Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Vouchers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Disallowing voucher discrimination gains disability advocates’ support; realtors and landlords warn of administrative burdens
Summary
HB 628 would prohibit landlords from refusing tenants solely because they hold housing choice vouchers. Disability and advocacy groups urged passage, citing long voucher waitlists and denial rates; realtors and landlords warned of inspection, administrative and screening complexities.
House Bill 628 would make it unlawful to refuse to rent to a prospective tenant solely because they hold a Housing Choice Voucher (often called Section 8). The bill’s sponsor framed the measure as eliminating a barrier many voucher holders face when searching for private-market housing.
Advocacy organizations representing people with disabilities and aging residents urged the committee to approve the bill. Vanessa Blaise of the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities told members the Council supports HB 628 because “approximately 66% of assisted households are headed by a person with disabilities” in the statewide voucher program and many voucher holders struggle to find landlords willing to accept vouchers; the Council said applicants often wait years for vouchers and then lose them because they cannot find landlords willing to accept the subsidy within required timeframes.
Supporters emphasized that landlords would retain standard tenant screening tools—the bill would bar denial on the basis of voucher status alone, not bar reasonable screening for criminal history, rental references or other neutral criteria. Kristen Evans of ABLE New Hampshire echoed disability advocates and argued prohibiting voucher discrimination would reduce housing instability and homelessness among people with disabilities.
Industry witnesses opposed the measure. Matt Bacon of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors told the committee that participation in voucher programs imposes administrative, inspection and paperwork burdens and that mandatory participation could deter landlords from offering housing. Landlords and property managers argued the program is voluntary because landlords may not want the annual inspections, the HUD housing-quality standard reviews, or the administrative processes associated with voucher contracts. They also warned of legal complexity around discrimination law; the committee discussed that existing anti‑discrimination law already protects several classes and that a voucher‑status rule is a distinct policy choice.
Committee members questioned whether the bill as drafted contains appropriate exceptions (for example, when a unit’s rent exceeds voucher payment standards or when a unit fails HUD quality standards) and how to reconcile reasonable screening criteria and landlord rights. Proponents said rent and housing-quality exceptions are included in the draft and that landlords would retain standard screening options. The committee did not vote; testimony closed and the committee recessed.
