This  is so important often landlords are exceeding what a tenant with a voucher should be responsible to make in order to apply for housing. Also it is unfair to ask someone renting affordable housing to make three times the monthly rent in order to have decent housing the average person doesn't bring home that much monthly so they are being discriminated against for not making enough monthly funds Landlords are using this to deny housing to low to moderate income families

This proposed guidance document for housing discrimination on the basis of source of funds will help HCV holders immensely, but it inadvertently creates issues for those with temporary subsidies such as rapid rehousing funds. Although guidance specifies that these types of funds are included in the source of funds protection, it is easy for landlords to discriminate against applicants who are receiving these funds. 

Rapid rehousing funds are used to get people out of shelters and into permanent housing as soon as possible. After being housed, they receive case management services to assist with connecting to resources, budgeting, finding job training, and increasing their income. All of these things are easier to accomplish when a person is in a stable housing situation. RRH funds allow people time to get back on their feet so they can eventually become self-sufficient. The people receiving these funds may have little to no income and/or no employment. Assistance is situation-dependent, but an example of the subsidy a person may receive is a single or double security deposit and a few months of full rent or partial rent. These subsidies do not last the entire term of the lease, like HCV do. With HCV, this document proposes guidance on how landlords must calculate income. The landlord must count only the portion of the rent the tenant pays to calculate their income. For RRH recipients who have no employment and little to no income, they are not paying a portion of the rent at the time of applying or even for a few months after move-in. When applicants with RRH funds apply, they are told that they still must have income 2-3 times the rent. Although landlords count RRH funds, the subsidy amount is only to cover rent; therefore, the applicant who has little or no income will never meet the income requirements.

The argument for denying RRH applicants is that these subsidies are temporary. I would counter that unemployment benefits, which are also a protected source of income, are temporary as well. It seems as though most landlords determine an applicant's income eligibility based on the income they have at the time of applying for the unit. If an applicant receiving unemployment has income 2-3 times the rent, they could qualify. If an applicant receiving a HCV has an income 2-3 times of the portion of rent they pay, they could qualify. However, if a client receiving a RRH subsidy who is not responsible for paying rent at the time of applying doesn't have income 2-3 times the rent at the time of applying, they do not qualify. Landlords are not psychics or fortune tellers. They cannot predict that a typical applicant won't lose their job and be unable to pay rent a few months down the road. They cannot predict that an applicant receiving unemployment benefits won't have those benefits cut or expire and be unable to pay rent a few months down the road. Similarly, they cannot predict that RRH recipients will not find employment or increase their income after move-in, and not be able to afford rent a few months down the road. EVERY tenant is a risk. So why are these temporary subsidy recipients held to a different standard?

If landlords are to apply their income requirements equally for all applicants, there must be some sort of guidance for how to calculate income from temporary subsidies because what is occurring now is not equal treatment. Without specific guidance on how temporary subsidies fit into the source of funds protection, a  disproportionate disadvantage is created for temporary subsidy recipients because of this new protection. I would argue that there will be future fair housing cases regarding this in the future, as the majority of people receiving rental assistance, whether temporary or more long-term like HCV, are minorities. Let's get ahead of this issue now. This proposed guidance needs to be amended to include guidance on temporary subsidies.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider,  I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in the type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While VA's Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all "Source of Income" laws are generally written w/HCV holders in mind, the definition as enacted by VA Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just HCV. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, HCV or paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under VA's Source o Funds definition. The creates a situation whereby to avoid "discriminatory housing practices," a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant's portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is a HCV or your source is a paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was a paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect's application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one's source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the VA definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income. 

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

As drafted, the current document does not take into account general cost of living for a voucher holder.  It says that to qualify for a unit only the portion the person would be paying must be considered. However, the purpose of having guidelines established at the property for screening applicants is to ensure they can afford to live and pay rent.  Simply calculating if a applicant can afford the unit based on only what they have to pay ignores normal living expenses everyone else would have to pay.

For example, the example used  - $1000 rent and $800 income along with $760 voucher and 3x the rent to qualify illustrates the following:

Person A- Non voucher- Income of $2000, would not qualify because $2000 is not 3x the rent.

Person B- non Voucher - income of $3000, would qualify as they are 3x the rent.

Person C- Voucher holder. Based on the information provided, to qualify the same way, you would say their income is $800+$760 voucher coverages= $1560. Which would still not enough to qualify.

Under the guidance as issued, we would be qualifying the person based on the rent they owe, not their total income, which would be treating them differently than everyone else.

