on section 8 ten years and excellent tenant but could not choose where to live because so many landlords would not accept section 8. • Not sure how feel about forcing this on landlords. • We all want clean and properly cared for homes. • There are community problems when nest a lot of people with a lot of problems in a single area and that needs to be addressed. • Can see all sides and want to be part of a solution that is beneficial to both landlords and tenants. • We all want choices • Fairness always has two sides • The landlords in this community are not all a bunch of rich people just choosing to treat people badly • Most people present here tonight are against this and concerned that it may pass anyway • I have a 50 apartment community with a very diverse group of tenants — single moms, people with disabilities, people of color, section 8 and non-section 8. When people call me I am always asked if my building is downtown. • If people stay on section 8 for the long run, it is counterproductive to helping them • There are people coming into this community who lack financial resources Miscellaneous: • As a landlord, receive calls asking if accept section 8 and did not realize it was legal to refuse. • Lots of nice locations for the elderly, but not for the disabled. • Sometimes people lose their vouchers because they do not meet landlord criteria, even though landlord has units available and will accept section 8. Questions: • Is there any information available on the decision in Cedar Rapids not to pursue a similar addition to their ordinance? • How would proposal help people with disabilities? • The majority of my section 8 tenants have been single mothers—what is the actual makeup of section 8? • Will there be a reimbursement fund? • How bureaucratic would system to access fund to recover damages be? Page 3 of 4 • Insurance companies will drop landlords who have a large claim—would City consider a blanket insurance liability policy? • If this ordinance passed, I applied my criteria to a voucher holder and that person passed my criteria, but I only use six month leases and not one year leases, what happens? Can I decline to participate in the section 8 program because I do not use a one year lease and the program requires a one year lease? • What if someone feels very strongly that they simply do not want to receive any federal funds? • Is there a proven significant difference in how people care for property between those who receive section 8 and those who do not? • Has this been enacted anywhere else and, if so, what have been the results? • Why should commissioners who are not landlords have a say in this? • Who makes the decision ultimately on whether or not the ordinance is amended? Suggestions: • Basic problem is decreased availability of affordable units. Before go to Council, create a task force to do some brainstorming between landlords and tenants to figure out how to increase affordable housing without putting this burden on landlords with another protected class. • When getting together for problem solving, include both landlords and tenants • Solve some of the problems so that people are not having to live in bad or scary places • Make sure any decision is as equitable as possible in accounting for financial risk to landlords • Promote accepting vouchers • Instead of putting this on the private sector, create a housing authority. • Landlord choice to participate in the program should be protected • Clean up neighborhoods were section 8 units are located so people not having to live in crime ridden areas • Before take anything to Council, meet to describe what intending to recommend and then go to council in a way that permits commissioners, landlords, and tenants all to weigh in • Build on the history of landlords working with the City and then some landlords may be willing to accept section 8 if not so fearful. • Properties require ongoing investments, work, sweat — make it so landlords want to accept section 8 • All of us face choices that are limited by our financial situation • Consider co-signers • Develop accountability program for tenants who are trashing properties —for example, if receiving voucher and damage property then must go to classes or take other actions to remain • If goal is to have section 8 housing outside of undesirable neighborhoods, then develop city- owned building Page 4 of 4 Proposed Amendment to Title 8 - Human Rights Chapter 5 FAIR HOUSING 8-5-1: DEFINITIONS: 8-5-2: PROHIBITIONS: 8-5-3: EXEMPTIONS: 8-5-4: DISCRIMINATION IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE RELATED TRANSACTIONS: 8-5-5: DISCRIMINATION IN PROVISION OF BROKERAGE SERVICES: 8-5-6: ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT; PRELIMINARY MATTERS: 8-5-7: PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION AND EFFECT: 8-5-8: SUBPOENAS; GIVING OF EVIDENCE: 8-5-9: ENFORCEMENT BY COMMISSION: 8-5-10: REVIEW BY COMMISSION; SERVICE OF FINAL ORDER: 8-5-11: JUDICIAL REVIEW: 8-5-12: ENFORCEMENT BY PRIVATE PERSONS: 8-5-13: ENFORCEMENT BY CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: 8-5-14: COOPERATION WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES: 8-5-15: INTERFERENCE, COERCION OR INTIMIDATION; ENFORCEMENT BY CIVIL ACTION: 8-5-16: VIOLATIONS; BODILY INJURY; DEATH; PENALTIES: 8-5-17: DISCLAIMER OF PREEMPTIVE EFFECT: 8-5-1: DEFINITIONS: As used in this chapter: AGGRIEVED PERSON: Any person who: A. Claims to have been injured by discriminatory housing practice. B. Believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. COMPLAINANT: The person who files a complaint under section 8-5-6 of this chapter. CONCILIATION: The attempted resolution of issues raised by a complaint, or by the investigation of such complaint, through informal negotiations involving the aggrieved person, the respondent, and the commission. 1 CONCILIATION AGREEMENT: A written agreement setting forth the resolution of the issues in conciliation. DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICE: An act that is unlawful under section 8-5-2, 8-5-4, or 8-5-5 of this chapter. DWELLING: Any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. FAMILY: A single individual. OPTION 1: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided, profit from financial investments, and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for, but not limited to, the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8", McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs. OPTION 2: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided, profit from financial investments, and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs, but not including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". OPTION 3: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided, profit from financial investments, and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, 2 general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", and unemployment or worker's compensation payments, but not including housing vouchers for the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8", McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs. PERSON: An individual, corporation, partnership, association, labor organization, legal representative, mutual company,joint stock company, trust, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustee in cases under title 11 of the United States code, receiver, fiduciary, or any other legal entity. PREVAILING PARTY: The same as such term has in section 722 of the revised statutes of the United States (42 USC 1988). RESPONDENT: A. The person or other entity accused in a complaint of an unfair housing practice. B. Any other person or entity identified in the course of investigation and notified as required with respect to respondents so identified under subsection 8-5-6A of this chapter. SECRETARY: The U.S. secretary of housing and urban development. STATE: The state of Iowa and any of its political subdivisions. TO RENT: To lease, sublease, let, and otherwise grant for consideration the right to occupy premises not owned by the occupant. (Ord. 18-09, 4-6-2009) 8-5-2: PROHIBITIONS: It shall be unlawful: A. To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. B. To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provisions of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. 3 C. To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. D. To represent to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. E. For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or disabled persons of a particular age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. F. 1. To discriminate in the sale or rental, or to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a disability of- a. £a. That buyer or renter. b. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available. c. Any person associated with that buyer or renter. 2. To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provisions of services or facilities in connection with such dwelling, because of a disability of- a. £a. That person. b. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is so sold, rented, or made available. c. Any person associated with that person. 3. For purposes of this subsection, discrimination includes: a. A refusal to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter, agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 4 b. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. c. In connection with the design and construction of covered multi-family dwellings for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, a failure to design and construct those dwellings in such a manner that: (1) The public use and common use portions of such dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons. (2) All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within such dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs. (3) All premises within such dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (A) An accessible route into and through the dwelling. (B) Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations. (C) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars. (D) Usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. 4. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the American national standard for buildings and facilities providing accessibility and usability for physically disabled persons (commonly cited as ANSI Al 17.1) suffices to satisfy the requirements of subsection F3c(3) of this section. 5. As used in this subsection, the term "covered multi-family dwellings" means: a. Buildings consisting of four (4) or more units if such buildings have one or more elevators. b. Ground floor units in other buildings consisting of four (4) or more units. 6. Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. (Ord. 18-09, 4-6-2009) 8-5-3: EXEMPTIONS: A. Exemptions Enumerated: Nothing in section 8-5-2 of this chapter, other than subsection 8-5-2C of this chapter, shall apply to: 1. Any single-family house sold or rented by an owner; provided, that: a. The private individual owner does not own more than three (3) such single-family houses at any one time. 5 b. In the sale of any single-family house, the private individual owner does not reside in, nor is the most recent resident of such house prior to such sale; the exemption granted by this subsection shall apply to only one such sale within a twenty four (24) month period. c. The bona fide private individual owner does not own any interest in, nor is there owned or reserved on the owner's behalf, under express of voluntary agreement, title to, or any right to all or a portion of the proceeds from the sale or rental of more than three (3) such single-family houses at one time. d. There is no utilization in any manner of the sales or rental facilities or the sales or rental services of any real estate broker, agent, salesperson, or of such facilities or services of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings, or of any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, salesperson, or person. e. There is no publication, posting, or mailing, after notice, of any advertisement or written notice in violation of subsection 8-5-2C of this chapter. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the utilization of attorneys, escrow agents, abstractors, title companies, and other such professional assistance as necessary to perfect or transfer the title. 2. Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four (4) families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence. B. Selling Or Renting Dwellings: For the purposes of subsection A of this section, a person shall be deemed to be in the business of selling or renting dwellings if- 1. £1. The person has, within the preceding twelve (12) months, participated as principal in three (3) or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein. 2. The person has, within the preceding twelve (12) months, participated as agent, other than in the sale of the person's own personal residence, in providing sales or rental facilities or sales or rental services in two (2) or more transactions involving the sale or rental of any dwelling or any interest therein. 3. The person is the owner of any dwelling designed or intended for occupancy by, or occupied by, five (5) or more families. C. Religious Or Nonprofit Organizations: Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit a religious organization, association, or society or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised, or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society, from limiting the sale, rental, or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial 6 purpose to persons of the same religion, or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Nor shall anything in this chapter prohibit a private club not in fact open to the public, which as an incident to its primary purpose or purposes provides lodging which it owns or operates for other occupancy of such lodging to its members or from giving preference to its members. D. Applicability Of Housing Regulations; Housing For Older Persons: 1. Nothing in this chapter limits the applicability of title 6, chapter 6 of this code regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. Nor does any provision in this chapter regarding familial status or age apply with respect to housing for older persons. 2. As used in this section, "housing for older persons" means housing: a. Provided under any state or federal program that the secretary determines is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons, as defined in the state or federal program. b. Intended for, and solely occupied by, persons sixty two (62) years of age or older. c. Intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit. In determining whether housing qualifies as housing for older persons under this subsection, the commission shall develop regulations which require at least the following factors: (1) That at least eighty percent (80%) of the units are occupied by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit. (2) The publication of and adherence to policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for persons fifty five (55) years of age or older. 3. Housing shall not fail to meet the requirements for housing for older persons by reason of- a. £a. Persons residing in such housing as of the date of enactment of this chapter who do not meet the age requirements of subsection D2b or D2c of this section; provided, that new occupants of such housing meet the age requirements of subsection D2b or D2c of this section. b. Unoccupied units; provided, that such units are reserved for occupancy by persons who meet the age requirements of subsection D2b or D2c of this section. 4. Nothing in this chapter prohibits conduct against a person because such person has been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of the illegal 7 manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance as defined in the controlled substances act (21 USC 802) or a violation of the controlled substances chapter of the Iowa Code L (Ord. 18-09, 4-6-2009) 8-5-4: DISCRIMINATION IN RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE RELATED TRANSACTIONS: A. In General: It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. B. Definition: As used in this section, the term "residential real estate related transaction" means any of the following: 1. The making or purchasing of loans or providing other financial assistance: a. For purchasing, constructing, improving, repairing, or maintaining a dwelling. b. Secured by residential real estate. 2. The selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property. C. Appraisal Exemption: Nothing in this chapter prohibits a person engaged in the business of furnishing appraisals of real property to take into consideration factors other than age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. (Ord. 18-09, 4-6-2009) 8-5-5: DISCRIMINATION IN PROVISION OF BROKERAGE SERVICES: It shall be unlawful to deny any person access to or membership or participation in any multiple listing services, real estate brokers' organization, or other service, organization, or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or to discriminate against such person in the terms or conditions of such access, membership, or participation, on account of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. (Ord. 18-09, 4-6-2009) s 1 Trish Gleason - RE: December 15 City Council Agenda Item From: "R.R. S. Stewart" <countessl4@hotmail.com> To: Juanita Hilkin <jhilkin@cityofdubuque.org> Date: 12/14/2014 12:40 PM Subject: RE: December 15 City Council Agenda Item Attachments: Forum Minutes approved 8 Dec.docx; City Council letter.pdf, City Council letter.doc; Source of Income Report 8 Dec.pdf Thank,Juanita (and for replying on a Sunday, no less! You are obviously devoted to your job). Having continued to look through the agenda and documents, I found a few more mistakes. The minutes of the forum you have included with the agenda item are the draft minutes. The minutes as approved at the 8 December DHRC meeting are attached. This means those pages of the Source of Income report (the last few pages) were updated to include the approved minutes rather than the draft minutes, and the report as it was finalized 8 Dec is attached as well. Lastly, the second paragraph of the letter from DHRC is one sentence and should read: Since a HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher.Utilization and Locational Outcomes found that "Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and, for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas..." by passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances, which aligns with the 2010 Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies recommendations that the city disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources, DHRC recommends that City Council work with DHRC to establish a taskforce composed of Human Rights and Housing Commissioners and staff, and attendees from the Commission's Source of Income Forum and other interested members of the public, and that the taskforce be given 90 days to consider: In the letter as attached to the agenda, this was divided into two incomplete sentences, and included an extra "the". I've attached both the word document letter that is correct and the pdf letter attached to the agenda so you can see the differences. Lastly,just some background information - a comment we received at the forum (and there were about 7 people who spoke in favor of the proposal) was that some community members were upset that most of the discussion up until that point (from April to Oct.) had been with the landlord association. They felt that people other than landlords needed to be included in the discussion. This is why DHRC's recommendation included selecting a few people from the forum to serve on the taskforce. Accordingly, for our meetings since then (Nov. and Dec.), we have included Keith Nilles (guessimust@hotmail.com), Pauline Chilton (Pauline@ paulinechilton.com), and JoEllen Reed (netrover5@yahoo.com), in addition to Jerry Maro (jmaro125@msn.com), on our meeting announcements to make sure that people representing a variety of viewpoints and interests receive meeting notice and documents. Keith, JoEllen, and Jerry all came to our November meeting and spoke when we allowed public comments on the proposal we were sending to City Council. Thank you again, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. 