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For example, the draft guidance suggests that for screening purposes, only the tenant's portion of rent matters.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.