It would work like this income=$1560, however instead of needing $3000 to qualify, the applicant would need only $720 ($240x3) $2,280 less than a non voucher holder.  That is inherently holding them to a different standard, and reverse discriminating against anyone who is not a voucher holder.

$1560 does not equal $3000 

We are being asked to calculate rent differently, not to ignore the SOURCE of funds.  The aim of this law as I understand it is so that someone who does get rental assistance is not treated differently, which would mean that the $1560 would be the income used to qualify, as we are not treating the $760 from the vouchers any different than funds from any other source.

Person B has $2000 to cover living expenses if you take rent into account. 

Person C (voucher) has only $560 to cover living expenses.

This is clearly not treating Person B & C the same based on source of funds, but treated differently by other means.

Cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HD6, voucher holders are not the only protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the VA definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

How can we come to an agreemnt where ALL potential residents "Source of funds" is equal for screening purposes? Unfortunately, HB6 does not defend ALL lawful sources of funds, protected under the VA definition. This is an unlawful discriminitory practice toward anyone that's not an HCV holder.

If an HCV holder can be qualified based on the rent they owe and a conventional applicant cannot, how is that equitable housing?

I cannot support a guidance document that advocates the groundwork for any discriminitory method based on "Source of Funds," and neither should anyone.

In addition to being positively discriminating (but discriminating all the same), this guidance is setting applicants up to fail as residents. The way the draft guidance reads, an applicant that obtains a voucher that covers the full amount of rent does not have to provide proof of any additional source of funds; conceivably they could move in with no source of funds or income at all. However, residents must pay for their electricity, their water (in many cases) and renter's insurance - not to mention food and other daily costs of living. It is highly likely, with no additional source of funding, that this resident will default on their utilities and/or their insurance obligation, which will result in their lease being terminated. We are setting this individual up to fail by not requiring that they have any source of funding beyond that which is required to pay their rent.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

The intent of this law, as indicated in a video by the sponsoring delegate was NOT to make housing providers have to comply with new operational standards or regulations.  This guidance document additionally does not cover other sources of funds, just HCVs.  

Where is the guidance for gift letters, savings accounts, corporate apartments, etc...

Additionally, determining an operational standard that does not provide for "rent" in total as defined by the VRLTA is not acceptable.  

How am I to treat everyone fairly in regards to income calculations if an entire segment of the population is provided with preferential treatment?

This guidance is incomplete and counter to the intent as stated by the Delegate.

At a DPOR sponsored Fair Housing Seminar years ago I listened to DPOR's Fair Housing instructor Mally Mason make a comment that has stuck with me over the years.  In that seminar she stated that “everyone is a member of a protected class”.  Whether we are talking race, color or an individual’s religion; everyone is a member of a protected class.

That same holds true for source of funds under the Virginia statute.  Whether the funds for your rental come from an employer paycheck, a gift letter or a voucher you are equally protected under the under Virginia’s Fair Housing Act.  Very simply that means anytime the basis for a decision or differential treatment is one's membership in a protected class then that constitutes a discriminatory action in violation of the Virginia Fair Housing Act.  This guidance document as drafted likewise makes that same determination.  As stated in the first paragraph on page 2:

“The new law adds “source of funds” to all of the unlawful discriminatory practices that appear in Virginia Code § 36-96.3, including prohibitions on, for example: . . .  (2) imposing terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds”

While leading the document with that statement, the document as drafted then goes on to direct landlords to screen individuals differently based specifically on the source of funds using the rational that “rent” is really only the tenant’s portion even though legally, rent is the required payment listed in the rental agreement.  Afterall, the rental agreement is between the tenant and the housing provider; not the housing provider and the Public Housing Authority.

Further, the document purports that by redefining rent as the tenant’s portion; this meets the goal of the legislation which was to protect voucher holders from discrimination.  The VA code definition of Source of Funds does not match that claimed “intent”.  Had the intent of the legislation been to carve out a protection for Voucher holders then it should have been written as such.  Utah did just that in creating their protection by crafting their definition as:

"Source of income" means the verifiable condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements.

Utah Fair Housing Act 57-21-2 (24)

Virginia did not do this, nor did Virginia write into the code any specific screening criteria/calculations/restrictions for Voucher recipients as other states have done. (see footnotes 7 & 11).   Instead, Virginia chose to protect ALL sources of funds equally.  This means everyone should be treated the same regardless of their source of funds.  This means screened exactly the same way no matter where your funding comes from.  Fair Housing is after all, about treating people equally regardless of their membership in a protected class.