12/15/2014 2 R.R.S. Adjunct Faculty,Northeast Iowa Community College Architectural,Writing&Parliamentary Consultant portfolio at www.rrsstewart.com twitter.com/D BQstewart "I am not to speak to you, I am to think of you. When I sit alone, awake at night alone, I am to se to it that I do not u. lose you."-Walt Whitman quoted on Bones. 4.14— "Peace goes in the making of a poet as flour goes into the making of bread." - Pablo Neruda - li Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 08:01:37 -0600 From:Jhilkin@cityofdubuque.org 1� Subject: RE: December 15 City Council Agenda Item To: countessl4@hotmail.com Dear Ms. Stewart, Thank you for bringing this to our attention again. I will forward your e-mail to City Manager Mike Van Milligen. 'I Juanita I i >>> "R.R. S. Stewart" <countessl4@hotmail.com> 12/12/2014 8:58 PM >>> Ms. Hilkin, Thanks for your e-mail. Regarding the alternate proposal, the Commission discussed a year, j and then decided to go with the three month recommendation. Having had a majority of Commissioners vote for three months over one year, I think it is safe to say a majority of the Commission will view two-years as too long, particularly since the Commission has already been researching and discussing this issue for almost 9 months (since April of this year). However, the main point of this e-mail is to communicate a mistake with the agenda, which I brought up to Trish & Kevin in June, but apparently was not entered into the database. DHRC has three terms expire every year, therefore, it is incorrect for the agenda to read: Two, 3 year terms through January 1, 2018 (Expiring terms of Allen and Stewart) One, 3 year term through January 1, 2017 (Vacant term of Ostwinkle) It should read: Three, 3 year terms through January 1, 2018 One, 3 year term through January 1, 2017 Please see the attached Boards latest listing where I first noticed the mistake (June 2014). Also attached is the 2010 Boards' listing, which correctly shows three terms expiring each year. And the Human Rights Term list kept by Carol Spinoso, which also correctly shows three terms expiring each year. 12/15/2014 3 Below is the e-mail from Trish acknowledging the mistake in June of this year. Sincerely, R.R.S. On Tue,Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Trish Gleason <Tgleason@cityofdubuque.org>wrote: RRS Stewart, Thank you for catching the error in the term expiration. I have made the correction in our database. Thank you, Trish L.Gleason, CMC, IMFO, ICMC Assistant City Clerk 50 W. 13th St. Dubuque, IA. 52001 Phone (563)589-4120 Fax (563)589-0890 tgleason@cityofdubuque.org Adjunct Faculty,Northeast Iowa Community College Architectural,Writing&Parliamentary Consultant portfolio at www.rrsstewart.com twitter.com/D B Q stewa rt "I am not to speak to you, I am to think of you. When I sit alone, awake at night alone, I am to se to it that I do not lose you."-Walt Whitman quoted on Bones. 4.14 - "Peace goes in the making of a poet as flour goes into the making of bread." - Pablo Neruda - Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:19:39-0600 From:Jhilkin@cityofdubuque.org To: pjnorton@buesing.com; Anash@cityofdubuque.org; Cbrumwel@cityofdubuque.org; Klarson@cityofdubuque.org; Lcarsten@cityofdubuque.org; Patrick.J.Norton@gmail.com; countessl4@hotmail.com; sgrl@hotmail.com;jholz@msa-ps.com;jmaro125@msn.com; free2betmcaldwell@yahoo.com Subject: December 15 City Council Agenda Item j I City Manager Mike Van Milligen wanted you to see the December 15 Dubuque City Council Agenda item on Source of Income Proposal from Human Rights Commission. I have attached Mike Van I Milligen's cover memo to this item, but because the rest of the item is so large, please click on the link below that says "click here" and then select the December 15 agenda, and go to Action Item #1 -titled Lawful Source of Income Consideration - Double click on the title Lawful Source of Income and then you can individually select the attachments. If you have any difficulties opening these documents, please feel free to contact me. Juanita Juanita Hilkin Office Manager 12/15/2014 4 Dubuque City Manager's Office City of Dubuque 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Telephone: 563-690-6036 Fax: 563-589-4149 www.city ofdubuque.org I Dubuque:Masterpiece on the Mississippi NA Before printing this e-mail, please determine if it is truly necessary >>> "Dubuque City Clerk's Office" <listsery@civicplus.com> 12/12/2014 9:00 AM >>> b View this in your browser II To access the December 15,2014 Dubuque City Council's regular and special meeting agendas,please click here. i Agendas and minutes for past City Council meetings can be viewed through the Agendas and Minutes link at www.citvofdubuciue.org. ij Searchable,archived videos of City Council meetings are also available online at www.citvofdubuque.org/media. Official Proceedings and agenda documents from past City Council meetings can be viewed through the Public Documents link at www.citvofdubuque.org. I This complimentary message is being sent to opt-in subscribers who might be interested in its content.If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages,please accept our apologies,and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: j http://www.citvofdubugue.orq/notifvme Please note,we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. i You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council Agendas&Minutes on www.cityofdubugue.org.To unsubscribe,click the following link: http://www.citvofdubugue.oEg/iist.aspx?mode=del If clicking the link doesn't work,please copy and paste the link into your browser. Click here to report this email as spam. 12/15/2014 CITY OF DUBUQUE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC FORUM October 16,2014 Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2014, at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, 11th&Locust Streets, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Chair Anthony Allen Miquel Jackson Jeff Lenhart Ashley Melchert Chris Ostwinkle Vice Chair R.R.S. Stewart, Susan Stone d Absent: Howard Lee, Tom LoGuidice j Staff: Director Kelly Larson Chair Anthony Allen reviewed the public comment rules and asked commissioners to introduce themselves. Vice-Chair R.R.S. Stewart explained the origin of the Human Rights Commission decision to review and consider source of income. Vice-Chair Stewart explained that the Human Rights Commission attempts to hold one forum per year and in the past years has held forums on the Americans with Disabilities Act, access to Transit, and education on LGBT issues through j Better Together Dubuque. The public was then invited to address the Commission related to the question of whether or not to recommend to the City Council that the human rights ordinance be j amended to include Source of Income. Members of the public were invited to identify themselves as they provided their comments and the following people spoke:Jerry Maro, Judy Schmitt, Ken Bichell, Julie Beck, Vicki Bechen, Jo Ellen Reed, Ernestine Moss, Dan Pusateri, Sue Kearns,Dean Thompson, Al Kroger, John Jaeger, Helene Hill, Corey Gausen, Steve Bracken, Keith Nilles, Pauline Chilton, Carol Copeland, Margie White, Diane McClain, Suzie Cronic, Deb May, Michelle Jacoby. The comments have been arranged by topic and are attached to these minutes. At the conclusion of comments, Chair Allen thanked people for coming, expressed the desire to continue working together, and stated that the commission would likely continue to discuss this item at upcoming meetings. He invited people to attend commission meetings on the second Monday of the month at 4:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room at 1300 Main Street, and to watch for public notices of meetings. Human Rights Executive Director Kelly Larson invited people to sign up for"notify me"through the City's website to receive notices of upcoming meetings.Anthony also invited people to submit additional comments through the Human Rights Department Office. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Minutes approved 8 December 2014. 1 Public comments organized by general category/topic Financial Considerations: • If a tenant damages that unit and has wage income, wages can be garnished making it more likely a landlord can collect damages. Funds in the form of a government subsidy cannot be collected on if damaged. • If a tenant loses their job, there may be similar recovery challenges • Inspection process can delay ability to rent immediately, causing income loss for landlords • The rental business is a financial loss and both section 8 and non-section 8 tenants cause B damage • Used to accept section 8 and stopped when HUD stopped reimbursing for damages • Rental property is retirement investment and need to protect it • Recovery fund will be a taxpayer burden • If affected financially by this, landlords may raise rents and that will affect everyone • Insurance companies ask"do you have section 8 tenants" and charge higher premiums if do • There is financial cost to landlords when accused of discriminating and have to prove innocence • If people with money damage property, can get the money back j • As more protected classes are added, the chances of being sued by more people increases and l there is time and cost involved in responding to claims N • There is no guarantee tenant will remain on section 8 program and continue to have that income on an ongoing basis. • Only own a four-plex and would go bankrupt if it was trashed • HUD requirements, such as re-painting entire exterior when paint is chipped in a small area, are too costly. • Already taking a risk with the investment and cannot afford increased risk • Compensation for damages very important because more often cannot recover if the tenant receives section 8 • It is easy to get to the point of having insufficient profit to continue d' • It is not uncommon for someone to file a lawsuit because angry they were turned down and for the landlord to have had no ill will and yet still need to defend self. •No money in rental property and having difficulty selling units • 98% of tenants are good tenants but the 2% can cause significant damage • Insurance companies are dropping coverage and raising premiums because of neighborhood y property is located in Screening Considerations: • Challenging to tell if getting someone who has repeatedly caused damage to departments • Have lived next to a landlord who rents to both section 8 and non-section 8 and the property has been a problem for 20 years • As a landlord, I accept section 8 and base my decisions on the individual and their ability to meet my criteria, such as credit history, criminal records, income guidelines, and ability to live in a community with others. • I screen my tenants very carefully and I am still operating at a financial loss • Neighborhood renters damaging property of other neighbors and causing financial losses that cannot be recouped by the property owner • Cannot just assume people on section 8 will damage property—choose tenants based on criteria 2 Source of Income Definition/Scope: • Alimony and child support are available to landlord only if the person responsible for paying them actually pays • Food stamps should not be included • Consider source of income laws that do not include section 8 • Social security, corporate pensions, investment income are all importance sources of income and have experienced landlords not wanting to count these as "income." • Look more closely at the sources—food stamps are not like social security income. • Banks do not include food stamps as income for mortgage qualification j Additional Considerations: , • There is a need to support people with limited resources • Do not expect anyone to live where I would not want to live • There are people who need it and there are landlords who are willing to meet that need • Limited number of properties accepting section 8 forces people to live only in certain areas of town. • Should have a right to live in any community can afford to live in, counting all sources of income. • I was on section 8 ten years and excellent tenant but could not choose where to live because so many landlords would not accept section 8. • Not sure how feel about forcing this on landlords. • We all want clean and properly cared for homes. • There are community problems when nest a lot of people with a lot of problems in a single area and that needs to be addressed. j • Can see all sides and want to be part of a solution that is beneficial to both landlords and u tenants. • We all want choices • Fairness always has two sides • The landlords in this community are not all a bunch of rich people just choosing to treat people badly • Most people present here tonight are against this and concerned that it may pass anyway • I have a 50 apartment community with a very diverse group of tenants—single moms,people with disabilities,people of color, section 8 and non-section 8. When people call me I am always asked if my building is downtown. • If people stay on section 8 for the long run, it is counterproductive to helping them • There are people coming into this community who lack financial resources Miscellaneous: • As a landlord, receive calls asking if accept section 8 and did not realize it was legal to refuse. • Lots of nice locations for the elderly,but not for the disabled. • Sometimes people lose their vouchers because they do not meet landlord criteria, even though landlord has units available and will accept section 8. Questions: [With answers provided at the Foram in brackets.] 3 i • Is there any information available on the decision in Cedar Rapids not to pursue a similar addition to their ordinance? • How would proposal help people with disabilities? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, the majority(56%) of people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers are people with disabilities and the elderly]. • The majority of my section 8 tenants have been single mothers—what is the actual makeup of section 8? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, 91% of voucher participants are from Dubuque, 5% are from other Iowa Cities, and the other 2% are from other Illinois cities, Washington, Wisconsin, and Minnesota]. • Will there be a reimbursement fund? j • How bureaucratic would system to access fund to recover damages be? 11 • Insurance companies will drop landlords who have a large claim—would City consider a blanket insurance liability policy? • If this ordinance passed, I applied my criteria to a voucher holder and that person passed my j criteria,but I only use six month leases and not one year leases, what happens? Can I decline to participate in the section 8 program because I do not use a one year lease and the program requires a one year lease? • What if someone feels very strongly that they simply do not want to receive any federal funds? • Is there a proven significant difference in how people care for property between those who 4 receive section 8 and those who do not? [See the 2010 study done by Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies, referenced at the beginning of this report]. • Has this been enacted anywhere else and, if so, what have been the results? [. Lawful source of income laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the mid-1970s. Nationally, 12 states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,New Jersey,North Dakota, kI Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont; and Wisconsin), the District of Columbia, Iowa City, ; Marion and more than 30 other cities and counties, large and small,have similar laws. See Frequently Asked Question Answer#6 on page 32 for more information.] • Why should commissioners who are not landlords have a say in this? • Who makes the decision ultimately on whether or not the ordinance is amended? Suggestions: [With answers provided at the Forum in brackets.] • Basic problem is decreased availability of affordable units. Before go to Council, create a task force to do some brainstorming between landlords and tenants to figure out how to increase affordable housing without putting this burden on landlords with another protected class. • When getting together for problem solving, include both landlords and tenants • Solve some of the problems so that people are not having to live in bad or scary places • Make sure any decision is as equitable as possible in accounting for financial risk to landlords • Promote accepting vouchers • Instead of putting this on the private sector, create a housing authority. [In 1998, one-term Senator Lauch Faircloth(R-NC) created the "Faircloth Amendment" or"Faircloth Limit"to the "Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act,"which blocked HUD support for construction of new public housing. Section 9(g) (3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Faircloth Amendment") states HUD cannot fund the construction or operation of new public housing units with Capital or Operating Funds if the construction of those units would result in a net increase in the number of units the PHA (Public Housing Authority) owned, assisted or operated as of E 4 October 1, 1999. Consequently, PHAs cannot build new publicly owned units or maintain those units using federal funds.] • Landlord choice to participate in the program should be protected • Clean up neighborhoods were section 8 units are located so people not having to live in crime ridden areas • Before take anything to Council, meet to describe what intending to recommend and then go to council in a way that permits commissioners, landlords, and tenants all to weigh in • Build on the history of landlords working with the City and then some landlords may be willing to accept section 8 if not so fearful • Properties require ongoing investments, work, sweat—make it so landlords want to accept section 8 • All of us face choices that are limited by our financial situation d • Consider co-signers • Develop accountability program for tenants who are trashing properties—for example, if receiving voucher and damage property then must go to classes or take other actions to remain • If goal is to have section 8 housing outside of undesirable neighborhoods, then develop city- h owned building. [See"Faircloth Limit" above.] j These are the possible definitions of Source of Income discussed by DHRC in the months leading up to the forum: i; 1. LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived ' from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation, lawful compensation or lawful renumeration in exchange for goods or services provided. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance,pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or `I benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property or profit from financial investments. 2: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including,but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care,military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". 3: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) a.k.a. 5 "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care,military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs,but not including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". 4: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social h security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", and unemployment or worker's compensation payments,but not including housing vouchers for the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8", McKinney Shelter Plus Care,military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDs, and any additional state or local voucher programs. I! h ail n I r, i r I i 6 Human Rights Department City Hall Annex 1300 Main Street THE CITYOF Dubuque,Iowa 52001-4732 T 4 " (563)5894190 office (563)5894299 fax ` (563)5894193 TDD humanrgt@cityofdubuque.org 19 November 2014 ti Dear City Council Members: During the Human Rights Department budget presentation to City Council in Feb./Mar 2011, a Councilor asked about Source of Income anti-discrimination Fair Housing Ordinances. Due to the other forums and issues being worked on by the Dubuque Human Rights Commission (DHRC), this topic did not resurface until 2013, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reviewed the City of Dubuque's Housing and Community Development Program. In April 2014,the City and HUD j. entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which among other things recommended the city undertake "activities to integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing j opportunities." Since a HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes found that "Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and, for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas" by passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances,which aligns with the 2010 - Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies recommendations that the city disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources, DHRC recommends that City Council work with DHRC to establish a taskforce composed of Human Rights and Housing Commissioners and Staff, and attendees from the Commission's Source of Income forum and other interested members of the public and that taskforce be given 90 days to consider: —whether the City of Dubuque should add Source of Income anti- discrimination to the fair housing ordinance whether there are other activities as likely to improve voucher utilization rates and locational outcomes as source of income ordinances that the City of Dubuque could do in addition to and/or in place of a Source of Income ordinance and other activities in regards to all legal sources of income that could"integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." DHRC is wiling to have a worksession with the City Council on this topic if the city council wishes. Enclosed are four documents for your review: 1. A report of research and activities undertaken by DHRC to date, 2. July 2013 &January 2014 "Fair Housing Coach", 3. 2011 HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes, 4. Poverty&Race Research Action Council Appendix of State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination. Thank you so much for giving us your valuable time and guidance. Sincerely, -Chair Anthony Allen, DHRC Chair R.R.S. Stewart,DHRC Vice u 18 V �� i' I) �I �� i S i p t i I [Yf k f `I I I C f Human Rights Department City Hall Annex 1300 Main Street T ctrY OF'Dubuque,Iowa 52001-4732 (563)589-4190 office DUB E (563)589-4299 fax L U (563)589-4193 TDD � human-rgt@ftofdubuque.org u 19 November 2014 Dear City Council Members: During the Human Rights Department budget presentation to City Council in Feb./Mar k 2011, a Councilor asked about Source of Income anti-discrimination Fair Housing Ordinances. Due to the other forums and issues being worked on by the Dubuque Human Rights Commission (DHRC),this topic did not resurface until 2013, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reviewed the City of Dubuque's Housing and Community Development Program. In April 2014, the City and HUD entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which among other things recommended the a city undertake "activities to integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." Since a HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes found that "Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and, for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas" l by passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances, which aligns with the 2010 Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies recommendations that the city disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources, DHRC recommends that City Council work with DHRC to establish a taskforce composed of Human Rights and Housing Commissioners and Staff, and attendees from the Commission's Source of Income forum and other interested members of the public and that taskforce be given 90 days to consider: —whether the City of Dubuque should add Source of Income anti- discrimination to the fair housing ordinance whether there are other activities as likely to improve voucher utilization rates and locational outcomes as source of income ordinances that the City of Dubuque could do in addition to and/or a in place of a Source of Income ordinance and other activities in regards to all legal sources of income that could"integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." DHRC is wiling to have a worksession with the City Council on this topic if the city council wishes. Enclosed are four documents for your review: 1. A report of research and activities undertaken by DHRC to date, 2. July 2013 &January 2014 "Fair Housing Coach", 3. 2011 HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes, 4. Poverty&Race Research Action Council Appendix of State, Local, and Federal Laws Barring Source-of-Income Discrimination. Thank you so much for giving us your valuable time and guidance. Sincerely, err Anthony Allen, DHRC Chair R.R.S. Stewart, DHRC Vice-Chair E I� I� n I� 6 IIi li tli II II r�r 1 �I l' �i �� ' I, („N�p� { Source of Income Dubuque Human Rights Commission Activity Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Origins of this Proposal ........................................................................................................ 2 2. Minnesota & Wisconsin Ordinances Memorandum.......................................................... 2 3. Relevant Provisions of Iowa City Code of Ordinances ...................................................... 6 4. Marion Code of Ordinances & Dubuque Housing Department Data ............................. 9 5. Community Overview Data from County Comprehensive Plan..................................... 16 6. Economic Development Data from County Comprehensive Plan ................................. 19 7. Housing Chapter from County Comprehensive Plan ...................................................... 24 8. Lawful Source of Income Protections Frequently Asked Questions and Answers*...... 31 9. Chart from Fair Housing Coach .........................................................................................34 10. Maps from HUD Study**.................................................................................................. 36 11. TH Article on Public Forum............................................................................................. 38 12. Minutes from Public Forum ............................................................................................. 39 *Compiled by the University of Iowa Legal Clinic. "Note these maps were created before Marion passed their ordinance and Oregon expanded their law to include all local, state, or federal housing assistance. 1. Origins of this Conversation In 2010 the Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies did a review of research studies related to poverty, Section 8 housing assistance, crime, fear of crime, and crime prevention. The set of recommendations they issues included: Disperse Section 8 housing unit locations into neighborhoods with greater social resources Address poverty where it occurs and provide assistance to gain financial footing All of the statistics in the world cannot ask the most fundamental question. What kind of community do we want to be? IN A DEMOCRACY ... this is where civic engagement becomes crucial. Every year since 2010, the Human rights Commission has tried to do a Forum: 2010 - Fair Housing& 20th Anniversary of American with Disabilities Act 2011 - Joint Forum with the Transit Advisory Board and Housing Commission 2012 - Better Together Conference and First Year of"This is How we BBQ in DBQ" 2013 - Panel on the 20th anniversary in February of the Family Medical Leave Act being signed into law,the 100th anniversary in March of the National Women's Suffrage Procession, and t he 45th anniversary in April of the passage of the Fair Housing Act. 2014 - Source of Income Forum 2015 - (Planned) Forum on Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice, Education, Housing, Employment/Economic Development, and Community. During the Human Rights presentation to City Council in Feb./Mar 2011, a Councilor asked about Source of Income. Due to the other forums and issues being worked on by the Commission,this topic did not resurface until 2013. 1 The Human Rights department subscribes to "Fair Housing Coach", a newsletter for real estate professionals and their attorneys on management, lease, and regulatory compliance matters. The July 2013 issue was on how to comply with fair housing laws banning discrimination based on source of income. In it was this quote "The name has changed to the Housing Choice Voucher program, but many still use `Section 8' to refer to the federal government's major program for helping very low-income families,the elderly, and disabled individuals to afford housing in the private market. Moreover,fair housing advocates are increasingly pushing for reforms to ban discrimination based on source of income, including Section 8 housing vouchers. Earlier this year, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) called on Congress to add source of income to federal fair housing law, arguing that discrimination against voucher holders disproportionately ffects low-income women and families, people of color, and people with disabilities. HUD seems of like mind, at least that's the message voiced by top enforcement officials in 2010 when the agency announced new requirements for grant recipients to comply with state and local laws banning housing discrimination based on source of income. In a statement, John Trasvina, HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, said, "Prohibiting this form of discrimination provides an essential protection for many Americans, including disabled veterans, seasonal workers, and persons that are using Housing Choice Vouchers to maintain housing for themselves and their children. Racial discrimination is often perpetrated through denials of housing opportunities to Section 8 voucher holders. It is wrong and HUD will now keep systemic violators from applying for HUD funds." Also in 2013, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reviewed the City of Dubuque's Housing and Community Development Program. In April 2014,the City and HUD entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, which among other things recommended the city undertake "activities to integrate affordable housing that is fully available without regard to race or ethnicity throughout all of the communities within the City and to create equal housing opportunities." The HUD Office of Policy Development and Research did a study on the Impact of Source of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization and Locational Outcomes by comparing Cities with Source of Income ordinance to cities without. The study found that 'Policy makers can expect an increase in utilization rates and,for some, greater access to less disadvantaged areas" by passing "Source of Income" anti-discrimination ordinances. In May 2014, the Assistant City Attorney had DHRC discuss proposed changes to Administrative Rules and Ordinance Section 8-4-7 in reference to a U.S. southern district of Iowa case on administratively releasing a case. In light of this and all the previously outlined developments since 2010, DHRC also began looking at whether to recommend updating the City Fair Housing Ordinance to include "Source of Income" anti-discrimination. 2. Minnesota & Wisconsin Ordinances Memorandum To: Human Rights Commissioners From: Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director Subject: Information Requested Related to Source of Income Coverage Date: June 2, 2014 At the May Human Rights Commission meeting, you asked for copies of the Iowa 2 City ordinance and the state codes in Minnesota and Wisconsin that cover"source of income" as protected class. I have attached the relevant portions of those laws, along with a link that allows you to view the entire ordinance or statute online. You also asked how many housing providers in Dubuque participate in the housing voucher/Section 8 program. As of January 1, 2014, there are 1,450 housing providers with rental licenses in the City of Dubuque. Of these, there are 229 housing providers (15.8%) who currently participate in the section 8 Voucher program (15.8%). Minnesota State Code Chapter 363A http://mn.gov/mdhr/yourrights/mhra.html Definitions: Subd. 47.Status with regard to public assistance. "Status with regard to public assistance" means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements. In Minnesota, the coverage is in employment, real property, education, credit. Example from housing below 363A.09 UNFAIR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY. Subdivision I.Real property interest; action by owner, lessee, and others. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease any real property, or any agent of any of these: (1)to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or otherwise deny to or withhold from any person or group of persons any real property because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; or (2)to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of any real property or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith, except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the adoption of reasonable rules intended to protect the safety of minors in their use of the real property or any facilities or services furnished in connection therewith; or (3) in any transaction involving real property,to print, circulate or post or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted any advertisement or sign, or use any form of application for the purchase, rental or lease of real property, or make any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental, or lease of real property which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status, or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the advertisement of a dwelling unit as available to adults- only if the person placing the advertisement reasonably believes that the provisions of this section prohibiting discrimination because of familial status do not apply to the dwelling unit. Subd. 2.Real property interest; action by brokers, agents, and others. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a real estate broker, real estate salesperson, or employee, or agent thereof: (1)to refuse to sell, rent, or lease or to offer for sale, rental, or lease any real property to 3 any person or group of persons or to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of any real property to any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or represent that real property is not available for inspection, sale, rental, or lease when in fact it is so available, or otherwise deny or withhold any real property or any facilities of real property to or from any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status; or (2)to discriminate against any person because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status in the terms, conditions or privileges of the sale, rental or lease of real property or in the furnishing of facilities or services in connection therewith; or (3)to print, circulate, or post or cause to be printed, circulated, or posted any advertisement or sign, or use any form of application for the purchase, rental, or lease of any real property or make any record or inquiry in connection with the prospective purchase, rental or lease of any real property, which expresses directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination except that nothing in this clause shall be construed to prohibit the advertisement of a dwelling unit as available to adults-only if the person placing the advertisement reasonably believes that the provisions of this section prohibiting discrimination because of familial status do not apply to the dwelling unit. Subd. 3.Real property interest; action by financial institution. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person, bank, banking organization, mortgage company, insurance company, or other financial institution or lender to whom application is made for financial assistance for the purchase, lease, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any real property or any agent or employee thereof: (1)to discriminate against any person or group of persons because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status of the person or group of persons or of the prospective occupants or tenants of the real property in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying or renewing, or in the rates, terms, conditions, or privileges of the financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection therewith; or (2)to use any form of application for the financial assistance or make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for the financial assistance which expresses, directly or indirectly, any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation, or familial status or any intent to make any such limitation, specification, or discrimination; or (3)to discriminate against any person or group of persons who desire to purchase, lease, acquire, construct, rehabilitate, repair, or maintain real property in a specific urban or rural area or any part thereof solely because of the social, economic, or environmental conditions of the area in the granting, withholding, extending, modifying, or renewing, or in the rates, terms, conditions, or privileges of the financial assistance or in the extension of services in connection therewith. 