Bill overturning protections for Section 8 renters sent to Missouri governor
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
Missouri state Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican, speaks in the House in February (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).
Local laws prohibiting landlords from discriminating against tenants who receive public assistance would be unenforceable under legislation sent to the governor's desk Wednesday.
The bill passed by a final vote of 23 to 10 on Wednesday in the Senate, over the opposition of Democrats. It previously passed the House 103 to 37.
The legislation takes aim at ordinances passed in several Missouri cities to protect tenants from discrimination based on the source of their income — especially tenants who use federal housing choice vouchers, known as Section 8 vouchers, to pay rent.
The bill was co-sponsored by state Reps. Chris Brown, a Republican from Kansas City, and Ben Keathley, a Republican from Chesterfield. In the Senate, it was carried by state Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance.
'Various municipalities are trying to force landlords to put their homes into Section 8 programs,' Brown said during House debate Monday. 'We feel like that is overstepping their authority.'
Schroer on Wednesday called it a 'common sense bill that was just limiting what political subdivisions can do when it comes to property rights.'
Kansas City passed a source of income discrimination ban last year, though it was in large part paused by the courts in February.
Columbia, St. Louis, Webster Groves and Clayton have similar protections on the books. The laws make it illegal for landlords to discriminate based solely on the fact of renters' lawful sources of income, including Section 8, veterans' benefits and Social Security.
An amendment previously added by Democrat state Sen. Patty Lewis of Kansas City, would have carved out most of Kansas City from the legislation. But that language was removed in the final bill.
'The amendment that we stripped out would have excluded Kansas City from the bill,' Brown said. 'Kansas City was a big reason we originated this bill.'
Schroer said there were also constitutional concerns that carving out Kansas City could get 'litigated and thrown out' in court.
'This was the only path forward to make it through both chambers,' Schroer said.
Lewis said she was frustrated not to be consulted during the final negotiations.
'Affordable housing is extremely important to me, and that's the basis of what they were trying to do with the ordinance,' Lewis said. 'And I'm just trying to protect the local control.'
An amendment added by Democratic state Sen. Stephen Webber of Columbia was kept in the bill to clarify protections for renters receiving veterans' benefits.
The legislation had the support of landlords groups, apartment associations, the realtors' association and the conservative think tank Show Me Institute. Proponents characterized localities' source-of-income protections as an overreach into property owners' rights.
Opponents said the bill infringed on local control and would hurt affordable housing availability, exacerbating homelessness. The city of Kansas City has been opposed along with the anti-poverty nonprofit Empower Missouri and an association of public housing authorities in Missouri.
The legislation will go into effect Aug. 28 if signed into law by the governor.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vowed to help US farmers. These four say his policies are ‘wreaking havoc'
Donald Trump may have won the votes of the US's most farming-dependent counties by an average of 78% in the 2024 election. But the moves made by his administration in the past few months – imposing steep tariffs, immigration policies that target the migrant labor farmers rely on, and canceling a wide range of USDA programs – have left many farmers reeling. 'The policies of the Trump administration are wreaking havoc on family farmers. It's been terrible,' said John Bartman, a row crop farmer in Illinois. Bartman is owed thousands of dollars for sustainable practices he implemented on his row crop operation as part of the USDA's Climate-Smart program. And he's not the only one. Other farmers across the country are reporting that the Trump administration's policies have destroyed their markets by ending programs that help farmers sell their produce to local schools and food banks; implementing draconian immigration policies that destabilize the farm labor pool; and generally creating volatility that makes it hard for farmers to plan ahead. One group of farmers, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, joined organizations like Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council in suing the USDA for removing department webpages focused on climate change, arguing that the move was unlawful and undermines farmers' ability to adapt and respond to climate threats. (On 13 May, the coalition declared a kind of victory when the government committed to restore the purged content; the government is set to provide more information about the restoration process on 11 June.) Some farmers, such as Bartman, loudly oppose Trump. 