This guidance document as drafted is contrary to state law and in violation of the VA Fair Housing Act as it advocates discriminatory treatment on the basis of source of funds. (§ 2.2-4002.1.)

Had this guidance been drafted to address possible disparate impacts related to source of funds the claimed legislative “intent” could be accomplished without the need for Virginia’s Fair Housing Office to endorse discriminatory treatment on the basis of source of funds.  Instead of endorsing discriminatory treatment, this guidance should advocate for all prospects to be screened the same and then suggest the use of an individualized assessment in the event a prospect fails to meet a rent to funds ratio which was applied equally to all residents.  This process would avoid potential disparate impacts and be in line with the US Supreme Court’s disparate impact ruling in the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v The Inclusive Communities Project case.

I ask for the VA Fair Housing Office to redraft this guidance so it; does not violate the VA Fair Housing act, complies with the Supreme Court decision, is based on the actual definition of source of funds, and matches the “intent” as stated by Delegate Jeff Bourne himself during his testimony before the General Assembly on January 30, 2020:

“What we are simply doing is saying that you cannot deny someone applying for a rental unit simply because they’re paying with a voucher.  That’s all we’re doing.  That is it!  -  You still get to check their credit, you still get to verify employment, you still get to get references – all those other things that, that are being done now.”

Virginia had the chance to carve out special protections for Housing Choice Voucher holders.  This however was not done and, as evidenced by the comment above, the bill's patron chose to draft the code language so it protected ALL sources of income EQUALLY.  Simply put, everyone should be treated the same regardless of their source of funds.

This is a credibility moment for the Virginia Fair Housing Office.  I request the Fair Housing Office redraft this guidance so it; acknowledges potential disparate impacts, interprets the code language as written and applies the protections afforded under this code equally regardless of one’s source of funds.

Thank you.

We who live in Northern Virginia and in particular Arlington County face very heavy housing costs both for rents and homeownership.   My county Arlington has long provided its own housing rental grants program to low income seniors, disabled people, and families with a child generally earning below 40-percent of the area median income.   The county government also allocated Federal HUD housing choice vouchers.  It also has funded about 7,000 subsidized units through nonprofits, but we still over 5,000 rental households with heavy housing cost burden earning below 50% AMI with no assistance.

We the Arlington Greens have supported expansion of the county housing rental grants program to more needy households as the most efficient and effective housing assistance and something that allows renters to live anywhere in the county and not just in identified low income nonprofit housing.  Some private landlords including the largest single low income apartment complex refuse to accept either the county grant nor the HUD voucher and thus tenants have a hard time finding a unit.

We believe it is in the public interest that all commercial landlords should as a matter of business accept any government funded rental assistance, whether county funded or HUD funded.  It is important the low income renters be allowed to rent anywhere and not refused permission to rent in more affluent areas or be subjected to discrimination simply because they receive some housing rental assistance.  

In Arlington it is mainly disabled and seniors who get county funded rental vouchers, and then refusal of landlords to accept these county vouchers is de facto discrimination against the disabled and senior citizens.   Discrimination is wrong.

Please approve a strong prohibition against landlords refusing to honor government rental assistance payments as ordinary income.  A dollar is a dollar and in fact a dollar guaranteed to be paid by the county or HUD is more assured than a dollar earned from a job.

To whom it may concern:

My name is Tim Dempsey, and I am writing on behalf Our Revolution Arlington in support of this Proposed Guidance Document on Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Source of Funds.

Housing is a crisis situation in the United States. Even before the pandemic, roughly 30% were “housing cost burdened,” spending 30% or more of their income on housing. In Virginia, it is estimated that 45% of all renters are housing cost burdened.

Federal, state, and local housing vouchers are an important form of support for low and moderate income earners. Vouchers reduce their housing cost burden, while helping to prevent homelessness and/or chronic relocation - all of which in turn eases other financial and psychological burdens of the voucher recipients. 

Moreover, housing vouchers provide greater mobility to low and moderate income earners. An unfortunate feature of committed affordable and public housing programs is that, for various reasons, they tend to be clumped together in a single area, which concentrates poverty. Vouchers, by contrast, give the holder the opportunity to potentially move out of areas with concentrated poverty and racial segregation and into market-rate private residential buildings in neighborhoods with better amenities. This tends to improve social outcomes for them and their children, which is good for society as a whole.

For these reasons and more, it is imperative that we make it easier for people to use housing vouchers, which this new law does. 

As to the Guidance Document itself, the document is clearly written and illustrative of the changes in the existing law and obligations of the various parties.

