Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Chance Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council refers Fair Chance Access to Rental Housing ordinance back to legislative committee after members call for revisions
Summary
Committee discussion over proposed 'Fair Chance' rental ordinance focused on provisions that would bar applicants with certain convictions for long periods. Council voted to send the ordinance back to the Legislative Affairs committee for further work.
Get email alerts on the Fair Chance Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members referred an amended draft of the Fair Chance Access to Rental Housing ordinance back to the Legislative Affairs committee after debate about language that would exclude people with certain felony convictions for set periods.
During public comment Arthur Woodson raised concerns about specific provisions in the draft housing ordinance that would bar applicants for convictions of violent or drug-related felonies committed within the last 10 years or imprisonment for felonies within the last five years. "That exclude anyone for marijuana," Woodson said, explaining that drug laws have changed and a conviction years ago might be for marijuana.
In committee, Councilwoman in the 5th Ward asked city attorneys to clarify the draft’s language on page six and said she could not support the ordinance as written: "That's a long time. That's not helping them. ... I can't vote on this ordinance right now as it's worded." Other council members agreed the item needed more work and suggested a working session with returning-citizen stakeholders to refine time frames and definitions.
After discussion the committee voted to refer the ordinance (240426.1) back to the Legislative Affairs committee; the roll-call vote in the transcript is recorded as 7 yes, 0 no. Committee members said the ordinance should be revised to avoid unnecessarily long bans and to incorporate input from people with lived experience and service providers.
No final ordinance vote occurred. Staff and proponents of the ordinance were asked to return with amendments that address council concern about the five- and ten-year bars and provide clarity about which convictions should be disqualifying and how exceptions or case-by-case review might operate.