4 Subd. 4.Real property transaction. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any real estate broker or real estate salesperson,for the purpose of inducing a real property transaction from which the person,the person's firm, or any of its members may benefit financially, to represent that a change has occurred or will or may occur in the composition with respect to race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, or disability of the owners or occupants in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located, and to represent, directly or indirectly,that this change will or may result in undesirable consequences in the block, neighborhood, or area in which the real property is located, including but not limited to the lowering of property values, an increase in criminal or antisocial behavior, or a decline in the quality of schools or other public facilities. Subd. 5.Real property full and equal access. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person to deny full and equal access to real property provided for in sections 363A.08 to 363A.19, and 363A.28, subdivision 10,to a person who is totally or partially blind, deaf, or has a physical or sensory disability and who uses a service animal, if the service animal can be properly identified as being from a recognized program which trains service animals to aid persons who are totally or partially blind or deaf or have physical or sensory disabilities. The person may not be required to pay extra compensation for the service animal but is liable for damage done to the premises by the service animal. Subd. 6.Real property interest; interference with. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for a person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of that person having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of that person having aided or encouraged a third person in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this section. It is not included in the public accommodations section. Wisconsin State Law https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/civil_rights_statut es and codes.htm 106.50 Open housing. (1) Intent. It is the intent of this section to render unlawful discrimination in housing. It is the declared policy of this state that all persons shall have an equal opportunity for housing regardless of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry and it is the duty of the political subdivisions to assist in the orderly prevention or removal of all discrimination in housing through the powers granted under ss. 66.0125 and 66.1011. The legislature hereby extends the state law governing equal housing opportunities to cover single-family residences that are owner-occupied. The legislature finds that the sale and rental of single-family residences constitute a significant portion of the housing business in this state and should be regulated. This section shall be considered an exercise of the police powers of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, dignity, and human rights of the people of this state. 5 (h) "Discriminate" means to segregate, separate, exclude, or treat a person or class of persons unequally in a manner described in sub. (2), (2m), or (2r)because of sex, race, color, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, marital status,family status, status as a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, lawful source of income, age, or ancestry. Had to go to administrative rules for the definition of lawful source of income: DWD 220.02 Definitions. In addition to those terms defined in s. 106.50, Stats., the following are definitions for terms used in this chapter: . . . (8) "Lawful source of income" includes, but is not limited to, lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; any negotiable draft, coupon or voucher representing monetary value such as food stamps; social security; public assistance; unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments. Not included in employment, public accommodation, education 3. Relevant Provisions of Iowa Citv Code of Ordinances: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book id-953 Definition: "PUBLIC ASSISTANCE SOURCE OF INCOME: Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, food stamps, and unemployment compensation, but not including rent subsidies." 2-5-1: HOUSING; EXCEPTIONS: It shall be an unlawful or discriminatory practice for any person to: A. Refuse to sell, rent, lease, assign, sublease, refuse to negotiate or to otherwise make unavailable, or deny any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest therein,to any person because of the age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income of that person. B. Discriminate against any other person in the terms, conditions or privileges of any real estate transaction because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. C. Directly or indirectly advertise, or in any other manner indicate or publicize in any real estate transaction that any person is not welcome or not solicited because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. D. Discriminate against the lessee or purchaser of any real property or housing accommodation or part, portion or interest of the real property or housing accommodation, or against any prospective lessee or purchaser of the property or accommodation because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income of persons who may from time to time be present in or on the lessee's or owner's premises for lawful purposes at the invitation of the lessee or owner as friends, guests, visitors, relatives or in any similar capacity. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) 6 E. For purposes of this chapter, "person" means one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies,joint stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under title 11 of the United States Code, as amended, receivers and fiduciaries. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) F. For the purposes of this title, "aggrieved person" includes any person who: 1) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice; or 2) believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that is about to occur. G. For purposes of this chapter, "dwelling" and/or "housing accommodation" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. H. For purposes of this chapter, 'covered multi-family dwelling" means any of the following: 1. A building consisting of four(4) or more dwelling units if the building has one or more elevators. 2. The ground floor units of a building consisting of four (4) or more units. (Ord. 97- 3785, 5-20-1997) 2-5-2: EXCEPTIONS: A. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Any bona fide religious institution with respect to any qualifications it may impose based on religion, when these qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose unless the religious institution owns or operates property for a commercial purpose or membership in the religion is restricted on account of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) B. The following is exempt from the prohibitions set forth in section 2-5-1 of this chapter with the exception of the prohibition on discrimination in advertising set forth in subsection 2-5-1C of this chapter: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) The rental or leasing of four (4) or fewer rooms within a single housing accommodation by the owner of such housing accommodation, if the owner resides therein. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) C. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association, or society from limiting the sale, rental or occupancy of dwellings which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose to persons of the same religion or from giving preference to such persons, unless membership in such religion is restricted on account of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) D. The following exemption is applicable to all of this title: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Restrictions based on sex in the rental or leasing of housing accommodations within which residents of both sexes would share a common bathroom facility on the same floor of the building. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) E. The following is exempt from the prohibitions set forth in section 2-5-1 of this chapter with the exception of the prohibition on discrimination in advertising set forth in subsection 2-5-1C of this chapter: (Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) Rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four(4) families living independently of 7 each other, if the owner occupies the premises, or some portion thereof, and actually resides therein. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997; amd. Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) F. (Rep. by Ord. 97-3785, 5-20-1997) G. Nothing in this title limits the applicability of the city's restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling. Nor does any provision in this title regarding familial status apply with respect to housing for older persons. For the purposes of this title, "housing for older persons" means housing: 1. Provided under any state or federal program that is specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program and as determined by the secretary of housing and urban development); or 2. Intended for, and solely occupied by, persons sixty two (62)years of age or older; or 3. Intended and operated for occupancy by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit. In determining whether housing qualifies as housing for older persons under this subsection,the regulations promulgated by the secretary of housing and urban development shall apply and at least the following two (2) criteria must be present: a. That at least eighty percent(80%) of the units are occupied by at least one person fifty five (55) years of age or older per unit; and b. The publication of, and adherence to, policies and procedures which demonstrate an intent by the owner or manager to provide housing for persons fifty five (55) years of age or older. However, such housing may not otherwise be restricted on the basis of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, public assistance source of income or presence or absence of dependents. (Ord. 97-3785, 5-20- 1997) 2-5-3: ADDITIONAL UNFAIR OR DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES: A. A person shall not induce or attempt to induce another person to sell or rent a dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into a neighborhood of a person of a particular age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income. B. A person shall not represent to a person of a particular age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status, familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income that a dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when the dwelling is available for inspection, sale or rental. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) C. A person shall not discriminate in the sale or rental or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to a buyer or renter because of a disability of any of the following persons: 1. That buyer or renter. 2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available. 3. A person associated with that buyer or renter. D. A person shall not discriminate against another person in the terms, conditions or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or facilities in connection with the dwelling because of a disability of any of the following persons: 1. That person. 2. A person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available. 3. A person associated with that person. E. For the purposes of this section only, discrimination includes any of the following circumstances: 1. A refusal to permit, at the expense of the disabled person, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the person if the modifications are necessary to afford the person full enjoyment of the premises. In the case of a rental, a 8 landlord may, where reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter's agreement to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted. 2. A refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services, when the accommodations are necessary to afford the person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) 3. In connection with the design and construction of covered multi-family dwellings for first occupancy after March 13, 1991, a failure to design and construct those dwellings in a manner that meets the following requirements: (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994; amd. Ord. 97-3785, 5-20- 1997; Ord. 99-3905, 10-12-1999) a. The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons. b. All doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises within the dwellings are sufficiently wide to allow passage by disabled persons in wheelchairs. c. All premises within the dwellings contain the following features of adaptive design: (1) An accessible route into and through the dwelling. (2) Light switches, electrical outlets,thermostats and other environmental controls in accessible locations. (3) Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars. (4)Usable kitchens and bathrooms so that a person in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space. d. Compliance with the appropriate requirements of the "American National Standard For Buildings And Facilities Providing Accessibility And Usability For Physically Handicapped People", as amended, commonly cited as "ANSI A 117.1", satisfies the requirements of subsection E3c of this section. 4. Nothing in this subsection requires that a dwelling be made available to a person whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) F. A person whose business includes engaging in residential real estate related transactions shall not discriminate against a person in making a residential real estate related transaction available or in terms or conditions of a residential real estate related transaction because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) G. For the purpose of this section, "residential real estate related transaction" means any of the following: 1. To make or purchase loans or provide other financial assistance to purchase, construct, improve, repair or maintain a dwelling, or to secure residential real estate. 2. To sell, broker or appraise residential real estate. (Ord. 94-3647, 11-8-1994) H. A person shall not deny another person access to, or membership or participation in a multiple listing service, real estate brokers' organization or other service, organization or facility relating to the business of selling or renting dwellings, or discriminate against a person in terms or conditions of access, membership or participation in such organization because of age, color, creed, disability, gender identity, marital status,familial status, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, presence or absence of dependents, or public assistance source of income. (Ord. 95-3697, 11-7-1995) In Iowa City, the coverage is only in the Housing Discrimination portion of the ordinance. 4. Marion Code of Ordinances & Dubuque Housing Department Data TO: Human Rights Commissioners FROM: Kelly Larson, Human Rights Director DATE: August 1, 2014 RE: Following Up on Requests from July 14 Meeting 9 The purpose of this memo is to provide information requested by the Human Rights Commission at its meeting on July 14. First,the Commission requested a copy of the portion of the Marion, Iowa Code of Ordinances that addresses source of income. The link to the full ordinance is http://www.cityofmarion.org/home/showdocument?id-930. The relevant portions are copied below: "31.02 (14) "Lawful source of income"means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property. 31.18 FAIR HOUSING—GENERAL. 