I support Virginia's proposed Guidance Document which outlines specific scenarios in which the new Source of Funds protection applies and those in which it might not. The document interprets the statute using both the General Assembly's intent and similar laws found across the United States as a guidepost to ensure that all residents, regardless of their source of funds, have access to housing free from discrimination. Source of funds or source of income discrimination has been used as a backdoor to unlawful discrimination against potential renters based on race, disability, and other protected classes for decades. It also significantly reduced the efficacy of the Housing Choice Voucher program and the ability of low-income renters to move to higher opportunity neighborhoods. 

The proposed Guidance document provides helpful context to home sellers and their continued ability to consider financial terms and conditions from prospective purchasers without violating the source of funds protected class. It also clarifies that rental property owners may continue to request information about prospective tenants' source of funds and how that information may be used when making a rental decision. It rightly notes that the permanency of the funds and their source cannot be legally considered because of the discriminatory impact on renters. It also provides important criteria for considering how to apply income threshold standards so that prospective renters with government or private subsidies are not unlawfully blocked from renting a unit when they have enough income to meet all rent obligations. 

The Guidance Document also correctly states that a property owner's unwillingness to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program because of real or perceived burdens is not a defense against violations of the Virginia Fair Housing Law and source of funds protections. The passage of source of funds protections in Virginia and elsewhere has been largely driven by property owners' refusal to rent to recipients of Housing Choice Vouchers which has helped keep program participants confined to high-poverty neighborhoods and negates the positive impact of the Federal housing program which all of our tax dollars support.

Lastly, the Guidance Document provides clarity around the 15-day exemption and how property owners' good faith in working with prospective renters as well as Public Housing Authorities is required to mount that defense. This clarification helps ensure that a property owner acting in bad faith cannot circumvent the law's protections for Housing Choice Voucher recipients by delaying the request for the tenancy approval or inspection process. 

Thank you for issuing these guidelines which will hopefully prevent unnecessary lawsuits and litigation over the interpretation of this critical protection for Virginia residents.

Protecting subsidy recipients from discrimination is essential and this draft guidance does a good job of clarifying how the new protections should be handled by landlords. The guidance provides helpful examples of when and how the new protection will apply.

It seems reasonable that evaluation of whether a tenant can afford a particular rent should take into consideration only the payment being made directly by the tenant. So for a landlord that has a requirement that income must be three times the rent, the appropriate calculation is to assess whether the tenant’s income is three times the tenant’s portion of the rent. This rule can be used equally for all tenants: Is the tenant’s income sufficient to pay the tenant’s portion of the rent?

As with any new law or regulation, this may take some effort for landlords to adjust to the new process. As such, there should be a rigorous outreach and education process to communicate this new protection and related guidance. This will help avoid many violations in the first place and better achieve the intent of the law.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

 I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as drafted.  As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation and inadvertently advocates an approach that in itself is discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.   

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believes it avoids the real issue at hand in this type of legislation, and it inadvertanly advocates for an approach that is in itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection. 

This legislation, if passed, does not protect all renters and help them become setup to succeed. All renters must meet the minimum income requirement, because we take into consideration ALL of their other monthly obligations, not just the rent amount listed on their lease. They also have to be able to afford food, utility bills, gas, transportation, etc. If they are only required to meet what is listed in this legislation, they will not be able to afford basic human life expenses. This sis setting them up to fail, this does not protect the renter, or the landlord. Please reconsider this before passing this. 

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

This change in guidance would be a huge financial risk for many low income renters.

The financial cushion that renters have at most apartment complexes today is equal to 2x their rent.

With this change, the cushion would dwindle to maybe 0.5x their rent.

Landlords use a multiplier for the income requirement to make sure the tenant can afford the monthly rent and all of the other monthly expenses and normal living expenses. When you get a mortgage loan, they use a multiplier too.  It is common sense that the person you are providing a loan to can afford to pay it while taking all of the other expenses, planned and unexpected expenses in to account. 

The tenant signs a lease as well as a HAP agreement.  The tenant has an obligation to the landlord for more than just their portion of the monthly rent that the voucher does not cover.  What about renters insurance and utilities that are required under the lease?

How does this not violate Fair Housing laws that a tenant without a voucher has to be held to a higher income standard when they are ultimately responsible to the landlord for the same amount if they breach the lease?  The tenant also has to pay for any damages beyond normal wear and tear and how is the landlord going to collect on that debt when the tenant is only required to make 2 or 3 times the portion of rent that they pay each month? Are landlords going to be protected when we get a Fair Housing complaint or lawsuit for discriminating against a tenant without a voucher? Who is going to pay the landlord's legal fees to defend this claim?

