Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
University Heights council tables proposed change to fair-housing language after sustained public opposition
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony, including legal counsel and voucher holders, the University Heights City Council voted to table a first-reading amendment that residents and civil-rights groups said would open the door to discrimination against tenants using housing choice vouchers.
Dozens of residents and housing advocates urged the University Heights City Council on Tuesday to preserve the city’s source-of-income protections and opposed a proposed amendment to the city’s fair housing code.
At the podium, Kris Canary, associate director of the Fair Housing Center for Rights and Research, told council that the proposed amendment — which speakers said would permit landlords to refuse tenants who rent with housing choice vouchers — would disproportionately harm families with children, older adults, people with disabilities and people of color. Canary cited local data and client complaints to argue that voucher discrimination is rising and that removing enforcement protections would make vouchers less effective.
Diane Citrino, a retired attorney and Fair Housing Center board member, and Matt Besser, a civil-rights attorney, urged the council to retain existing protections. Besser told council, “This law is constitutional. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise,” and urged the council to wait for ongoing court proceedings rather than repeal local protections now. He also offered his firm’s assistance to defend the ordinance if the city declines to do so.
Several residents who said they had used vouchers described barriers leasing units: Chantelle Burse said she was routinely told she had to make “three times the rent” despite vouchers guaranteeing a large portion of monthly payments, and said she lost a voucher because she could not find housing within the program’s time limits.
Mayor Weiss framed the amendment at first reading as a clarification of Chapter 8.20 of the city code, saying the change was intended to make the code “clear, enforceable, and legally sound” and to reduce ambiguity that can invite litigation. Weiss said the ordinance was not an emergency measure and that it “does not weaken fair housing protections.”
After extensive public comment and discussion, Councilmember Weiser moved to table the ordinance on first reading. The motion carried by roll call; all councilmembers present voted to table the item.
What’s next: The ordinance was tabled and will return to the council only if a member places it back on a future agenda. Advocates present said they would continue to monitor legal developments and enforcement practices.
