Out of Reach

OUT OF REACH An examination of injustice in our housing system through the lens of Source of Income discrimination The booming voice of Malchus Mills crackles through the phone as he recounts his experience searching for housing in Providence. Mills, a local tenants’ rights activist, has been part of the Section 8 Voucher Program since 2006. Section 8 is part of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-sponsored rental subsidy program. Despite having a steady source of rent payments via Section 8, Mills found Providence landlords unwilling to rent to him. “A lot of the landlords were turning people with Section 8 vouchers away,” he told the Indy.

In Rhode Island, it is legal for landlords to deny tenancy on the basis of a renter’s source of income, or SOI. The practice of SOI discrimination is a direct reaction to the stigma of government assistance, but it is also intertwined with larger structural issues such as landlord-tenant power imbalances, the scarcity of affordable housing, and racist and classist notions of what makes an ideal renter.

Section 8 vouchers, also known as Housing Choice Vouchers, help low-income people afford decent, safe housing by subsidizing rent beyond what the recipient can afford with 30 percent of their income. In order to be eligible, an applicant’s income must not exceed 50 percent of the area’s median income (AMI), but the vast majority of vouchers go to families below 30 percent of the AMI. But not everyone who is eligible for a Section 8 voucher receives one—under the current funding structure, around 11 million applicants who should qualify are not covered by the voucher program due to insufficient federal funding. This lack of funding means long waiting lists are the only option for many families seeking housing assistance. Renters like Mills often have no choice but to stay in a shelter or outside while waiting for their vouchers, a process that can take more than two years. Obtaining a voucher does not even conclude the grueling process of securing a home. After acquiring the voucher, Mills spent an exorbitant amount of time searching for a landlord who would rent to him. The vouchers have an expiration date of 60 days, giving renters about two months to come to a deal with a landlord. Voucher holders often face discrimination from landlords during the housing application process, making it difficult to meet the government’s tight deadline: in HUD’S most recent study, only 69 percent of Section 8 voucher recipients succeeded in leasing units through the program. “Out of ten options, voucher holders would only be eligible for three with a voucher because of landlords not wanting to participate,” Marijoan Bull, an Urban Studies professor, commented. “Clearly, it is a problem.” Currently, only 14 states have anti-SOI-discrimination statutes on the books. In most states, including Rhode Island, it is legal for landlords to refuse to rent a unit to someone simply because the renter receives housing or other public assistance. House of Hope, calls SOI discrimination “a legal proxy for a lot of other forms of illegal discrimination.” Kristina Contreras Fox, Senior Policy Analyst for the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, said that some landlords refuse to rent to voucher holders simply because “they think that they’ll be renting to a Black or brown family.” Even landlords who are not prejudiced against voucher holders might resist renting to them for fear of scaring away other tenants who may have their own biases against those on government assistance. The result is that while voucher holders in Rhode Island can afford more than 33 percent of units, they are rejected from 93 percent of rentals according to a 2018 study by SouthCoast Fair Housing and HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere). Not only is SOI discrimination unjust, it also runs counter to the interests of landlords. Despite its negative reputation, the voucher system actually improves the renting experience for both landlords and tenants in several key ways. For one, non-voucher holding tenants are entirely dependent on their own incomes in order to pay rent, which can often be unreliable. Section 8 vouchers provide an incredibly stable source of income, essentially guaranteeing payment to landlords. The voucher system also ensures accountability for both landlords and tenants. Just as the required inspections place a burden on the landlord to care for and maintain the unit, they commensurately promote responsible tenancy. Voucher holders are aware of the regular inspections and are thereleadership guarantees nothing for this legislation, today its possibility of passing the House is undoubtedly greater than it was before the election. +++ The path to ending SOI discrimination is inextricably linked to a larger overhaul of the housing system in the United States. While SOI discrimination is inherently unjust, larger systemic injustices including scarce housing stock and a lack of renter-centered policy cause significant material consequences. The dearth of affordable housing in Rhode Island creates a dangerous power imbalance: property owners, property managers, and landlords hold a product—housing— for which there is far greater demand than supply. This allows landlords to engage in exclusionary rental practices such as SOI discrimination. Unlike neighboring states, Rhode Island lacks a line item in its state budget for affordable housing and thus lags far behind other states in per-capita housing investment. According to