Unfortunately, if the PA decides to terminate the lease according to many reasons in the HAP agreement, then the landlord's lease is automatically terminated and then the landlord has lost rent and has to find another renter.

The only participant getting the short end of the stick is the landlord, not the tenant or the HA. Please find another solution that is fair to both tenants and landlords.

If a housing voucher covers $900 of a $1000 rent, then an applicant can qualify with a $300 monthly income on a 3x basis. That is $10 a day in money for living expenses! How will that renter pay for water, electricity, sewer, and gas?

I support the proposed Guidance Document which provides clarity around the intent and application of the new Source of Funds protections in Virginia for tenants. Housing Vouchers are important safety net that to low-income working class community members, and those who need these Housing Vouchers to find affordable housing should not be discriminated against. 

On behalf of the Virginia Poverty Law Center, I write in support of the Guidance Document. It offers important clarity of existing law based on a sound understanding of fair housing law more generally, making it consistent with other fair housing protections.

I have read all the comments in opposition to the Guidance Document and they show a basic misunderstanding of fair housing law. Overall, the comments in opposition argue for facially neutral policies that quite clearly have the effect of denying equal housing opportunity to many tenants receiving assistance in paying their rent. They demonstrate exactly why the Guidance Document is so necessary.

For decades, fair housing law has recognized that policies with the effect of denying equal housing opportunity to members of protected classes, even if they are neutral on their face, can violate the law.

For example, blanket rejection of tenant applicants based on any criminal history may violate fair housing laws. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) strict policies rejecting applicants based on unspecified criminal histories has the effect of denying housing to minorities who are “arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population.” (https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF)

The source-of-income protections described in the Guidance Document work no differently. A landlord's valid interest in ensuring that tenants can afford their rent is often addressed by a landlord's general policy of requiring a certain rent-to-income ratio. But countless examples have shown that tenants whose housing subsidy enables them to afford rent are denied housing by landlords' standard rent-to-income screening methods. The Guidance Document describes ways that landlords can adjust their screening methods slightly to still protect their valid business interest in ensuring tenants can afford rent, but without denying housing opportunity to tenants who receive rent subsidies.

Many of the comments opposing the guidance offer incomplete or incorrect examples of how a landlord would calculate income eligibility under the guidelines to support their inaccurate claim that the guidance requires preferential treatment to be given to some groups. We offer the following to illustrate that, to the contrary, following the Guidance Document in determining whether an applicant has adequate income to qualify for a rental results in equitable, nondiscriminatory treatment:

Two tenants apply to rent apartments that rent for $1200/month. To qualify, a tenant must earn three times the monthly rent amount or, put another way, the tenant cannot spend more than 33 1/3% of their gross income on rent. Tenant A earns $4000 per month working full-time as a paralegal. Tenant B works full-time at a grocery store earning $10/hour ($1600/month.) Tenant A pays the full rental amount of $1200, which equals 30% of their monthly wages. Tenant B has a Housing Choice Voucher and, under HCV rules, their portion of the rent is 30% of their income (or $480/month.) Since both have income that equals three times their monthly rent obligation, both qualify.

For the reasons stated and illustrated above, we support the Guidance Document as presented and encourage Virginia to implement and follow it.

                        Christie Marra, Director of Housing Advocacy, Virginia Poverty Law Center

Protection for tenants based on Source of Funds is an important step towards equity in the Commonwealth. Low-Income residents should not be barred from quality housing due to the use of government subsidy, which provides landlords with more stable income. 

Focusing on the tenant's portion of the rent as outlined on Page 4 of the guidance is not an unfair application of the VFHL. I echo Christie Marra's comments and speak in favor of the guidance as it is currently written.

I write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

I'm writing in full support of this guidance. The guidance supports the newly added source of funds protected class and aids to expand housing access and equity across the state of Virginia. Residents should never be banned from housing access because of their source of income, specifically use of government subsidy.

I

write to express opposition to the guidance document as it is drafted. As a housing provider, I believe it avoids the real issue at-play in this type of legislation, and inadvertently advocates an approach that is itself discriminatory and inconsistent with the concept of equal protection.