2. Prohibitions/Unfair or Discriminatory Practices —Housing. It is an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person, owner of rights to housing or real property, or a person acting for an owner of rights to housing or real property, with or without compensation, including(but not limited to)persons licensed as real estate brokers or salespersons, attorneys, auctioneers, architects, builders, developers, agents, or representatives by power of attorney or appointment, or any person acting under court order, deed of trust, or will—collectively referred to in this chapter as a"housing provider": A. To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. B. To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provisions of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. C. To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed or published any notice, statement or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation or an intention to make any such preference, limitation or discrimination. D. To represent to any person because of age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. E. For profit,to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular age, color, creed, disability, familial status, gender identity, lawful source of income, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. F. To discriminate against an individual who is receiving or has a Federal, State or local housing subsidy, including rental assistance or Section 8 vouchers, because the individual is such a 10 recipient or because of any requirement of such rental assistance or housing subsidy or voucher program, subject to the exemptions in Section 31.21 of this chapter; a housing provider: (1) Shall consider, and may verify, any lawful source of income or occupation in determining qualifications for rental or sale of a dwelling. (2) Shall not be required to rent or sell to any participant in a housing subsidy program merely because the individual has the subsidy. This subsection does not create a preference for persons with housing subsidies over those without subsidies. (3) Shall not refuse to accept or participate in a government housing subsidy program, except as provided elsewhere in this section, and must consider and evaluate individuals who participate in these programs along with other individuals and applicants. (4) May refuse to consider income derived from any criminal activity. (5) May determine the ability of any potential buyer or renter to pay a purchase price or pay rent by: a. Verifying, in a commercially reasonable manner, the source and amount of income of the potential buyer or renter, including any rental or purchase payments or portions of rental or purchase payments that will be made by other individuals, organizations or voucher and rental assistance payment programs on the same basis as payments to be made directly by the potential buyer or renter. b. Evaluating, in a commercially reasonable manner, the prospective stability, security, and credit worthiness of the potential buyer or renter or any source of income of the potential buyer or renter, including any rental or purchase payments or portions of rental or purchase payments that will be made by other individuals, organizations or voucher and rental assistance payment programs. (6) May refuse to lease or sell a dwelling to a potential or current renter or buyer who is relying on a Section 8 voucher or subsidy for payment of part or all of the rent or sale price for a dwelling if and when the Marion Housing Services Office or its designee determines that: a. The dwelling fails to meet Federal Housing Quality Standards in connection with the Section 8 or subsidy program; or b. The rent for the dwelling exceeds the Fair Market Rent authorized by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Marion Housing Services Office in connection with the Section 8 or subsidy program. (7) Shall cooperate with the Marion Housing Services Office, HUD and the buyer or renter to execute all documents necessary to apply for participation in the housing subsidy or voucher program and to enable payment of housing subsidies or rental assistance payments." Marion Code of Ordinances, Chapter 31. Second, there was a request for data showing the number of people who move off of government assistance. While the City does not have data on forms of government assistance available through other agencies, we are able to provide some information related to the receipt of Housing Assistance Vouchers. For example, during FY14 (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014) a total of 170 families went off of the rental assistance program, one of whom was evicted. Additionally, the Housing and Community Development Department is involved in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and the Circles Initiative, both of which are designed to support people moving towards self-sufficiency. The charts on the following pages provide data on those programs. The Self-Sufficiency Program data is current as of June 2013. I have requested updated data from the department but have not yet received it. The Circle Leader chart was created in January 2014 based on 20 Circles Leaders active in the program at that time. 11 4a �Yaa cyHH 9j o1� a 9j d M 0y E o ay tb V +0 HA/ bs b w o 0O9 �O /ab of 46 Aar Q Ae�'�y�/I uai ~ yO gg%o l E u 7 w E o g4j e/ f'a /i,.� abs, a+oY G 4. G " ti A ° gAC ag6a 0 ✓� .� � m � o � m y — 10 '410 � o 0 X oo' Xno' x • • +o C 6 N .. E 2fHa H'�y�a0 a P N v .`_ 4aa°qq yOg m O V 3 �64� �•fqy 0y0 � 7 J Vl N 4rS ¢/ J W 0 �O d Y Y d /SOY m i 5 12 N � N AO ,p via �!ya, Ar d PeZ `J a LL C /Ay o V !P �4P OpAq, /gO N F 0 0,4/ O00 wo �Yp $ a`/ paaGYY a T E _ gy, _ QAC c a r pA n O `�4,P'gP�O ,d/qa ry gL QiP j �J AP 4/ c @ �a4 ry ma a N �YY H L d/P � LL A Ay, a9aA C E d � P� E _ Sao C INN oA gc �o o�aoa� 8 8 8 8 8 a E E N E E F F 13 | � ! § i [ % 0 « ` * ! f ! M ! f r ; ! Br � W / \ i ) \ ) § } / `k \ !/ Ul\ � ) ) ! \ \ \ \ \ ! \ � � a5 ! | } R t7 / \ ƒ Circle Leader Employment and Education 8o utcomes 70 N L .90 ■ Employed A °5o d ■ Enrolled in i o Education V r-ao ■ Certificates C or Degrees d M Earned A a+ o u L W 1 Enrollment 6months 12 months 18 months Length of Time in Circles The Circle Leader chart was created in January 2014 based on 20 Circles Leaders active in the program at that time. Finally, there was a request for information from Iowa City and Marion regarding their experience since including source of income in their ordinances. I contacted Stefanie Munstermann-Robinson, acting Director for the Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Commission, for information related to the Marion ordinance. The Cedar Rapids Commission has an agreement to investigate cases on behalf of the City of Marion. To date, there have been no cases filed under lawful source of income, though the Marion Commission just became fully functional in May of 2014. 1 also spoke with Stefanie Bowers with the Iowa City Human Rights Commission. She has been the director since approximately 2006, and the source of income coverage was already included in the Iawwhen she was hired. She verified that the Iowa City ordinance does not include Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). She stated she receives very few calls about the source of income ordinance in general, and anecdotally she recalls perhaps four calls this year where an individual expressed concern that they were denied an apartment because they participated in the Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) program. Here are the numbers of cases that have been filed alleging discrimination based on public assistance source of income under the Iowa City Ordinance over the past five years: 15 FY10=5 FY11=5 FY12=1 FY13=5 FY14=1 All of these complaints were either administratively closed or resulted in a finding of no probable cause to believe discrimination occurred. Stefanie noted that only one or two of these cases was correctly filed under the ordinance. For example, people will often check"source of income" as a basis when they file an employment discrimination complaint and the case will be closed because source of income is only applicable in housing cases under the ordinance. Other times, people will check source of income in addition to other bases when filing a housing case and the case will end up being decided based on issues other than source of income. She recalls one or two correctly filed cases that involved situations where someone was receiving disability checks that arrived after the 1st of the month. These cases were mediated to permit rental payment at a later date when the checks arrived. cc: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager 5. Communitv Overview Data from Countv Comprehensive Plan In addition to the data provided by the City Housing Department,the Dubuque Human Rights Commission also looked at applicable data in the County Comprehensive Plan. In January 2011, Dubuque County received a Smart Planning Grant to incorporate guidelines from the state smart planning legislation of 2010 (Iowa Code Chapter 18B parts 1 and 2) into the Dubuque County Comprehensive Plan, previously last updated in 2002. Dubuque County, the City of Dubuque, and the six other largest cities within the county formed the Smart Planning Consortium to compile data to guide future development in the cities and county. The Consortium hosted an initial planning kickoff meeting in February 2011. Individual communities held workshops in November and December 2011. The Consortium held a final wrap up meeting in October 2012. Throughout 2013 and 2014, the updated County Comprehensive Plan, also called the County Smart Plan, went to Dubuque County Board of Supervisors,the City of Dubuque Council, and the six other largest cities's councils for approval. On the next several pages of this report is the City of Dubuque Community Overview, selections from the Economic Development Chapter, and the Housing Chapter from that plan, included for their discussions on how a lack of quality rental housing in Dubuque County, the City of Dubuque Council, and the six other largest cities' in the county could affect the capacity for economic growth in all of them. 16 Community Overview City of Dubuque, Iowa 2010 Dubuque Population Dubuque Race ,,85 some cher Bare, or lar C% 80to 84 75 to 79 xa0oenawar nava 70 65to69 cher,4'd1% hnder(,T 65 to 69 islanaer,o.4w< 60to 64 55 to 59 anerian indlan and 50to 54 Alaska xatieeo.zn< 45to49 DD�11US 40to44 35 to 39 30to34 Dubuque Hispanic or Latino 25 to 29 20 to 24 15 to 19 10 to 14 Hispanic or Ladino 5 to 9 lotany rare), z.40°c <5 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 ■ Female population ■ Male population Dae:usrensm 40 a ureau,X130 70,000 City of Dubuque Historical Population _ 60,000 Education Population 25 Years and Over 50,000 Doctorate degree 40,000 "TA30,000 Professional school degree 5°b 20,000 10,000 z I_*I' Master's degree 2°b Bachelor's degree mca ca 1 .7°b ~ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. N Associate'sdegree 6. °b City of Dubuque Population Forecast Some college,1 or more years,no 000 ]5,504 12.9° degree )0'000 57,538 57,686 5],63] Some college,less than 1 year 60,000 5. °b so'OM High schoolgraduate,GED,or 40'000 alternative 2 Th 30.000 20000 Less than high School graduate 11.6°b Q000 Data source �s�us cen.eonaa m ' syeE onoL¢mas-zms 0°b 30°b 20°b 30°b 40°b 1990 2000 2010 2020 20M 2040 The median age in Dubuque is 38.7 compared to 38.6 for the County. The 2010 population pyramid shows large numbers in the 20-24 age group, indicating the city's college population, and the 45-59 age group,indicating a large "baby boomer" population nearing retirement age. Dubuque has experienced steady population growth over the last 150 years. Population declined in the 1980s,but has since leveled off to a slow growth pattern.With new economic development activities, Dubuque's growth rate is expected to increase over the next 30 years. Ac- cording to projections, the City's population will top 75,000 by 2040.Whites make up about 92% of Dubuque's population. County wide,whites make up about 94%. Education levels in Dubuque are similar to the rest of the County. 33% of residents have a college degree. 17 Community Character Area: 31.35 sq mi 2010 Population: 57,637 Population Density: 1,839 persons per sq mi Total Occupied Housing Units: 23,506 Employment Status of Dubuque Residents Owner-Occupied Units: 15,446 Renter-Occupied Units: 8,060 2009" Median Year Structure Built:" 1956 Median Value of Owner-Occupied Units" $117,900 Data source us Census Bureau,2010 2000 'Data source US Census Bureau,Ars 5year Esnmate 20052009 Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 3500 1990 3000 2500 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% m 2000 as ■Employed ■Unemployed `a 1500 Data source:us census Bureau,199S,2SSS 2 1000 Data Source US Census Bu,eau,ACS 5,ear Saturate,2005-2SS9 500 0 olek Dubuque m S °' A m e R T p m S e Employmentby Industry ti : R „ g m g A g R g o Ao A R NNYAN re-1o1a x=euro. Value(Thousands of Dollars)~ Data Source US Census eu.ew,ACS 5 treo.(5amc[;2CU5-20(9 Median Household Income: $41,879(2009 Dollars) wro=mp a Dubuque Household Income 3000 psnaiww mimnn.hh,& 2500 n 1 x a v EmplWeealThwan&) e Data Source US Census B urea u,ACS sear Este mate,2005-2no9 2000 Occupation of Dubuque Residents 16 and Older Management,professional,and 1500 related occupations i 5% Service occupations 1000 Sales and office occupations fanning,fishing,and forestry 500 0% occupations Construction,extraction,main - �tenance,and repair occupations 0 M& -Production,transportation,and v dn d on v m 6 h op n material moving occupations Thousands of Dollars Data Source:US Census Bureau,A6 5,ear Eat mate,2005-1009 Data So urce IAS census ACS 5.-l5amo@,2oc52W9 Unemployment remained around 5%between 1990 and 2009. 57% of Dubuque residents work in manage- ment,professional, sales,and office occupations. 15%work in production,transportation and material moving occupations. Dubuque home prices tend to be lower than the rest of the County. The median home price in Dubuque is$13,500 lower than the County median. Median household income is about$6,000 lower than the rest of the county. 18 conomfic levelo • Chapter J Data Analysis A diverse vibrant regional economy is e criti®Icom- As Dubuque Countysnives rebuild e more vibrant present ofthe foundation of asusminable community economy through more effective Local policies to Good Jot that pay a living wage and access to goods cal governments need to have Informative data and and services are Important factors In measuring a maps that Illustrate the economic forces at work community's quality of life. This chapter describes the The US Ceesays Bureau, BureauofEconomic Analy- data, policies and organizations that address issues of sls(BEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BGS) employment, industry, and commerce In a sustainable provide a wide variety of economic data through the way, Decennial Census and the American Community Survey(ACS). The following charts and tables are Pigure9.1 -Dubuque County Historical Employment selections from the Census that depict the most Important aspects of the Dubuque County economyrn , 55D Employment Over the last 20 years Dubuque County has experienced posl- Eao tive growth In total employment The total number of Jot has E a5D increased from 44,800 in 1990 to 56$00 in August 2010. Figure 5.1 illustrates the overall pose 199D 1995 xmE mos taro tive growth In employment since Source W Bureau CLabor Sfabs6a 1990. 19 Economic Development Since 2000, Dubuque Counts unemployment rate has mirrored the State of Iowas rate. Based on the BLS data presented in the Figure 7.2,both Dubuque County and the State of Iowa have fared well in the recession. Cur- rent unemployment rates are approximately 3 percentage points lower than the national average. Figure 7.2 shows the Annual Unemployment Rate for Dubuque County, the State of Iowa, and the United States. Figure 7.2 -Annual Unemployment Rate 10.0 9.0 v M 8.0 z c 7.0 v E 6.0 0 5.0 c 4.0 3.0 2.0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 —Dubuque County —State of Iowa —United States Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment growth is expected to continue over the next 30 years. According to projections made by Regional Economic Model Inc(REMI), total employment in Dubuque County will reach 72,000 by the year 2040. Figure 7.3 depicts the REMI 30-year employment projection. Figure 7.3 -Dubuque County Employment Forecast 80,000 69,663 67,023 70,000 bU,329 1 9 �Rf; 64729 , 5 60,000 6,500 50,000 0 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000Ell] 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Source:REMI Inc. 2010 Information on employment by industrial sector is available through the US Census Bureau's County Business Patterns (CBP) dataset. The CBP is an annual series of data that provides county economic data by industry. County Business Pattern data excludes most government employees, railroad employees, and self-employed per- sons. Figure 7.4 contains the most recent CBP data from 2009. According to the CBP data, the Manufacturing, Health Care, and Retail Trade industries are the largest employers in the region. These three industries account for almost 50% of the employment in Dubuque County. 20 Economic Development Figure 7.5 shows the total employment for each city Maps within Dubuque County. The chart shows that the majority of the jobs within the county are concentrated To better understand the distribution of employment in the City of Dubuque. across Dubuque County, employment data has been mapped using the US Census Bureau On the Map ser- Figure 7.5 -Total Primary Jobs by City 2009 vice. On the Map uses data derived from Unemploy- ment Insurance Wage Records reported by employers Total Dubuque County and maintained by each state for the purpose of ad- ' ministering its unemployment insurance system. Asbury 404 Map 7.2 (at the end of the chapter) was created using Cascade* 970 On the Map. The map shows the density of employ- Dubuque 38,582 ment across the county. According to the map, the Dyersville* 2,343 highest density of employment in the county is located Epworth 258 in and around Dubuque's downtown. Employment Farley 1810 density is also high in Dubuque's west end commercial Peosta 11,338 area Other areas of moderate employment density Dubuque County 149,331 occur at locations across the County with the larger densities mainly within the larger cities. US Census Bureau, 2009 Map 7.1 shows the employment inflow and outflow *Cities smore than one county,jobs totals include portions of for Dubuque County. Inflow and Outflow maps for city outside of Dubuque County. individual cities can be found at the end of the chapter + Public and Private sector jobs,one job per worker. A primary in Maps 7.3-7.9. This series of maps shows the flow job is the highest paying job for an individual worker. of workers in and out of each community. The arrows Map 7.1 - Dubuque County Employment&Outflow 2009 16,606 11,702 Grad In WI 2,200 3 217 Linn Con ,IA 1.961 Jackson County,IA 1,745 Scott County,IA 1,551 Delaware County,IA 1,285 to Daviess County,IL 838 to Daviess County,IL 1.212 Johnson County,IA 830 Linn County,IA 903 Polk County,IA 756 Black Hawk County IA 677 Black Hawk County,IA 597 Scott County,IA 675 Delaware Countv.IA 403 Polk Coun ,IA 622 Clinton County,IA 373 Clayton Count};IA 547 Jones County,IA 357 .11 Others 6,740 AllOthers 4,036 Work in Dubuque / `Live and Work in Live in Dubuque County Live Outside [V�1 Dubuque County N+County Work Outside U.S. Census Bureau. 2011.-OnTheMap Application.Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program.http:lllehd- map.did.census.gov/ 21 region with the mein focus of Increasing the number of Challenges skilled made professionals. Future Shortage of Skilled Workers Chambers of Commerce The Dubuque Com regional faces a future qua County y Chambersofcommerce entinDplay buqu important CountyChamberole in co- �horOctober 011, IIo workersrceeDevelopment evel retirements. In nomic otb Dubuque County Chambers October 2011, Iowa Workforce De Attettent(IWD) are organizations and promote that work tofurther the released the Iowa Workforce Needs Aares<mkson,eent the needsoamerc work onthe he l pro mote tourism actimai region that untiea Th Dubuque Delaware,found ties. Chambersworkon thelocal level tobringbull- ]ones Comtles. TheNeeds Assessmentfound that as nectec together and develop toting social networksthe baby hoomer generation begins to retire, employ Chamberc alto work with local govern ments to help erc In Dubuque County will be forced to replace and reatepro-businessinitiatives. In Dubuque County, train thousands ofskllledworkers. Accordingtothe the Dubuque Area Chamber of Commerce, theDy- IWgseveral industries In Dubuque County will have rsville Area Chamber of Commerce the Cascade large percentages of their workforce eligible to retire Chamber of Commerce and the West Side Business inthenextfiveyears. The industries with the high - AssociationofDubuqueworktopromoteandprotect est retirement eligibility Include Educational Services local businesses and work to make their communities (30.ES), Health Care and Social Services (25.996), better places to live. Manufacturing (14096), and Wholesale and Retail 'bade(6.5%).' The report detailed what employers are Economic Development Corporations doing to replace workers who retire. Ofthe employ - Economic Development Corporationsair not-for- c who replied to IWD'c survey 33.4% plan to use profit organizations that work closely with govern- combination of outside workers and promoting within ment,business, and other partner organizations to pro- the company, 31.0 % do not currently plan on filling mote economic development through recruitment and these positions,29.1 % plan only to hire workers from retention of Indus try, tourism promotion, workforce outside the company, and 6.5 % plan on ly to promote development, and employee recruitment and reten_ from within the company, tion. There are several active economic development Gender Wage Gap corporations In Dubuque County including. Asbury Area Development Corporation, Cascade Economic Wage Inequality between men and women is another Development Corporation, Greater Dubuque Devel- issue that is facing Dubuque County, AccoNingtothe opment Corporation, Dyersville Economic Develop- Iowa Policy ProJecPa 2011 report The State of Working ment Corporation,Epworth Economic Development Iowa, "the gap between womehs and meds earnings Corporation, Farley Development Corporation, and has narrowed with time nationally ac well ac In Iowa. Dubuque Main Street The lowest gap of$2 60/hour was measured In 2010. Economic Challenges, Strengths, and Opportuni- Figure7.6 - Gender Wage Gap on ties ECIA produces a Comprehensive Economic Develop- ment Strategy (CEDS) every five years to monitor and un evaluate long-term economic goals and strategies and to coordinate the development activities In a live-coun- IF region that inciudesDubuque County Initsmost cent edition, completed In January 2010, the CEDS outlines the most Important economicdevelopment yg gp iY}iEGi challenges and opportunities that are facing the region. The following list contains the challenger,strengths, Source.Iowa FoucyP,gect and opportunities that were listed In the 2010-2014 I htry✓/wwwmwawormorce.org/MI/labsu/vaaary/pros CEDS and the 2011 CEDS Annual Update. pentgeartemlowaworhlorceneedammaea¢ol1Per 22 However, this appears to be largely due to a decline in Lack of Quality Rental Housing the earnings of men:' Figure 7.6 shows a chart depict- ing the results from the Iowa Policy Project's analysis. Quality rental housing has become an issue for the region with the addition of IBM and their 1,300 new Natural Disasters employees in downtown Dubuque. Rental units in the region are sparse. The average year of construction In recent years, the region has been hit hard by natural for rental units in the region is 1951,which means disasters. In the past five years, tornados and floods that many n the units are close to 60 years in age. Of have caused billions of dollars in damage across the the total housing units in the region, less than 30% State of Iowa Many communities in Dubuque County are rental units. The IBM workforce population in are still working with federal and state agencies to search of housing is looking for rental housing. The rebuild damaged homes and businesses. Since 2008, demographic for this population is between the ages Dubuque County has been included in three federal of 25-30, recent college graduates, one to two years of disaster declarations. These disasters include: work experience, making$30,000 to $35,000 per year. 2008: Severe Tornadoes and Flooding FEMA-1763- The vacancy rental rate for the region is 1.1%, and in DR- Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, Dubuque, and Jackson the Dubuque area, it is less than .05%. In the near Counties. future, the region must address the shortage of work- force rental housing. See th Housing Chapter for more 2010: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes information on Dubuque County housing issues. FEMA-1930-DR - Delaware, Dubuque and Jackson Counties. Innovation 2011: Severe Storms and Flooding FEMA-4018-DR- The wildcard for the region is innovation and entre- Dubuque and Jackson Counties. preneurship. The State New Economy Index ranked Iowa 45th in the nation when it comes to economic See the Hazard Mitigation Chapter for more informa- dynamism and its ability to rejuvenate itself through tion on natural disasters. the formation of new innovative companies. The study Adequate Transportation Infrastructure focused on several indicators including the number of entrepreneurs starting businesses and the number of Adequate transportation infrastructure funding is a patents issued. The study found that the region lacks a challenge for the region and the State of Iowa. Trans- significant institutional source for innovation such as portation challenges that impact Iowa and Dubuque a tier one research university or major private research County include: increased traffic demands and freight and development facility. Leaders in the region agree movements, changing demographics, increased bio- that the region's economic future will be founded on a fuels production, increased construction and mainte- strong seedbed of entrepreneurs and a steady stream of nance costs, flattened revenues, and aging infrastruc- talented individuals who are willing to take on the risk ture. According to the Iowa DOT 2011 Road Use Tax associated with starting new businesses. The region Fund Study, the transportation system will need a must find ways to integrate entrepreneurship into the minimum of$215 million per year in additional fund- K-12 curriculum to encourage it at ayoung age and ing to meet the"most critical stewardship needs on provide a way to change the culture over time. The existing infrastructure" State legislators have debated region must find new mechanisms to harness some of a state gas tax increase to cover the funding gap, but the indigenous wealth in the region and recycle it into the region also must work to stretch its limited trans- new businesses. The region needs to pursue equity portation budget by investing its funds wisely. See the capital to fund new business start-ups. Finally, the Transportation Chapter for more information on the region needs to improve delivery of support services County's transportation infrastructure. for entrepreneurs. 2 http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2011docs/110902- SW1201l.pdf 3 http://www.iowadot.gov/pdf files/RUTFStudy2011.pdf 23 Chapter 8 a result,housing and transportation planning must be H ousing is a basic need for all human beings and is closely coordinate d. an Important factor In community planning efforts. H ousing serves an Important role In the regional H ousing is many homeowners'largestsource of per omy, as It affects employers'ability to attract and sorrel wealth and is usually their largest expenditureretain good quality employees and also ere aces jobs . According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics In 2010 If combined housing and transportation costs are too housing accounted for more than 35%of consumer high, employers may lose employees to other regions. spending.' Housing also affects personal behavior The housingsecfor also employs manyworkers within Where people live affects who their friends are,where theregion. Builders lenders construction workers their children go to school,Job opportunities and and real estate brokers are an Important part of the many other aspects of dally life. Housing has a large regional economy, Impact on Individual quality of life within the region. Residential developmentcangreatlyaffectthenatu- Housingisoneoflocal governments most Important ralenvironment A sustainable community needs to issues es. in urban areas housing can account for 50%of balance needs for new housing with environmental lend uses and residential property tm revenues make protections. Low impact development,conservation up a large portion of Local government budgets. Be- subdivisions and other green building techniquescan all oe of its high level of Importance,housing affects help mitigate the Impact of residential development on ther planning elements listed In this plan. Public the natural environment services people require, how much those services cost, .me objective of this chapter is to encourage a diverse and who should pay for them all depend on where, housing stock that serves people at all Income levels how,and at what densities people live. Of theservices provided by Local governments,transportation is one end et ellsmges of life. Good quality housing is the of the most Impacted by housing. Individual travel foundation of a stable sustainable community To behavior is greatly affected by where people live,and as be effective,community planning efforts,Including sustainability efforts must be Integrated Into a com- t "construct Ismanditues2010"BLS.rare zv Sept ro 11 munitys housing policies. U.S bureau of Labor Sdtlatla. t Dec 2011 here ISeSeSvIrs awl asemes an nrohim at Inventory of Existing Housing Figure8.1 - Dubuque County Housing Tenure The US Census Bureau provides a wide variety of data on housing through the decennial census and the American Community Survey Dubuque County (ACS). The following charts are selections from the Census that depict the mcvt Important aspects Iowa of the Dubuque County housing market Dubuque County's vacancy rate is us lower than stak and national rates. In general, the Dubuque County D% xn% an% w% 80% long housing market has weathered the 0 D.nner-occupied • proper occupied housing crisis better than many markets In the countrywhere Source 2010Amv(mn Cmrmmn(ty Surveyl-YearRhmats large numbers of forecicvuree have driven vacancy rates up. Dubuque County residents are more likely to own their home. According to the housing tenure data shown In Figure 8.1, renters account for 25% of the Countyc occupied housing units. Nationally renters makeup about 35% Dubuque County Housing Market When compared with the rest of the US, the Dubuque County housing market hes remained relatively stable through the recent economic downturn. According to research publlshedby the mortgage Insurance firm PMI, Dubuque County was among the least risky places In the country to buy a home. PMIiHousingApprecla - tionRicklndex (HARI) m res the probability that house pris will be lower intwo years. Accordingtothe HARI,Dubuque County homce es had a 76% chance of falling In the next two years. Dubuque's score is well below Figure 8.2-Housing Appreciation Price Risk Index the national average of 433% and the riskiest regions In Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and California which have HARI �corec between 80% and 90% a� According to PMI, In general, 4111 the stateswith the loweetscoree y are In the Creat Plane —ee- peciallyNorth Dakota, Iowa, i and Nebraska. These states did not experience large housing 4 booms, have low unemploy- ment and foreclosure rates, and are very affordable P' Figure 8.2 shows the geographic dlstrlbuOF - i .mw tion of H ousing Appreciation Price Risk for metropolitan Source PMIMortgggeInsurance Ca areas. 2 Berson.DavldW std Economlcandliad Erate'Rends cast Morteaee nsuanceCo 2011, olbeecvom usmm/PDH 0 11 om era mml 25 Housing Affordability Figure 8.3 - Monthly Owner Costs as a Percent of HH Income Housing costs as a percent of household income is a generally used measure 60% of housing affordability. As a rule of m so% thumb, spending less than 30% of in- ■us come on housing is generally considered 40% to be affordable. Households spending ■Iowa 30% more than 30% are considered to be cost 3 .� 20% ■Dubuque burdened and may have difficulty afford- a county ing other necessities such as food, cloth- W 10% ing, transportation, and medical care. o 0% Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show that Dubuque <20% 20%-25%25%-30%30%-35% >35% County is a relatively affordable region for homeowners compared to the rest Percent of HH Income of the country and the state of Iowa According to 2010 ACS data, 75% Figure 8.4-Monthly Owners Costs as a percent of HH Income of Dubuque County residents with a mortgage and 89%of residents without 50% a mortgage are paying less than 30%of „ their annual income towards housing. ao% ° ■us While owner occupied housing may be 30% relatively affordable in Dubuque County, z ■Iowa the same cannot be said about renter oc- 3 20% cupied housing. Figure 8.5 shows gross ■Dubuque rent' of as percent of household income. 10% - County The chart shows that housing affordabil- _hL ity rates are similar to state and national o o% >10% 10%- 15%- 20%- 25%- 30%- >35% rates: 48%of Dubuque County house- 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% holds pay 30% or more of their income Percent of HH Income towards housing. Figure 8.5 - Gross Rent as a Percent of HH Income 50% 45% 40% Geography a 35% — ■US �E 30% O a 25% ■Iowa a 20% c Dubuque 15% County a 10% n 5% 3 Gross Rent. The amount of the con- 0% tract rent plus the estimated average monthly <15% 15%-19%20%-24%25%-29%30%-34% >35% cost of utilities(electricity,gas,and water and sewer)and fuels(oil,coal,kerosene,wood,etc.) I Percent of HH Income if these are paid for by the renter(or paid for the renter by someone else). 26 Source Fig 3-5: 2010 American Community Survey I-Year Estimates Combined Housing and Transportation Costs new view including transportation costs. Accordingto the Index in all cities,many distant suburbs are less at Over the past fifty years many people have chosen to forable than they appear. The H+T Index takes the tra- leave urban areas for rural and suburban communities ditional30%of household income measure for housing as a way to reduce housing costs. For the most part, and adds an additional 15%for transportation resulting home prices are lower in suburban areas when com- in a combined affordability measure of 45%. pared to urban areas. However,on the suburban and rural areas the distance is greater between work, school, H+T Index results for Dubuque County are displayed and other daily needs. The increased distance results in Figure 8.6. The traditional 30% affordability measure in residents spending increased time and money on is displayed on the left and the 45% H+T threshold is transportation. According to a report entitled Penny displayed on the right. According to the traditional Wise,Pound Puelish produced by the Center for Neigh- measure,75%of Dubuque County residents are liv- borhoodTechnology(CNT),the increased transpor- ing in affordable housing. However,according to the talion costs associated with living in the suburbs can H+Tmeasure,70%of residents pay more than 45%in outweigh the savings on home costs and residents of housing and transportation costs and only 30%are pay - these communitiesare more vulnerable to fluctuations inglessthan45M. The maps in Figure 8.6 display the in gas prices." CNT has developed Housing and Trans- geographic distribution of the housing cost index and portation cost index(H+T Index) that allows users to the H+T index by census block According to the H+T compare the traditional view of affordability with the index,affordable areas of the county are urban areas that are dose to work,school,and services and have ac- 4 "Penny Wise,Pound Puelish'The Center for Neighbor- cess to public transit. hood Technology.March 2010,htn //www cnt orgheDostory/ pWpf.Od Figure 8.6- Dubuque County Combined Housing Costs Region: Dubuque, IA 0 rca : nayarpa Typical Household:defend Madan income:anssz Seenu prank cpmmmem.1.1 rmrl.e.. umpey:ppwnr,.smmrm 0..o. Housing Costs-%Income Housing and nansloortatlon Costs-%income l -161. farads arel Inarderearfabon Added.- a.p.i.br a..smaa. Modules. Meduabor than 45% 25 So 291% aox .' 45%and Greads 63 in 709% uias wa roow iymm iry asru roo® +mry ID as �anmounry �anmounry as Is onente Co..g onvnr.c...q Is Is W WlzcanzlIsIs O county county do ounq ie..munq I linois Illinois mnnocoonry - Indeed lady led vm9nry r ounry .on a m9nry r ounry o ti .a.. 200 2010 ED opposed mmlz waa for Mahfear Teoenoyy Ma W Ones Ave u+ya IL 90647 Tel crop y/u® per crop Mandan myon or se MCA Marro.r A...d for Canada and urari.a Inammone Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2012. 27 Federal Housing Programs Public Housing The federal government has created several programs Public housing was established to provide decent and to help those individuals who are cost burdened by safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the housing. Many of these programs operate under the elderly, and persons with disabilities.Public housing US Department of Housing and Urban Development comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single fam- (HUD). HUD is the primary resource for housing ily houses to high-rise apartments. There are approxi- related issues at the federal level. HUD's mission is"to mately 1.2 million households living in public housing create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and units, managed by some 3,300 local Housing Agencies quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to (HAs) nation wide. HUD administers federal aid to strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy HAs that manage the housing for low-income residents and protect consumers; meet the need for quality af- at rents they can afford. HUD furnishes technical and fordable rental homes: utilize housing as a platform for professional assistance in planning, developing and improving quality of life;build inclusive and sustain- managing these developments. able communities free from discrimination; and trans- business" County Housing Agencies form the way HUD does business Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher HUD works with local housing agencies to implement many of their programs. The City of Dubuque Hous- The housing choice voucher program is the federal ing and Community Development Department and government's major program for assisting very low- the Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority work income families, the elderly, and persons with disabili- with HUD and the State of Iowa to assist Dubuque ties to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the County residents with their housing needs. private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are City of Dubuque Housing and Community Devel- able to find their own housing, including single-family opment Department homes, townhouses and apartments. The participant's The City of Dubuque Housing and Community Devel- free to choose any housing that meets the requirements opment(HCD) Department coordinates the efforts of of the program and is not limited to units located in a number of program areas to ensure residents in the subsidized housing projects. City of Dubuque receive safe and affordable housing Housing choice vouchers are administered locally by and to provide a more livable community. Public Housing a\Agencies (PHAs). The PHAs receive The HCD department is responsible for administer- federal funds from the HUD to administer the voucher ing and coordinating activities relating to the use of program. A family that is issued a housing voucher is Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funds. responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of the Each year the City of Dubuque receives approximately family's choice where the owner agrees to rent under $1.2 million in federal CDBG funds from HUD. The the program. This unit may include the family's present funds are used for eligible activities in the areas of residence. Rental units must meet minimum standards housing, economic development, neighborhood and of health and safety, as determined by the PHA. A public services, public facilities, and planning/admin- housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the istration. PHA on behalf of the participating family. The fam- ily then pays the difference between the actual rent The City of Dubuque's 7,600 rental units are periodi- charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by cally inspected by the HCD department for compli- the program. Under certain circumstances, if autho- ance with the housing code and to ensure that the rized by the PHA, a family may use its voucher to units provide decent and safe rental housing. Each purchase a modest home. rental unit must be annually licensed and an annual fee is charged. All owners are required to comply with 5 "Mission" HUD.gov.Department of Housing and Urban these requirements. The HCD department maintains Development. 