HousingWorksRI, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine all spend more on housing than Rhode Island does, with Massachusetts spending around $100 per person, Connecticut about $95, Vermont about $77, and Rhode Island only roughly $21. This underinvestment has consequences: there is currently a deficit of about 22,000 affordable housing units in Rhode Island. The lack of suffi+++ fore more inclined to treat their homes well and follow rules set by their landlords. Mills aptly frames the voucher system cient units makes the vacancy rate extremely low, thus handing landlords the reins of power over tenants in the SOI discrimination has become a common practice among landlords for two main reasons: first, in order to be approved for rental to a Section 8 voucher holder, the property must pass a health and safety inspection. While the inspection policy is in place to protect voucher holders and maintain the integrity of the program, it has also become a point of conflict because landlords are averse to paying the costs of keeping their units up to code. Dannie Ritchie, a housing activist in the Mount Hope neighborhood, explained that landlords may discriminate against Section 8 voucher holders because they do not want to be subject to inspections that would reveal the faultiness and illegality of their units. While other tenants may accept the subpar conditions of a property, Section 8 voucher holders cannot use their subsidies to rent a unit that does not meet government standards. Landlords therefore prefer to rent to non-voucher holding tenants who will accept a subpar unit, allowing landlords to save the time and money necessary to bring the unit up to code. In addition to the perceived financial benefits of denying rental to tenants using Section 8 vouchers, racist and classist stereotypes also contribute to the prevalence of SOI discrimination. Some landlords embrace popular perceptions of public assistance recipients as lazy, unreliable, and irresponsible, which can impact their evaluations of prospective tenants. As Mills told the Indy, landlords often promote “bad propaganda” about voucher holders, hurting their ability to find housing. According to a 2019 report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 80 percent of Section 8 voucher holders are Black or Latinx. While discrimination on the basis of race is illegal, Megan Smith, a case manager at the as an “opportunity” rather than a burden for landlords—it is an opportunity to receive reliable rent payments, to invest in the safety and livability of their units, and to have a more cooperative relationship with tenants. +++ One of the solutions Mills has championed as a tenants’ rights activist is legislation banning SOI discrimination. While solidly Democratic, Rhode Island and Providence have failed to follow the lead of other states and municipalities that have successfully banned SOI discrimination. With four successful passages in the Senate subsequently stymied in the House, the struggle to pass anti-SOI-discrimination legislation is emblematic of two larger political problems in the General Assembly—first, the dictatorial, opaque, loyalty-based nature of Rhode Island politics and, second, the conservative complexion of Rhode Island’s Democratic Party leadership. These faults have major implications for the fate of policy because the House Speaker is the most powerful politician in the state. In recent years, Speaker Nicholas Mattiello, a conservative Democrat, ensured that progressive legislation never made it to the House floor for a vote. However, Mattiello has lost his 2020 election to a Republican challenger, potentially opening the door for a change of fate for the legislation in next year’s legislative session. Moderate Democrat Joe Shekarchi is in line to be the next Speaker and, while no progressive champion himself, has historically been more open to left-wing causes and changing House rules to make them more fair and transparent. While the change in negotiating process. Governer Gina Raimondo’s proposed 2020 state budget did include a line item (direct funding) for affordable housing construction, with the proposal still under consideration in budget talks. Without a fundamental restructuring toward renter-centered housing, the problems of discrimination and displacement will remain entrenched in Rhode Island cities, regardless of SOI laws. As Megan Smith told the Indy, “unless we work on the culture change as we’re working on the policy change, [the discrimination] is just going to switch to a new proxy.” SOI discrimination is just one manifestation of the racism and classism that pervade the housing system. The United States has a bitter history of forced removal and disinvestment in communities of color, an ethos that persists today. American housing policy consistently prioritizes profits instead of people and communities. But as Justice Gaines (B’16), an organizer with the Providence Youth Student Movement, contends: “The city is not its profit margin or its debt or its business ranking, the city is the people who live in the city.” In concert with the efforts of people like Malchus Mills, we can create a society that reflects Gaines’s vision. While Mills himself has faced injustice in the housing system, he is also working tirelessly to change it. His experience represents the housing system’s failures but also the hope and change needed to redeem it. RUTHIE COHEN B’23, LAUREN FUNG B’22, EMMIE LAU B’23, AND GABE MERNOFF B’22 wish they had line items for affordable housing construction in their yearly budgets.