While Virginia’s Source of Funds legislation, and indeed all “source of income” laws are generally written with Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in mind, the definition as enacted in Virginia Code does not address HCV holders as the protected class. Instead, the definition comprises all sources that lawfully provide funds to or on behalf of a renter. Much like the protected class of race covers all races, source of funds covers all sources of funds, not just Housing Choice Vouchers. Be it a source like unemployment, gift letters, Housing Choice Vouchers or employer paychecks, all sources are protected from discrimination under Virginia’s Source of Funds definition. This creates a situation whereby to avoid “discriminatory housing practices,” a housing provider must actually hold applicants to differing standards when evaluating their eligibility, which is itself a discriminatory practice.

For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant’s portion of rent matters. That analysis fails to take into account the baseline cost of living. Whether your source of funds is an HCV or your source of funds is an employer paycheck, your functional living costs are the same.

Based on Example 1 and 2 on Page 4 and 5 of the guidance, a prospect whose source of funds is a voucher only needs to retain $560 after rent is paid to effectively meet their rental payment obligations.

If we were to apply that same metric to a prospect whose source of funds was an employer paycheck we would be approving them to rent a $1,000 per month apartment with only $1,560 per month of income.

That individual, measured by the metrics of the Princeton Eviction Lab, would be severely rent burdened, as 60% of their income would be going to pay rent. In all likelihood that prospect’s application would be denied.

The math is the same in both scenarios. Rent is $1,000. Total funds brought by the resident are $1,560. Yet this document advocates that prospect 1 should qualify but prospect 2 should not. The ONLY difference between these two individuals is their source of funds. In short, this guidance document suggests imposing terms, conditions, and privileges on the rental of a dwelling based on one’s source of funds, which is exactly what this document also defines as an unlawful discriminatory practice.

We cannot support a guidance document that advocates any discriminatory action on the basis of source of funds. While protections for voucher holders may have been the intent behind HB6, voucher holders are not the ONLY protected source. All lawful sources of funds are protected under the Virginia definition and as such this guidance document must reflect a non-biased approach in its drafting that is consistent with the code definition of Source of Funds.

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA. 

This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other sources of funds.  Applicants tell us all the time that people with "help" with the rent - why do only housing choice voucher recipients get different treatment?

This document does not take into account lease obligations other than rent.  If suggested calculations are used, an applicant could qualify without any income whatsoever if the voucher covers 100% of the rent.  A lease has other obligations such as keeping utilities running and maintaining the property.  Property managers have to be able to evaluate applicant ability to meet all lease obligations, not just rent.

This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc...

This document goes against the stated intent of Delegate Bourne who testified multiple times in front of the general assembly that this bill did not address vouchers and that property managers would not have to do anything different.  Del. Bourne was begged to include an amendment that would have made the bill apply to housing choice vouchers specifically but refused the amendment indicating it was not what the bill was about.

Please develop a guidance document that does not violate current law and addresses all the issues that can come up with this vague bill.

I am supportive of the guidance as drafted.  It is important that those who have rental assistance or housing choice vouchers be able to take that assistance wherever they wish to use it.  To limit where rental assistance or vouchers can be used undermines our public investment in housing assistance.

Some legal sources of funds, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, are administered by third-party entities who directly pay a portion of the tenant’s rent to the housing provider.  These third-party payments are guaranteed and present less risk to a housing provider than other sources of income, such as employment income, which are not guaranteed. Furthermore, because the these sources of income are guaranteed, the relevant factor for a housing provider’s risk assessment is the tenant’s portion of the rent, and not the total rent.  

This guidance is important for a clear understanding of how source of income protections should work, and represent the legislative intent of the General Assembly.  You will do a great service to the housing community by adopting clear guidance such as this as drafted.

As a housing specialist working primarily with voucher holders, I am strongly in favor of the guidance which will provide protections for this population. In my program, voucher recipients receive case management assistance that will help provide resources for utility payments as well as opportunities for increasing individual income through employment or disability applications. Our vouchers require recipients to pay 30% of the their gross income towards the full rental amount, and should they lose their income through unforeseen circumstances the voucher can be adjusted to provide nearly 100% of the full rental amount (save for a base $50 portion). 

Everyone is entitled to live in safe, affordable housing. The income requirements currently in place are actively preventing that from happening in situations where they are not even applicable. Vouchers are a safe, guaranteed form of income used to assist people with reclaiming and/or stabilizing their lives, and this guidance would open up immediate opportunities for hundreds of individuals. 

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what it is listed in the VRLTA.  This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other sources of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc.

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA. This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment that other sources of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc....

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA.  This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other sources of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc...

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA.  The guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other source of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc....

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA.  This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other sources of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc..

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA. This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income. 