'I've met some Democrats who'll say: 'You farmers deserve this. You voted for him.' Well, I didn't vote for the guy. The programs that have been impacted the most are targeted towards farmers that care about the environment.' Others, such as those living near North Carolina farmer Patrick Brown, are experiencing 'buyer's remorse', said Brown, 'but they don't want to say it because they voted for the current administration'. No matter who they voted for, farmers across the country are living in the new reality created by the Trump administration's agricultural policies. The Guardian spoke to four farmers about what it's like trying to grow crops, feed people, and keep their operations afloat in 2025. John Bartman, Bartman FarmMarengo, Illinois I am a vegetable and grain farmer; we're mostly a row crop operation. My family has been farming in Illinois since 1846; we have the oldest continuous running vegetable stand in McHenry county. I farm 900 acres. I try to use the least amount of fertilizer and herbicides that I can. Three main policies have been impacting us. Number one is the cancellation of USAID. That's about a billion dollars worth of grain that the United States purchases from farmers like me, and they give it to third world nations who are hungry. To kill that program is a disaster. It's morally bankrupt, and it hurts farmers' bottom line. Another thing that's very pressing is the payment freezes to farmers from the USDA. I was involved in the Climate-Smart practices. We were paid to implement stewardship practices that the USDA has been preaching since the Dust Bowl. The added benefit is these practices combat climate change. That's what the current administration doesn't want anything to do with. I'm supposed to be paid close to $100 an acre. Then the current administration came in and put a freeze on everything. $100 an acre may not sound like much, but there are some years where we're happy if we make $20 an acre off of things. I have an operating loan that I haven't been able to pay off because I was counting on this money. I have rent that's due. I have seed costs. I have chemical costs. I try to explain to people, if I were a repair person, and I went to my local grade school and fixed their furnace, and in the meantime, a new school board was elected, I still deserve to be paid. I've signed a contract with the USDA. The full faith and credit of the United States is at risk, because if Uncle Sam will renege on a farmer, they'll renege on anybody. The third one is the tariff situation. China is and has been our number one export for soybeans; 100% of the soybeans that I grow are exported. During Trump's first administration, half of all the soybeans that China purchased were from the United States. By the end of his first administration, it was down to a quarter. Now Brazil has taken over our role as the number one importer of soybeans into China. From an environmental standpoint, that means more deforestation in the Amazon. Mexico purchases 40% of all the corn in the United States. And he wants to have a trade war with Mexico? Mexico can just as easily buy their grain from Argentina and Brazil. The USDA has also canceled a lot of contracts for food pantries and school districts to purchase from local farmers, and that's absolutely devastating. I was just in Springfield, Illinois, testifying and hearing testimony from other farmers. Many of them are first-generation farmers, and that program gave them an outlet for their produce. It's so sad listening to them saying, 'I finally had my dream of owning my own farm and making a living at it. Now I don't know what I'm going to do, because my market has dried up.' Shah Kazemi, Monterey MushroomsSanta Cruz county, California People don't recognize that we either have to import our labor, or import our food. We operate five farms right now: in California, Tennessee, Texas and Mexico. We have close to 2,000 employees. Our business has been totally dependent on migrant workers, just like all other ag businesses in this country. Without them, there is no food on anybody's table. In 1983 we acquired a farm in Loudon, Tennessee. At the time we didn't have one migrant worker in that plant. By the early 1990s we had about 20% migrant workers, and by the early 2000s we had 85%, because nobody wants to do that kind of work any more in this country. When you're bent over picking strawberries, cucumber, lettuce, zucchini, whatever the crop is – try to do that for eight hours. See how your back feels, how the rest of your body feels. Farming is hard, physical work. These are skilled workers, harvesting at a certain rate to stay productive; you have to know your trade. A skilled mushroom picker can pick about 75 to 80 pounds an hour, and some of them exceed 100 pounds an hour. A new picker comes in, their productivity is in the 20s, and it will take six to eight months to get them up to 50. So if you had to replace a guy that's picking 80 pounds an hour with people who are picking in the 20s, you need three or four of them. We have a lot of respect and admiration for these people. They're really underappreciated. I have a friend who is in the farming business. About a month ago, there was an Ice [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raid in the area. The following day, most of his employees didn't show up. Even the people who have been here for a long time, they're listening to the news and hearing that people with green cards are being deported. The fear factor has been heightened significantly. That's what has happened with the new administration coming in. If we don't have enough workers, we cannot harvest our crops. And if you don't harvest, then it's all wasted. The uncertainty and erratic decision making creates volatility in the marketplace. And now we're concerned about where we're going to get future workers. What's going to happen a year from now, as some of these people