It’s time for Lexington to pass a source of income discrimination ban | Opinion

This fall, Lexington city council has an opportunity to significantly expand housing access for low-income renters when a proposed ban on source of income discrimination is considered by the Social Services and Public Safety Committee. This proposal would ensure renters with housing vouchers (for example, Section 8) have legal protection from discrimination on the housing market. Currently, renters who use vouchers face significant hurdles, since many landlords refuse to rent to anyone with a voucher. A 2018 study indicated 77% of landlords discriminate against voucher holders when no anti-discrimination measures are in place, while that number drops to 35% once such measures are passed. As the legislative process takes its course, landlord groups and their allies have attempted to stop this measure. My aim is to meet some of their talking points head on and make the case for why we would all benefit from a ban on source of income discrimination in Lexington.

One popular talking point that local landlord groups have said is that rents will rise as an outcome of this legislation. When looking at data from other places that have passed anti-discrimination measures, it is clear that there is no causal relationship between a ban on source of income discrimination and rents rising higher than the national average. Data from nine states who have passed a ban on source of income discrimination since 2013 shows that rents have largely risen at a similar rate to the national average, and in some instances rents have actually increased at lower rates than the national average after anti-discrimination measures have been passed, for example, in Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. Considering data from Louisville, which passed a source of income discrimination ban in 2020, their median fair market rent rose 20.6% between 2020-2023, slightly higher than the national average of 18.9%, but it is worth noting that Lexington’s rose at 19.5% during the same period, which suggests that other factors likely play a more defining role in determining average rents. I’ve never found a study providing evidence for a causal relationship between the passage of anti-discrimination measures and rents rising above the national average anywhere in the United States. This means that landlords are being speculative in their claims, with the hopes of fear mongering the legislation into not passing.

A second talking point that landlord groups have forwarded relates to the concern that they will be forced to go through inspections as a result of this legislation. It is true that some, but not all, voucher programs require that basic standards need to be met in housing provided to voucher holders, including for example that the unit has running water and that there is an absence of mold. The Housing Authority provides these inspections proactively at no cost to the landlord and they ensure that housing provided to low-income renters meets an adequate standard. If landlords cannot pass them, they are attempting to provide substandard housing and they have no business renting out units.

In favor of the proposed legislation, there is data that shows that a ban on source of income discrimination significantly helps low income renters secure housing at a faster rate than if there was no legislation in place. Government services thus become more efficient and can provide housing to more people because renters are being placed into housing quicker, meaning that our taxes go towards housing more of our neighbors. Data also suggests that anti-discrimination measures combat racial segregation. Voucher holders are disproportionately people of color, and because of source of income discrimination they can often only access certain neighborhoods, deepening patterns of segregation. The proposed legislation would ensure a greater freedom of movement for voucher holders that would allow them more options in moving closer to services and networks of support. Furthermore, the Lexington Continuum of Care, a network of nonprofits and businesses dedicated to ensuring affordable housing needs are met, vocally supports this measure. They, alongside the LFUGC’s Homelessness Prevention and Intervention Board, have sent two letters to council members making the case for why our community needs this legislation.

City council has a choice to make. They can offer an important measure of security to low-income renters. They can listen to the demands of renters who make up 41% of Lexington’s population and homeless service providers — or they can buy into the speculative claims of landlords. It’s time we pass a ban on source of income discrimination, so all renters in Lexington can find safe, stable, and affordable housing.

Lukas Bullock is an organizer for KY Tenants, and a PhD Candidate in Gender & Women’s Studies at the University of Kentucky.