1 Dec. 2011 http://portal.hud.aov/hudportal/ an inventory of all licensed rental units, issues license H U D?src=/a bout/m ission. 28 applications, and receives all fees. Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Authority The Lead Hazard Reduction Program provides for the (EIRHA) administration of a HUD funded forgivable loan for EIRHA was established in 1978 to meet the hous- lead hazard reduction by providing financial assistance ing needs of low and moderate income families and to low- and moderate-income homeowners and rental the elderly. EIHRA serves Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, property owners to reduce or eliminate lead-based Dubuque,Jackson, and Jones Counties in Eastern Iowa paint hazards in their properties. The program is spe- excluding the cities of Clinton and Dubuque. EIRHA cifically targeted to assist families with children under has a contract with HUD to serve as many families as the age of six. possible using their calendar year budget for Hous- The Rental Assistance, or Section 8,Program receives ing Assistance Payments (HAP) through the Section 8 federal funding to provide Housing Choice Vouchers program. to assist 900 households with rent payment assistance EIRHA has an annual contributions contract to assist in the City of Dubuque. Individuals and families wish- up to 883 households,within its budget authority,with ing to participate fill out a rental application, submit rental assistance in the region through Housing Choice to abackground check, and after approval, are issued Vouchers (HCV). The participating family chooses a a Housing Choice Voucher they may use at a rental decent, safe, and sanitary rental unit in which to reside. unit of their choosing. If the landlord of the rental If the landlord agrees to lease the unit to the house- unit agrees to lease to the household under the Hous- hold under the Section 8 HCV Program, and EIRHA ing Choice Voucher Program and the unit is approved approves the rental unit, EIRHA will make monthly by the HCD department, then the Housing Author- rental payments to the landlord to help the household ity will make monthly rental assistance payments to pay their rent each month.Participating households the landlord. Generally, participating households pay pay a minimum of 30% of their adjusted income for about 30% of their monthly adjusted income towards rent and utilities or $50, whichever is greater. their rent. While receiving rental assistance, Section 8 participants have the opportunity to engage in services EIRHA owns and manages 164 rental units in and programming to develop their skills and become Dubuque,Jackson, Delaware, and Clinton Counties. self-sufficient. These Public Housing units consist of apartments, du- plexes, and single family homes that provide housing The Shelter Plus Care(S+C)Program provides rental for low-income families, seniors, and persons with dis- assistance for homeless persons with disabilities in abilities.Participants in the program pay a minimum connection with supportive services funded from of 30% of their adjusted income toward rent and utili- sources throughout the community through other ties or $50, whichever is greater. Payments are made agencies and programs. The City of Dubuque has re- directly to EIRHA on the first of each month. ceived a five-year grant from HUD to operate a Spon- sor-based Rental Assistance(SRA)Program through The Eastern Iowa Regional Housing Corporation the S+C program. The City has entered into a sub- (EIRHC) is a subsidiary of EIRHA and was estab- contract with a nonprofit local organization, Project lished in 1990. It is organized as a not-for-profit under Concern, to provide rental assistance, screen prospec- the provisions of Chapter 504A of the Iowa Code five participants, and perform assessments of client's and serves six counties: Cedar, Clinton, Delaware, needs. Project Concern leases the units to be occupied Dubuque,Jackson, and Jones Counties in Eastern by the participants. Iowa. The purpose of EIRHC is to promote the general social welfare of eligible occupants of rental housing The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing as determined by the US Department of Agriculture Program (HPRP) is to assist persons and families who (USDA), Iowa Finance Authority(IFA), and Iowa are currently housed, but who are at risk of becoming Economic Development Authority (IEDA) regulations, homeless and may need temporary rent or utility assis- without regard to race, color, religion, creed or national tance; and persons and households who are currently origin; to acquire, construct, improve, and operate any homeless and need temporary assistance in order to real or personal property or interest or rights. EIRHC find housing and stabilize their living situation. owns and manages 10 elderly and/or disabled I bed- 29 room rental units: six in Grand Mound, Iowa, and four in Worthington, Iowa. Rental assistance is financed by environmental health hazards and energy efficiency USDA for these units. issues with integrated health, safety, lead hazards reduction, energy efficiency and weatherization inter- The Eastern Iowa Development Corporation (EIDC) ventions in low-to-moderate income homes. The City is a for-profit entity and a wholly owned subsidiary of of Dubuque is currently seeking funding to implement EIRHC. The EIDC was formed to serve as the gen- the GHHI within the city, and planning is underway eral partner in all Low Income Housing Tax Credit to expand the initiative to other communities within (LIHTC) projects. The Peosta Evergreen Meadows Dubuque County. (32 units) and Asbury Meadows (24 units) properties resulted from this formation Future Needs Sustainable Design Senior Housing- Over the next 30 years the popu- lation of Dubuque County will continue age. The To encourage a more sustainable region, the Dubuque communities of Dubuque County should plan for Smart Plan encourages green building strategies for increased demand for extended care and assisted living residential development including: public health, facilities. Communities should also look into strate- energy efficiency,water conservation, smart locations, gies, such as universal design and mixed-use transit- operational savings, and sustainable building practices. oriented development patterns that give elderly resi- These strategies enhance affordable housing, com- dents access to daily needs, allow them to stay in their munity facilities, town centers, and communities as a own home, and maintain an independent lifestyle. whole. Low and Extremely Low Income Housing - The In addition to increasing resource efficiency and economic downturn has created more demand for low reducing environmental impacts, green building income housing services. Communities should con- strategies can yield cost savings through long-term tinue to work with HUD and other agencies to expand reduction in operating expenses. The benefits include homeownership opportunities, preserve existing af- improved energy performance and comfort, a healthier fordable housing, and prevent homelessness. indoor environment, increased durability of building components, and simplified maintenance requirements Workforce Hosing-Many households of moderate that can lead to financial efficiencies for property income can have difficulty getting into good quality managers and owners. Green building practices im- housing. Communities should implement programs to prove the economics of managing affordable housing, help working families find housing that is affordable. community facilities, and Main Street businesses while enhancing quality of life for residents,visitors and Rental Housing-Examination of census data has employees. When green building practices guide the shown that while owner-occupied housing units in location of our buildings -placing homes, community Dubuque County are relatively affordable when com- facilities and businesses near community amenities pared with the rest of the Country, the same cannot such as public transportation to create walkable, livable be said about rental housing. Many renters are paying neighborhoods -the benefits for citizens and commu- upwards of 35% of their income for housing. Commu- nities expand to include fewer sprawl-related transpor- nities should conduct further analysis to determine the tation impacts. Housing built using the green building factors behind the high cost of rental housing and look strategies must be cost effective to build, and durable into methods to improve rental housing affordability. and practical to maintain. In addition, the principles Housing+ Transportation Costs -Data from the work together to help produce green buildings that Housing +Transportation Index shows that 70% of result in a high-quality, healthy living and working en- Dubuque County residents spend more than 45% of vironment; lower utility costs; enhance connections to their income on housing and transportation. The data nature; protect the environment by conserving energy, also reveals that the most affordable areas are located water, materials and other resources; and advance the within urban areas. Communities should look into health of local and regional ecosystems. methods to direct more housing towards urban areas The City of Dubuque's Green and Healthy Homes and to help reduce transportation costs. Initiative (GHHI) is designed to address home-based 30 8. Proposed Amendment to Dubuque Municipal Code Title 8 - Human Rights, Chapter 5 Fair Housing Laws & Lawful Source of Income Protections Frequently Asked Questions and Answers 1. WHAT ARE CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS? The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained several Titles. Title I of the Act barred unequal application of voter registration requirements; Title II outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants,theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; Title III prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin; Title IV encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act; Title V gave the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 additional powers; and Title VI prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. Fair housing laws protect adults and children from discrimination based on personal and household characteristics that disadvantage them when trying to secure a place to live. The Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 covers color, disability,familial status, national origin, race, religion and sex. The University of Iowa Clinical Law Program found that additional federal law already covers lawful source of income in credit transactions. Iowa Code Title VI Human Services, Subtitle 1 Social Justice and Human Rights, Chapter 216 Civil Rights Commission Act prohibits discrimination in the areas of credit, education, employment, housing, and public accommodations and education. Discrimination, or different treatment, is illegal if based on age (in employment and credit), color, creed,familial status (in housing and credit), gender identity, mental disability, pregnancy, physical disability, national origin, race, religion, retaliation (because of filing a previous discrimination complaint, participating in an investigation of a discrimination complaint, or having opposed discriminatory conduct), sex or sexual orientation. Dubuque Municipal Code also includes these provisions. The proposed amendment would add lawful source of income —the monies used by individuals to support themselves and their families - to Dubuque Municipal Code Title 8 - Human Rights, Chapter 5 Fair Housing Laws. 2. WHO MUST COMPLY WITH FAIR HOUSING LAWS? Fair housing laws cover most housing, but in many circumstances provide exemptions for owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family housing sold or rented without the use of a broker, and housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members. The exemptions are taken directly from federal and state law. No person or occupation is being singled out. People in the business of selling or renting properties must comply with fair housing laws, including Realtors, and should receive training on fair housing compliance, laws and intentional and unintentional discrimination. 3. WHAT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES VIOLATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS? Discrimination in rentals and sales can take many forms, whether based on gender, lawful source of income, race, religion, or other characteristics of people in protected classes. Examples in rentals include landlords who misrepresent the availability of housing; require different terms or conditions for occupancy; steer families to particular units or neighborhoods; tell a renter one 31 thing in person and another on the phone; or refuse to take an application or rent from a person based on the individual's protected class characteristics. Unlawful sales practices include refusing to show a property in a particular neighborhood; requiring one but not all buyers to be pre-qualified before discussing properties; refusing to accept written offers from households with disability, retirement, or public benefits; providing listings in "select"neighborhoods that appear to be chosen because of their racial or other makeup; or encouraging or discouraging sales or purchases in particular neighborhoods. 4. WHY IS LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME BEING CONSIDERED? Lawful source of income laws are designed to help disabled veterans, retirees, and families who receive child support, social security, alimony or public assistance find a safe and decent place to live. They increase housing options and promote inclusion and diverse neighborhoods. Families with non-wage income are often turned away when trying to rent or buy a home. Some landlords don't bother to ask how much income the family has or inquire about its rental or credit history, as they would with individuals who have paychecks. The goals of the amendment are to curb practices and advertisements that discourage or exclude families with non-wage income from considering or entering into leases or purchase agreements and prevent the concentration of socio-economic classes and races in certain neighborhoods that may occur when only a limited amount of landlords consider all lawful sources of income. Dubuque has been aggressive in establishing Tax Increment Financing districts to support economic development initiatives in neighborhoods with a"concentration of poverty" and adding lawful source of income to the City's municipal code is consistent with that policy. 5. WHAT DOES THE AMENDMENT REQUIRE OF LANDLORDS, BROKERS AND AGENTS? The ordinance prohibits discrimination against persons seeking housing based on the type of income they use to support themselves and their dependents. It does not set the terms of a lease or purchase agreement. Housing providers are obliged to evaluate applicants on the same basis, regardless of source of income or other protected class characteristic. 6. ARE LAWS ABOUT SOURCE OF INCOME NEW TO FAIR HOUSING? No. Lawful source of income laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the mid- 1970s. Nationally, 12 states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont; and Wisconsin), the District of Columbia, Iowa City, Marion and more than 30 other cities and counties, large and small, have similar laws. Officials in jurisdictions with source of income laws report that it is basically business as usual for landlords and brokers, so long as they screen, qualify or reject prospects using the same criteria. Housing providers are still able to conduct criminal history, background and credit checks, apply income formulas, and evaluate the source, amount, security and stability of payments. They remain free to reject unqualified applicants, including tenants who lack the ability to pay or have income from illegal sources. 7. WILL LANDLORDS OR SELLERS BE FORCED TO ACCEPT A RENTER OR BUYER OR END UP IN COURT? 32 No. The law does not force anyone to rent or sell to an individual on the basis of source of income and it does not create a preference for one or any particular source of income. It does not mandate participation in FHA, VA or other programs. The ordinance allows sellers acting in good faith for non-discriminatory reasons to reject program rules or terms and features associated with offers, such as timing, that are unreasonable or unacceptable. Across the country, very, very, few administrative complaints relating to home sales have ever been filed, and we could find no reported court decision on this issue, which should allay fears that civil rights investigators will be involved in every sales transaction. 8. IS THERE PROOF THAT LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CITY? No. While some have claimed that lawful source of income provisions will be detrimental to Dubuque, the Marion and Iowa City Civil Rights Commissions and UI Clinical Law Programs have been unable to find evidence or substantiate claims that the Lawful Source of Income Ordinance in either City undermined the interests of either city, homeowners or housing professionals. The National Association of Realtors®website is virtually silent on source of income laws. Moreover, no person, civil rights agency or housing official contacted said source of income laws make it difficult for real estate agents to transact business; advise clients or fulfill their fiduciary duties; result in increased numbers of absentee landlords who don't maintain properties; encourage homeowners to avoid using real estate agents in order to avoid fair housing laws; are vague or difficult to interpret; or result in a surge of complaints filed by disgruntled renters or buyers whose offers were rejected. 9. WHY IS LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME DISCRIMINATION LIMITED TO HOUSING? The Commission decided not to extend coverage across-the-board because federal law already covers source of income in credit transactions; employers and schools generally do not hire, fire, offer programs or make decisions based on source of income; and public accommodations normally don't inquire where a customer's money is coming from to pay for the goods or services rendered. 