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.