Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Vouchers Section8 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House adopts bill to bar cities from forcing landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers
Summary
Lawmakers passed a committee substitute for House Bill 595 (and related 343), preempting municipal ordinances that would require landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers or limit tenant screening; proponents cited property rights and investor exit risks, opponents urged local solutions and cited protections and a landlord fund in Kansas City.
Representative (Clay County) presented House Bill 595 and said it would prohibit municipal governments from creating or enforcing ordinances that force landlords to accept federal housing assistance (commonly called Section 8) or that restrict landlords' ability to screen tenants. "I submit this is a pure property rights issue," the sponsor said, noting municipal ordinances that attempt to compel participation in voucher programs can impose additional administrative costs and inspections.
Supporters warned that mandates would drive landlords out of the market, reduce the supply of rental housing and discourage investment. Representative (Buchanan County) who questioned the sponsor said the ordinance would increase costs and could result in properties being removed from the rental pool. The sponsor and backers also emphasized the administrative burden of Section 8 participation and the uncertainties around local ordinances.
Opponents, including Representatives from Kansas City and Jackson County who testified in committee and spoke on the floor, urged deference to local decision-making. Representative (Saint Louis City) and others said the Kansas City ordinance was a pilot program designed to protect veterans, victims of domestic violence and low-income renters and that the city established a $1 million fund intended to help landlords who experience damage or payment delays. Several Kansas City delegates who spoke on the floor said the local ordinance was revised after initial concerns and that it sought to prevent discrimination solely on source-of-income grounds while preserving tenant screening in practice.
Representative (Clay County) said the bill was intended to prevent a spread of municipal mandates and to preserve landlords' rights. The House adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bills perfected and printed by voice vote.
The debate flagged unresolved practical issues: how municipal programs would handle inspections, documentation and compensation for damage; whether municipal actions amount to improper appropriation of private property; and the balance between encouraging voucher use and preserving property-owner discretion.