10. DOES LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEED THE CITY'S HOME RULE POWERS? No. A city's statutory and constitutional home rule authority includes the power to pass ordinances that govern private civil relationships such as between landlord and tenant when granted the authority to do so by state law. Cities have the power under Iowa Code §216.19 to enact ordinances that provide broader or different civil and human rights protections. For example, Cedar Rapids, Dubuque and Iowa City all added gender identity and sexual orientation to their municipal codes before the Iowa Code was amended to include these statues in 2007. Ultimately, it is up to the City Attorney and Legal Department to advise the Mayor and City Council on ordinance-related legal matters. 9. Chart from Fair Housing Coach 10. Maps from HUD Studv Following these questions is a Chart over two pages from the January 2014 issue of"Fair Housing Coach", a newsletter for real estate professionals and their attorneys on management, lease, and regulatory compliance matters that the Human Rights Department Subscribes to. Then are maps from the HUD Office of Policy Development and Research 2011 study. 33 11. Telegraph Herald Article on the Public Forum on Source of Income Protections Some Dubuque property owners call proposal unfair; Others say the plan -- which says landlords couldn't deny prospective renters based on their type of income -- might help prevent discrimination. Posted: Friday, October 17, 2014 12:00 am I Updated: 3:16 pm, Fri Oct 17, 2014. BY BEN JACOBSON TH STAFF WRITER BEN.JACOBSON@WCINET.COM Those opposed to a proposal that would prevent landlords from denying renters based on their type of income claim that the move would be unfair to property owners. But others -- including some landlords themselves -- say the addition to the city of Dubuque human rights ordinance could help prevent discrimination. Both sides made arguments to members of Dubuque's Human Rights Commission on Thursday evening during a public forum. About 70 area residents, many of whom identified as members of the Dubuque Area Landlords Association, packed in to Carnegie-Stout Public Library's Aigler Auditorium for the two-hour discussion. Commission members have spent several months mulling the proposed ordinance amendment, which is modeled after existing policies in cities and states that implemented similar protections. If approved by the commission and adopted by City Council members, landlords would have to consider all sources of income, including housing vouchers, Social Security payments, alimony and child-support payments and benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, when determining whether an applicant can afford to pay rent. But several landlords said Thursday that the added protection for tenants would come at the expense of the property owners, many of whom are not in a position financially to assume an extra burden. "This takes away our choice," said Vicki Bechen, a Dubuque landlord. "I choose to put my apartments on Section 8 (housing vouchers), but not everybody does. Maybe some day, I won't want to deal with that again." Should an unruly tenant damage a rental unit, landlords must seek relief through the courts, according to Jerry Maro, president of the Dubuque Area Landlords Association. But if a problem renter only receives government assistance, landlords have no recourse to collect damages. "We're trying to protect our investment," he said. Much of the discussion focused on the merits of housing choice, or Section 8, voucher holders. Voucher recipients -- most of whom are disabled or elderly, according to commission members -- receive rental assistance through the federally funded program. Maro said the inspection process for apartments eligible for housing choice vouchers is too strict and often forces landlords to spend a lot of time addressing minor concerns. "Your loss could be two weeks,three weeks, four weeks of rent," while fixing issues that arise during inspections, Maro said. Commissioner Miquel Jackson disputed the idea that renters receiving housing vouchers were more destructive than their peers. "There are no proven differences between whether people on Section 8 or not on Section 8 trash a place more than the others," Jackson said. Keith Nilles, a retired renter, said he was shocked to learn landlords could choose to disregard his retirement income as a valid source of income. And since many landlords said they consider revenue from their rental properties retirement income,they could be end up in the same boat, he said. "Do you know you couldn't rent your own apartment because you don't have any income?" he asked forum attendees. Commission members took no action on the proposal Thursday and likely will spend a few more months discussing the issue before deciding whether to send it onto the City Council for consideration. Commission Vice Chairwoman R.R.S. Stewart said alternatives to the CITY OF DUBUQUE 38 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC FORUM October 16,2014, Minutes approved 8 December 2014. Commissioner Allen called the meeting of the Dubuque Human Rights Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 2014, at the Carnegie-Stout Public Library, 11th & Locust Streets, Dubuque, Iowa. Roll Call: Present: Chair Anthony Allen Miquel Jackson Jeff Lenhart Ashley Melchert Chris Ostwinkle Vice Chair R.R.S. Stewart, Susan Stone Absent: Howard Lee, Tom LoGuidice Staff: Director Kelly Larson Chair Anthony Allen reviewed the public comment rules and asked commissioners to introduce themselves. Vice-Chair R.R.S. Stewart explained the origin of the Human Rights Commission decision to review and consider source of income. Vice-Chair Stewart explained that the Human Rights Commission attempts to hold one forum per year and in the past years has held forums on the Americans with Disabilities Act, access to Transit, and education on LGBT issues through Better Together Dubuque. The public was then invited to address the Commission related to the question of whether or not to recommend to the City Council that the human rights ordinance be amended to include Source of Income. Members of the public were invited to identify themselves as they provided their comments and the following people spoke: Jerry Maro, Judy Schmitt, Ken Bichell, Julie Beck, Vicki Bechen, Jo Ellen Reed, Ernestine Moss, Dan Pusateri, Sue Kearns, Dean Thompson, Al Kroger, John Jaeger, Helene Hill, Corey Gausen, Steve Bracken, Keith Nilles, Pauline Chilton, Carol Copeland, Margie White, Diane McClain, Suzie Cronic, Deb May, Michelle Jacoby. The comments have been arranged by topic and are attached to these minutes. At the conclusion of comments, Chair Allen thanked people for coming, expressed the desire to continue working together, and stated that the commission would likely continue to discuss this item at upcoming meetings. He invited people to attend commission meetings on the second Monday of the month at 4:30 p.m. in the second floor conference room at 1300 Main Street, and to watch for public notices of meetings. Human Rights Executive Director Kelly Larson invited people to sign up for"notify me"through the City's website to receive notices of upcoming meetings. Anthony also invited people to submit additional comments through the Human Rights Department Office. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Public comments organized by general category/topic Financial Considerations: • If a tenant damages that unit and has wage income, wages can be garnished making it more likely a landlord can collect damages. Funds in the form of a government subsidy cannot be collected on if damaged. • If a tenant loses their job, there may be similar recovery challenges • Inspection process can delay ability to rent immediately, causing income loss for landlords • The rental business is a financial loss and both section 8 and non-section 8 tenants cause damage • Used to accept section 8 and stopped when HUD stopped reimbursing for damages 39 • Rental property is retirement investment and need to protect it • Recovery fund will be a taxpayer burden • If affected financially by this, landlords may raise rents and that will affect everyone • Insurance companies ask"do you have section 8 tenants" and charge higher premiums if do • There is financial cost to landlords when accused of discriminating and have to prove innocence • If people with money damage property, can get the money back • As more protected classes are added, the chances of being sued by more people increases and there is time and cost involved in responding to claims • There is no guarantee tenant will remain on section 8 program and continue to have that income on an ongoing basis. • Only own a four-plex and would go bankrupt if it was trashed • HUD requirements, such as re-painting entire exterior when paint is chipped in a small area, are too costly. • Already taking a risk with the investment and cannot afford increased risk • Compensation for damages very important because more often cannot recover if the tenant receives section 8 • It is easy to get to the point of having insufficient profit to continue • It is not uncommon for someone to file a lawsuit because angry they were turned down and for the landlord to have had no ill will and yet still need to defend self. • No money in rental property and having difficulty selling units • 98% of tenants are good tenants but the 2% can cause significant damage • Insurance companies are dropping coverage and raising premiums because of neighborhood property is located in Screening Considerations: • Challenging to tell if getting someone who has repeatedly caused damage to departments • Have lived next to a landlord who rents to both section 8 and non-section 8 and the property has been a problem for 20 years • As a landlord, I accept section 8 and base my decisions on the individual and their ability to meet my criteria, such as credit history, criminal records, income guidelines, and ability to live in a community with others. • I screen my tenants very carefully and I am still operating at a financial loss • Neighborhood renters damaging property of other neighbors and causing financial losses that cannot be recouped by the property owner • Cannot just assume people on section 8 will damage property—choose tenants based on criteria Source oflncome Definition/Scope: • Alimony and child support are available to landlord only if the person responsible for paying them actually pays • Food stamps should not be included • Consider source of income laws that do not include section 8 • Social security, corporate pensions, investment income are all importance sources of income and have experienced landlords not wanting to count these as "income." • Look more closely at the sources—food stamps are not like social security income. • Banks do not include food stamps as income for mortgage qualification 40 Additional Considerations: • There is a need to support people with limited resources • Do not expect anyone to live where I would not want to live • There are people who need it and there are landlords who are willing to meet that need • Limited number of properties accepting section 8 forces people to live only in certain areas of town. • Should have a right to live in any community can afford to live in, counting all sources of income. • I was on section 8 ten years and excellent tenant but could not choose where to live because so many landlords would not accept section 8. • Not sure how feel about forcing this on landlords. • We all want clean and properly cared for homes. • There are community problems when nest a lot of people with a lot of problems in a single area and that needs to be addressed. • Can see all sides and want to be part of a solution that is beneficial to both landlords and tenants. • We all want choices • Fairness always has two sides • The landlords in this community are not all a bunch of rich people just choosing to treat people badly • Most people present here tonight are against this and concerned that it may pass anyway • I have a 50 apartment community with a very diverse group of tenants—single moms, people with disabilities, people of color, section 8 and non-section 8. When people call me I am always asked if my building is downtown. • If people stay on section 8 for the long run, it is counterproductive to helping them • There are people coming into this community who lack financial resources Miscellaneous: • As a landlord, receive calls asking if accept section 8 and did not realize it was legal to refuse. • Lots of nice locations for the elderly, but not for the disabled. • Sometimes people lose their vouchers because they do not meet landlord criteria, even though landlord has units available and will accept section 8. Questions: [With answers provided at the Forum in brackets.] • Is there any information available on the decision in Cedar Rapids not to pursue a similar addition to their ordinance? • How would proposal help people with disabilities? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, the majority (56%) of people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers are people with disabilities and the elderly]. • The majority of my section 8 tenants have been single mothers—what is the actual makeup of section 8? [According to City Housing Department Statistics, 91% of voucher participants are from Dubuque, 5% are from other Iowa Cities, and the other 2% are from other Illinois cities, Washington, Wisconsin, and Minnesota]. • Will there be a reimbursement fund? • How bureaucratic would system to access fund to recover damages be? 41 • Insurance companies will drop landlords who have a large claim—would City consider a blanket insurance liability policy? • If this ordinance passed, I applied my criteria to a voucher holder and that person passed my criteria, but I only use six month leases and not one year leases, what happens? Can I decline to participate in the section 8 program because I do not use a one year lease and the program requires a one year lease? • What if someone feels very strongly that they simply do not want to receive any federal funds? • Is there a proven significant difference in how people care for property between those who receive section 8 and those who do not? [See the 2010 study done by Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies, referenced at the beginning of this report]. • Has this been enacted anywhere else and, if so, what have been the results? [. Lawful source of income laws have been on the books in the U.S. since the mid-1970s. Nationally, 12 states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont; and Wisconsin), the District of Columbia, Iowa City, Marion and more than 30 other cities and counties, large and small, have similar laws. See Frequently Asked Question Answer#6 on page 32 for more information.] • Why should commissioners who are not landlords have a say in this? • Who makes the decision ultimately on whether or not the ordinance is amended? Suggestions: [With answers provided at the Forum in brackets.] • Basic problem is decreased availability of affordable units. Before go to Council, create a task force to do some brainstorming between landlords and tenants to figure out how to increase affordable housing without putting this burden on landlords with another protected class. • When getting together for problem solving, include both landlords and tenants • Solve some of the problems so that people are not having to live in bad or scary places • Make sure any decision is as equitable as possible in accounting for financial risk to landlords • Promote accepting vouchers • Instead of putting this on the private sector, create a housing authority. [In 1998, one-term Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) created the "Faircloth Amendment' or "Faircloth Limit'to the "Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act,"which blocked HUD support for construction of new public housing. Section 9(g) (3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Faircloth Amendment') states HUD cannot fund the construction or operation of new public housing units with Capital or Operating Funds if the construction of those units would result in a net increase in the number of units the PHA (Public Housing Authority) owned, assisted or operated as of October 1, 1999. Consequently, PHAs cannot build new publicly owned units or maintain those units using federal funds.] • Landlord choice to participate in the program should be protected • Clean up neighborhoods were section 8 units are located so people not having to live in crime ridden areas • Before take anything to Council, meet to describe what intending to recommend and then go to council in a way that permits commissioners, landlords, and tenants all to weigh in • Build on the history of landlords working with the City and then some landlords may be willing to accept section 8 if not so fearful. • Properties require ongoing investments, work, sweat—make it so landlords want to accept section 8 • All of us face choices that are limited by our financial situation 42 • Consider co-signers • Develop accountability program for tenants who are trashing properties —for example, if receiving voucher and damage property then must go to classes or take other actions to remain • If goal is to have section 8 housing outside of undesirable neighborhoods, then develop city- owned building. [See "Faircloth Limit" above.] These are the possible definitions of Source of Income discussed by DHRC in the months leading up to the forum: 1. LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: means any lawful, verifiable source of money paid directly or indirectly to or on behalf of a renter or buyer of housing, including income derived from: A. Any lawful profession or occupation, lawful compensation or lawful renumeration in exchange for goods or services provided. B. Any government or private assistance, subsidy, voucher, grant, or loan program. C. Any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration or benefit. D. Any sale or pledge of property or interest in property or profit from financial investments. 2: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDS, and any additional state or local voucher programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". 3: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", unemployment compensation or worker's compensation payments, and housing vouchers for McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDS, and any additional state or local voucher programs, but not including the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8". 4: LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME: lawful compensation or lawful remuneration in exchange for goods or services provided; profit from financial investments; and Income and support derived from any tax supported federal, state or local funds, including, but not limited to, social security, supplemental security income, temporary assistance for needy families, family investment program, general relief, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) a.k.a. "food stamps", and unemployment or worker's compensation payments, but not including housing vouchers for the Housing Choice Voucher program a.k.a. "Section 8", McKinney Shelter Plus Care, military veterans, individuals with HIV/AIDS, and any additional state or local voucher programs. 43