get deported, or they feel so fearful they go back to their home country? Who's going to replace them? We need to have a program that lets people come in who can do the work, and then at the end of whatever the term is, they can go back home. They have a guest worker program in Canada that works significantly better than what we have here. Nobody pays any attention to the farmers, and we are the people who put food on the table every day. And the migrant workers, those are the hands that pick the crops that you eat. Josh Sneddon, Fox at the ForkMonee, Illinois I got into farming because I love to cook. When I was in New Jersey and I was getting my food from local farmers, ranchers and fishermen, the quality of the food was so much better that my spice cabinet became essentially salt and pepper, because the food was good enough [on its own]. I took my entrepreneurial spirit and applied it to my interest in building a local food system driven by higher-quality foods, greater accessibility, and a climate smart focus on our food system. Fox at the Fork is a 10-acre regenerative farm – we grow fruit and nut trees like pecans, persimmons and currants, while also stewarding approximately one acre of land intensively in annual vegetables. It's my fifth year in business. In prior farm bills and administrations, the USDA supported individuals like me who are considered 'beginning farmers'. That's one of their historically underserved categories. The USDA [formerly] created and reinforced programs that supported individuals who hadn't had the same opportunities – Bipoc, LGBTQ+, beginning, veteran farmers – to have an equitable shot at growing and establishing small-scale food businesses in their communities. Being considered a beginning farmer was part of the criteria that has helped me secure NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] grants, one of them being a Conservation Stewardship Program contract. That's a five-year contract that recognizes all of the conservation practices we implemented. For us, that's about [protecting] native prairie; cover cropping; building bird boxes to bring back native kestrels and owls. Almost all federal grants require that some of the money spent is yours and is not reimbursed. So farmers have a stake in the game; it's not just the government giving out corn and soy subsidies. The other program that really helped our farm last year [that has been canceled under the current administration] is the LFPA, the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. It was getting up to $25m [in Illinois] that had been obligated to the state for food distribution organizations like food banks, who provide food to the community and pay a fair market value to us farmers. I also have a Reap contract – the Rural Energy for America Program – which is another program that faced direct cuts. At the end of last year, I spent approximately $79,000 to install solar, having already received approval and signed paperwork. That grant is a 25% reimbursement through the USDA reap, which is for me, $19,784. I'm still waiting for that. Not receiving that $19,784 has slowed what investments I'm going to make for the year. It's hard to predict the long-term impacts, but the short-term impact is more anxiety, fewer investments on the farm, and likely greater effort trying to get my food placed in the community at a fair market price. Patrick Brown, Brown Family FarmsWarren county, North Carolina I'm a fourth-generation row crop farmer. My home farm is about 165 acres. I also grow industrial hemp fiber and produce – watermelons, leafy greens, tomatoes, sweet corn. We're an impoverished community, and we don't have access to a lot of food, so I try to get healthy options to children especially. We were participants for the past two years in a USDA project – which has just gotten terminated – providing fresh food to local schools. We also created a non-profit to help create a path for young kids that want to become farmers. And I also am a director of a non-profit called Nature for Justice, and we were awarded a USDA Climate-Smart contract to help farmers with conservation practices. All my projects that were funded by the federal government have been terminated during the current administration. It's caused us to pivot. We're so used to not having anything – as a minority farmer, that's the way things have always been. But when you sign a government contract, you feel some sense of, 'this can't be taken away.' I was doing two projects: one for cover crops and nutrient management, and the other one to plant trees to help with erosion and chemical drift, and to create habitat for wildlife. We did all this work and invested all this money, all for them to say, as of 29 January, the project is no longer in place. We were expecting to get over $65,000 this year from work we did in 2024. They claim that I will eventually get the money, but who knows how long that will be held up? Plus, the announcements made during this administration through the secretary of agriculture are not getting down to the rural community offices that represent small farmers. It's almost as if things are announced on social media, and then the offices hear about it. And our local NRCS offices and our Farm Service Agency offices are more understaffed than they've been in 20 years. The technical assistance is non-existent. The main thing we need right now is for our local legislators to speak up for us. A lot of them are being quiet. But we need to advocate against the wrongdoing that is being done to farmers.
