ON OCTOBER 9, 2007, Champaign officials
turned back the clock on efforts to
protect the city’s most vulnerable citizens
from discrimination in housing. By
a 6-3 vote, the City Council amended
Champaign’s Human Rights Ordinance,
thereby allowing landlords to refuse to
rent to people who would pay part of their rent with a federal
Section 8 housing assistance voucher (Bruno, Feinen,
Foster, McIntosh, Pirok, and Sweighart in favor; Dodds,
Jackson, and LaDue opposed). The decision promotes
landlords’ interests at the expense of Section 8 voucher
holders’ rights to be protected from discrimination.
The Section 8 program provides low income persons
with a voucher that can be used to pay for rent in the private
market. The program pays the difference between
30% of the qualified applicant’s income and the fair market
rental of the unit. Currently, the need for vouchers is much
greater than the supply. Only about 1300 of the estimated
2500-3000 eligible families in the county are voucher
holders. The waiting list of qualified applicants has grown
so long that it is no longer possible to even get on it.
During the past 30 years, Champaign’s policy on
whether to prohibit discrimination against Section 8 voucher
holders has shifted back and forth. For over 25 of those
years, Section 8 renters enjoyed the same legal protections
from discrimination as renters using any other form of payment.
These protections were initially implemented in
1977, the first year that the Champaign County Housing
Authority applied to the Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Section 8 funds. In fact, Champaign was
the first city in Illinois to prohibit housing discrimination
on the basis of source of income. From 1977 through 2001,
refusal to rent to someone solely on the basis that they
would use a Section 8 voucher to pay part of their rent was
enforced as a violation of the city ordinance.
That practice changed in 2001 when a complaint was
filed by a prospective tenant against a large local apartment
owner, Royce & Brinkmeyer Apartments, alleging discrimination
on the basis of Section 8. In a hearing before the
Human Relations Commission (HRC), Royce & Brinkmeyer
argued that federal law established Section 8 as a voluntary
program and that the federal law should pre-empt the
city’s ordinance. To the surprise of many, the hearing officer
ruled in favor of the apartment owner, finding the “source of
income” clause in the city ordinance did not cover Section
8. The HRC accepted the hearing officer’s ruling. The complainant
appealed the decision to the Circuit Court, which
ruled that the HRC had acted within its authority by interpreting
the “source of income” as not including Section 8.
In 2006, Esther Patt, Director of the Champaign-
Urbana Tenant Union, brought the issue back before the
HRC, encouraged by a 2004 ruling by the Illinois Appellate
Court (1st District, Godinez v. Sullivan Lackey) which
upheld the City of Chicago’s practice of interpreting the
“source of income” clause in their human rights ordinance
to include Section 8. Following public hearings by the
Champaign HRC and a study session by the City Council,
in March 2006 the council followed the recommendation
of the HRC and specifically prohibited discrimination
against Section 8 voucher holders. Following the spring
2007 municipal elections, however, two council members
who supported Section 8 protections were replaced by
two who opposed them, leading the council in October
2007 to reverse the 2006 decision. Once again landlords
are free to turn away prospective Section 8 tenants.
Much of the debate leading up to and surrounding this
most recent decision focused not on the costs of discrimination
to Section 8 voucher holders and the community but on
burdens to landlords. One potential burden that the HRC
investigated turns out, on closer inspection, to be more of a
burden in theory than in reality. It happens that HUD can
prematurely terminate a contract with a landlord when certain
special circumstances arise for Section 8 tenants (e.g., if
the tenant has a child and needs an extra bedroom, if the tenant
marries) and landlords do not have the capacity to sue to
recover lost rental income as they would with other lessees.
While it is very difficult to obtain precise data on how often
these circumstances arise, they are certainly rare. The rate of
premature terminations for any reason is less than 5%, so the
rate for these special circumstances is certainly less. Indeed,
Section 8 vouchers are so valuable that those lucky enough to
have them will do nothing to risk losing them. Most participating
landlords find that Section 8 voucher holders are
among the most reliable tenants.
Landlords are also protected from financial burden by the
human rights ordinance, which since 1977, has allowed discrimination
if it can be demonstrated to be based on a business
necessity. Landlords who demonstrate that participation
in the program causes a financial burden are exempted from
complying. Moreover, the HRC discovered that there were
many misconceptions in the community about what burdens
the program actually posed and what anti-discrimination
protections would demand of them. In response, the
HRC recommended that the City Council clear up these
misconceptions by codifying how the city staff historically
has interpreted Section 8 protections—specifically indicating
that a property owner was not required to do any of the
following: “(1) keep a rental unit vacant, or refrain from renting
an available unit to a qualified applicant, while waiting
for a Section 8 inspection; (2) perform repairs; (3) change
the amount of rent or damage deposit; or (4) change standards
for application approval for a Section 8 voucher holder
so long as the same standards apply to all tenants.” But
those landlords who were vocal about the issue opposed
adoption of this clarifying language and instead urged the
Council to drop Section 8 protections altogether.
The goal of Champaign’s Human Rights Ordinance, like
other anti-discrimination law, is to prevent individuals
from being denied “equal opportunity in housing, employment,
education, public accommodations, health care and
delivery of social services” … “based upon categorizing or
classifying a person which is not based on factual data
about the person or group and is not related to the purpose
for which it is used.” Several council members suggested
that there is no need to protect Section 8 renters from discrimination
because there are more rental units on the market
that accept Section 8 than there are voucher holders to
fill them. Such arguments simply miss the point of anti-discrimination
law. From the point of view of the law, the fact
that a community might have an adequate number of
employers who are willing to hire women does not make it
alright for a given employer or group of employers to
refuse to hire women simply because they are women.
The recent city council decision has the impact of
denying equal opportunity in housing for Section 8
voucher holders.
According to the 2006 Census, 26.1% of Champaign City
residents, and 13.5% of the families with children in the city
live below the federal poverty level. The decision to allow
Section 8 discrimination will hurt many of these already
highly stressed families by making it more difficult for them
to live close to work, school, services, or to other family
members. Given the demographics of Section 8 voucher
holders, such discrimination will have a disparate negative
impact on the disabled, families with children and people of
color. While many property owners are willing to accept Section
8 tenants, they are not evenly distributed across the community.
Thus, the decision to allow Section 8 discrimination
will reinforce residential segregation by race and income. The
decision to protect landlords’ interests over the rights of poor
citizens to be free from discrimination will reverberate in our
neighborhoods and schools, notwithstanding efforts to distinguish
and rationalize discrimination against the Section 8
program from discrimination against poor people.
Get Connected
Search Public i
Public i
Get Connected
Archives
- December 2024
- October 2024
- July 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- September 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- June 2005
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- November 2002
- October 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- December 2001
- November 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001