Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Landlord Tenant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears clash over bill that would block local source-of-income protections
Summary
The House Committee on Federal and State Affairs heard opponents and proponents of HB 2504, which would bar cities and counties from limiting landlords' tenant-screening practices and from treating lawful sources of income differently; proponents said it protects property-rights and voluntariness of federal programs, opponents said it would strip local control and worsen housing access.
TOPEKA — The Kansas House Committee on Federal and State Affairs heard hours of testimony on HB 2504, a bill that would prohibit cities and counties from adopting or maintaining ordinances that restrict landlords' tenant-screening methods, limit security deposits, or bar landlords from refusing to rent based on a lawful source of income.
Proponents led by Mark Toome of Kansas Realtors argued the bill defends private-property rights and preserves the voluntary nature of federal housing programs. "This legislation would prevent cities from further interfering in the private property rights of Kansas landlords," Toome said, urging members to move the bill forward. Stanley Weber, president and CEO of Tower Properties Company, told the committee that participation in HUD programs is voluntary and that local mandates could drive landlords out of the state.
Adam Hall, an attorney for Landlords of Lawrence, told lawmakers HB 2504 "improves housing availability" by reducing compliance risk and restoring discretion to owners. He and other proponents cited Missouri's recent preemption action as a precedent and said Lawrence is the primary Kansas locality affected.
Opponents, including Rabbi Modi Reber of Kansas Interfaith Action and Michelle Ewert, director of the Washburn University law clinic, called the bill a statewide preemption that would limit communities' ability to add fair-housing protections. "I rise in opposition to HB 2504," Rabbi Reber said, arguing the proposal would exacerbate homelessness and remove a local tool used by communities to respond to housing needs. Ewert noted that the Lawrence ordinance has been reviewed by Kansas courts and said local protections help voucher holders find housing.
Several witnesses and residents cited data and local experience in support of their positions. Christie Baughman of United Community Services of Johnson County said average rents have climbed and low-cost units have declined; Molly Rucker, a Lawrence resident, told committee members that the Lawrence Douglas County Housing Authority reported voucher use rose from 94% to 99.9% after Lawrence banned source-of-income discrimination.
Committee members pressed both sides for specifics about which cities would be affected and for evidence that landlords were leaving markets because of local ordinances. Proponents repeatedly pointed to Lawrence as the principal Kansas example; municipal representatives and the League of Kansas Municipalities urged caution, highlighting constitutional home rule and asking the Legislature to verify a statewide problem before preempting local laws.
No formal vote on HB 2504 occurred during the hearing. Earlier in the session the committee accepted several bill introduction requests "without objection". The chair closed oral testimony because of time limits and noted substantial written testimony filed on both sides; he said members should watch the committee schedule for further action next week.