I am submitting these comments on behalf of Blue Ridge Legal Services, the legal aid society that serves the Shenandoah and Roanoke Valleys, and on behalf of the low-income population we serve. The proposed guidance on Housing Discrimination on the basis of Source of Funds correctly interprets and applies the new “source of funds” protection incorporated into the Virginia Fair Housing law July 1, 2020.

The guidance on how to compute whether a tenant meets an income threshold to qualify for housing is absolutely essential in guaranteeing tenants who benefit from the Housing Choice Voucher program the protection provided by the statutory source of funds amendment. As the guidance correctly points out, “[t]he landlord’s reasonable focus should be on whether the tenant can afford the tenant’s share of the rent.” To include the Housing Choice Voucher payment in this calculus would serve no purpose BUT to discriminate against those tenants on the basis of the source of funds.

It is important to note that other states with similar source-of-funds anti-discrimination statutes require the same approach set forth in the proposed guidance. See footnote 7 of the proposed guidance. Both Washington and California forbid the landlord from including the amount of rent voucher or subsidy in any calculations for assessing the tenant’s eligibility for rental of housing.

Accordingly, we strongly support the adoption of the proposed guidance as essential to protecting the rights of Virginia tenants to be free from discrimination based on source of funding.

This guidance absolutely needs to remain intact! Any attempts to dismantle are a threat to the progress facilitated by the Housing Choice Voucher program. In fact, the program is remarkably low risk to landlords, as much of the income is guaranteed and paid directly to them. The relevant factor for risk is the tenant’s portion of what is owed and not the total amount of the rent. Let’s not allow a purposeful misunderstanding of the facts determine the opportunities families have to improve their lives. It’s time for those who receive vouchers to stop being seen as a threat -and we applaud those landlords who are open and supportive of housing choice. Please do our communities a favor and adopt this clear and fair guidance as drafted.

Seeks to define rent other then what is in the VRLTA

Incomplete.  does not define gifts, offer letters, etc.  

Discriminates based on source of funds.  

This guidance document seeks to define rent in a way other than what is listed in the VRLTA.  This guidance document promotes illegal discrimination by requiring that individuals be treated differently based on their source of income.  The document demands that one class of "funds" requires wholly separate treatment than other sources of funds.  This document is also incomplete and does not address other types of funds such as gift letters, offer letters, etc...

I work in the “Move to Opportunity” program at Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia.  It is a mobility counseling program, we work to help families who have Housing Choice Vouchers to move to a neighborhood of opportunity.  Since 2014 we have been able to reduce the poverty rate of the neighborhoods our families move from and to by an average of 15% (from neighborhoods averaging 31% poverty rate to neighborhoods averaging 14% poverty rate).

The guidance proposed will help us in our work significantly.  The lack of voucher acceptance has been a huge barrier to our work.  Since the adoption of Source of Funds protections we have noticed that landlords use an unfair requirement of having 2-3 times the rent as earned income, rather than doing that calculation for the amount the renter would owe personally.  This interpretation by landlords needs to be corrected.

Some legal sources of funds, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, are administered by third-party entities who directly pay a portion of the tenant’s rent to the housing provider. 

These third-party payments are guaranteed and present less risk to a housing provider than other sources of income, such as employment income, which are not guaranteed. Furthermore, because the these sources of income are guaranteed, the relevant factor for a housing provider’s risk assessment is the tenant’s portion of the rent, and not the total rent.  

HOME’s clients with HCVs are actively facing barriers to housing access, frustrating HOME’s mission and programs. Housing providers are enacting facially neutral policies resulting in the automatic disqualification of our Mobility clients. These facially neutral policies typically take the form of an income qualification, as noted in the various examples across the guidance document…. 

It is also vital to view this guidance within the context of Virginia’s current housing landscape: 

• Virginia’s cities have some of the highest eviction rates in the country 
• Public housing authorities are redeveloping their traditional public housing communities with plans to issue more HCVs in lieu of replacing subsidized housing units 
• 46.1% of Virginia renter households are rent-cost-burdened 
• Disparities in the Virginia’s housing market continue to widen along racial lines. 73% of the 41,933 voucher households  in Virginia are Black. Denials on the basis of HCV, whether facially neutral or not, may also violate provisions against race discrimination. 

Thank you for taking up this guidance, this is important clarification that will serve our clients well.  This will ensure ALL Virginians have greater access to the housing opportunities necessary for them to thrive in the Commonwealth.  

