The bill, SB487, is intended to prevent landlords from rejecting tenants that receive public assistance simply because they are poor. But critics of the legislation said that it would force landlords to participate in social welfare programs and make them do business with housing authorities that send rent checks late and refuse to pay market rates.
Baltimore County Democrat James Brochin said that a landlord from his district was owed over $36,000 in back rent from government housing authorities. He claimed that such stories were legion throughout the state.
Brochin argued that it was unfair to require landlords to keep dealing with officials that do not pay them properly.
‘Mandates Section 8,’ opponent says
“This bill mandates Section 8,” Brochin said. “If you choose not to work with HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development], you’re going to have court action against you. If you start dealing with Section 8 and get tired of it, you won’t have a choice. You’ll have to keep doing it.”
Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, said that Brochin was “unfairly castigating” the legislation. As the lead sponsor of SB 487, Raskin said his sole mission was to stop discrimination and prevent ghettoization.
“I always stand with the underdog,” Raskin said, and he argued that his bill would enable poor people to escape slums and live in safe neighborhoods with good schools.
Raskin accused Brochin of “trying to tear down this civil rights legislation” with false allegations. He read a letter from Anne Arundel County Housing Commission CEO Clifton Martin categorically denying Brochin’s claim that the A&G Management Company was owed thousands of dollars in Section 8 rent.
“After review by accountants at both the Housing Commission and A & G Management,” Martin wrote, “it is apparent that there is no money owed to the company by the Housing Commission. To the contrary, there is apparent discussion that they may owe the Housing Commission refunds.”
Provisions include no rent increases
This rebuttal did not sway Raskin’s opponents, many of whom said that they were disturbed by the provisions of Section 8 contracts that said that leases could be terminated at any time without notice and that landlords could not increase rents without getting permission from the state.
Sen. Bobby Zirkin, D-Baltimore County, said that those contracts were “unfair,” and that he was particularly concerned by a provision that denies landlords the opportunity to receive government compensation when Section 8 tenants trash their apartments.
Zirkin said that participation in Section 8 ought to be voluntary, and he said that this view was not incompatible with a concern for civil rights.
“I’m not in favor of discriminating against anybody, but I oppose this bill,” he said.
Opposition is bipartisan
Several Democrats said that they would vote against the legislation, including Sen. Nathaniel McFadden, D-Baltimore City.
McFadden reminisced about the moment in his childhood when he and his mother moved out of the housing project. He expressed concern that the legislation would require landlords to prefer tenants who received government subsidies and make it harder for people like his mother to get cheap housing when they are “paying their own way.”
“This bill is not about preventing discrimination,” said Washington County Republican Christopher Shank. “It is about forcing participation in a government program.”
SB 487 faced substantial resistance earlier in the legislative process. It eked through the Judicial Proceedings Committee in a 6-5 vote, and similar bills have died in committee in 2012 and 2011. The bill was so contentious in the Senate on Tuesday that further debate was set for Wednesday.
The legislation also had enthusiastic champions
Sen. Bill Ferguson, D-Baltimore City, said that his years as a teacher in urban schools made him realize the necessity of SB 487.
Ferguson said that many of his students grew up in ghettos with a heavy “concentration of the generational poor,” and he said that these children needed a way out of poverty. “Passing this law is a way to ensure that people can have social mobility no matter what zip code they are born in.”
By Ilana Kowarski
Original Story
joe diamond says
Is this all there is to the debate?
Aside from the money consideration there is the drug and alcohol policy. IF a person or family receives section 8 housing from the feds & someone in that household gets a drug conviction………the money stops. So the landlord has to deal with an innocent tenant who cannot pay all the rent. The druggie goes to jail or gets kicked off the property (throw away people policy) . The landlord is entitled to his rent. The tenant cannot pay it.
There are other issues like this that will change the status of section 8 residents. Rather than roll the dice on future conduct landlords just look at past earnings, current employment and take a chance on that.
My view,
Joe
joe diamond says
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
I thought someone else would say landlords offer a valuable but fragile product. They have made a large investment of their time and money. They have a right to both a profit and continued use of their property. Any legislation that would help a deserving family afford the housing the landlord offers could be a good thing.
It is well resolved that the concentrated poverty in urban high rise public housing is not a viable option for the future. What is not clear is how to change it and who pays for housing assistance. It cannot be landlords.
Joe
Susan floerchinger says
I understand some tenants will trash a property, whether it is subsidized or not! I understand some landlords just take all the money they can and let the property fall into decay and blame the tenants. Nothing in this world is guaranteed, yet if you are single, middle aged, no children and live a drama free life you are lumped into the group that is considered undesirable because of the fact that you are poor, disabled and have no way to increase your income to get a better place to live. I for one am tired of having to live in sub par housing because that is all that I can afford, and if I were to live within my means (in my tent out of town) they are going to label me a nut job and ship me off to the mental hospital. Where are my constitutional rights to “life, liberty and the per suite of happiness” when society dictates where I can live even if I can not afford what they deem acceptable? Just because I am a woman and was paid one third of what my male co-workers were paid doesn’t mean I will trash your rental unit. Just because I am poor does not mean that I don’t know how to care for your property. Apparently it does mean as a financial poor woman I can prostitute myself to get the money to pay the rent, or stay in a violently abusive relationship so I can have a roof over my head. When will we take the saying of “give me your tired, POOR, wretched” off of the statue of Liberty because we don’t even want to take care of our own poor here in this country. Believe me if I could get away with it, I would have a nice little cave in the mountains to live out the rest of my life because I can no longer deal with the double standars that the 1% have been shoving down my throat my entire life. I am 50 years old and can not find a place to live because Vouchers are not accepted. This means if I do not find a landlord who is willing to work with me, I get to be homeless, loose the disability insurance that I worked hard for right up until some fat head of a man decided that my restaurant was making to much money and beat the hell out of me landing me in this situation. Yes I am angry! I didn’t ask to be in this position, nor do I abuse it, so why am I being denied housing because I am poor and can no longer cook in restaurants for one third of the wages a man gets? Yes that sounds fair to me, just kick the hell out of the women, make them all became some piece of meat for a fat head who is going to kick the shit out of them just so they can live in proper housing that society finds acceptable, instead of fixing the problem. Lets all turn our heads as our daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters come to learn that if you want to survive here in America you as a woman must prostitute yourself, take the ***hole down the streets proposal of marriage, or you can just be homeless even though you work an honest day for one third of an honest wage. Yep that sounds good to me, how about you?