These comments are submitted on behalf of Central Virginia Legal Aid Society which provides free civil legal aid to low-income people in Richmond, Petersburg, Charlottesville, and the surrounding cities and counties.  The proposed guidance on “Housing Discrimination on the basis of Source of Funds” correctly interprets and applies the new "source of funds" protection incorporated into the Virginia Fair Housing law on July 1, 2020.

The proposed guidance absolutely does not violate the Virginia Fair Housing Act and does not show preferential treatment to voucher holders.  It simply invalidates a policy – using an income to rent ratio based on total rent, as opposed to tenant share of the rent – which has a disparate impact on a protected category (source of funds), and probably has a disparate impact on three other protected categories (race, gender and disability).  

This does not mean a landlord cannot use other substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory criteria in deciding to whom to rent.  For example, a landlord can use an applicant’s past tenant record in determining whether the applicant will be a good neighbor and follow rules & regulations.  But there simply is no substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to consider the applicant’s ability to pay the total rent, when the applicant legally is required to pay only the tenant share and the §8 agency pays the remaining rent.

A landlord who uses an invalid income to rent ratio based on total rent violates the Virginia Fair Housing Act just as much as a landlord who uses the color of a person’s skin to determine to whom to rent.  The Source of Funds bill specifically dealt with landlord concerns about paperwork by creating an exemption if the request for lease approval is not approved within 15 days of submitting the request.  In addition, landlords who routinely use 25-30 page leases have little to complain about paperwork.

No adjustments need to be made to the proposed guidance which should be passed as is in order to provide immediate protection for voucher holders.

I am writing in support of the guidance document, but specifically wish to address some of the comments in opposition. These comments indicate a lack of substantive knowledge of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the Virginia Fair Housing Law or other relevant Fair Housing laws and guidance. This guidance is not discriminatory, and it does not violate Virginia law. It provides guidance to landlords on how to address particular sources of funds in a way consistent with the Virginia Fair Housing Law. It recognizes that there are a variety of sources by which one may pay their rent and provides a framework by which housing providers can ensure their compliance with the law. 

"Disability" is protected under the Virginia Fair Housing Law, and guidance on both the State and Federal level have clarified the responsibilities of housing providers in complying with the law, understanding that not every disability is the same. Likewise, not every legal Source of Funds is the same, and this guidance recognizes the differences, specifically for HCVs. This does not preclude the Boards from issuing further guidance on other sources of funds at a later time, and it should not prevent the Boards from clarifying this law to the benefit of the 42,000 Virginia households reliant on HCVs to pay their rent. 

I work in the “Move to Opportunity” program at Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia.  It is a mobility counseling program, we work to help families who have Housing Choice Vouchers to move to a neighborhood of opportunity.  Since 2014 we have been able to reduce the poverty rate of the neighborhoods our families move from and to by an average of 15% (from neighborhoods averaging 31% poverty rate to neighborhoods averaging 14% poverty rate).

The guidance proposed will help us in our work significantly.  The lack of voucher acceptance has been a huge barrier to our work.  Since the adoption of Source of Funds protections we have noticed that landlords use an unfair requirement of having 2-3 times the rent as earned income, rather than doing that calculation for the amount the renter would owe personally.  This interpretation by landlords needs to be corrected.

Some legal sources of funds, such as the Housing Choice Voucher program, are administered by third-party entities who directly pay a portion of the tenant’s rent to the housing provider. 

These third-party payments are guaranteed and present less risk to a housing provider than other sources of income, such as employment income, which are not guaranteed. Furthermore, because the these sources of income are guaranteed, the relevant factor for a housing provider’s risk assessment is the tenant’s portion of the rent, and not the total rent.  

HOME’s clients with HCVs are actively facing barriers to housing access, frustrating HOME’s mission and programs. Housing providers are enacting facially neutral policies resulting in the automatic disqualification of our Mobility clients. These facially neutral policies typically take the form of an income qualification, as noted in the various examples across the guidance document…. 

It is also vital to view this guidance within the context of Virginia’s current housing landscape: 

• Virginia’s cities have some of the highest eviction rates in the country 
• Public housing authorities are redeveloping their traditional public housing communities with plans to issue more HCVs in lieu of replacing subsidized housing units 
• 46.1% of Virginia renter households are rent-cost-burdened 

• Disparities in the Virginia’s housing market continue to widen along racial lines. 73% of the 41,933 voucher households  in Virginia are Black. Denials on the basis of HCV, whether facially neutral or not, may also violate provisions against race discrimination. 

   

  Thank you for taking up this guidance, this is important clarification that will serve our clients well.  This will ensure ALL Virginians have greater access to the housing opportunities necessary for them to thrive in the Commonwealth.