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sunday shows preview: Trump-Musk spat leaves admin reeling; ‘Big, beautiful bill' hits speed bump
President Trump and tech billionaire Elon Musk's feud spilled out in public on Thursday, with the world's richest man and the world's most powerful leader trading barbs that engulfed news cycles in Washington and abroad. Musk, a Trump ally, was vocal about his disappointment with Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' currently sitting in the Senate. Musk, who spent millions during the 2024 presidential campaign to help elect Trump, called the massive piece of legislation a 'disgusting abomination.' Trump then weighed in on Thursday at the White House during German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's visit, saying, 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' The spat intensified, with Musk floating the prospects of creating a third party, claiming that without his political contributions, Trump would not be victorious against ex-Vice President Harris in November and accusing the president of having ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Trump threatened to cut off federal contracts awarded to Musk's companies. Later on Thursday, Musk signaled he might be open to brokering a truce with the commander-in-chief. After speaking with several news outlets Friday morning, Trump suggested he is ready to move on and indicated that he will not be speaking with Musk for a while. Trump told CNN Friday morning that he is 'not even thinking about Elon' and added that the SpaceX and Tesla CEO has 'got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem.' In the Senate, Trump's agenda bill, which passed the House chamber last month, has sparked concerns and criticism from GOP senators. The first group of GOP Sens., which consists of Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), are arguing they could vote against the bill if it slashes Medicaid benefits. Others, including Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have previously said they would not back the legislation if it retains the current debt and spending levels. The GOP can have three defections total if all Democrats vote against the legislation. Sen. Johnson will be on CNN's 'State of the Union where he will likely discuss if any of his concerns regarding the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' have been addressed. As part of a push to root out waste, fraud and abuse within Medicare, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said this week that a bill sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), that would crack down on Medicare Advantage overpayments known as 'upcoding,' could be inserted into Trump's massive legislation. Cassidy will be on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' where he will likely discuss the latest on the reconciliation package along with his recent visit to the White House. NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday': Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.); Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-Ma); U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief policy officer Neil Bradley. ABC's 'This Week': Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy; House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). NBC's 'Meet the Press': Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). CNN's 'State of the Union': 'Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.); Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.). CBS' 'Face the Nation': National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett; Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.); Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas); Save the Children U.S. President and CEO Janti Soeripto. 'Fox News Sunday': Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought; Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.); Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures': Secretary Of Interior Doug Burgum, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.); House Ways And Means Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.); Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
New York Post
40 minutes ago
- New York Post
Musk jokes he might change his stance on Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' over Adam Schiff's praise
Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on the Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wrote on X that 'I can't believe I'm saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right.' However, that seems to be the last point on which the two agree. They both object to the Big Beautiful Bill, viewing it as full of pork. Musk opposes the bill because he believes it raises government spending too much, while Schiff objects to what he calls its 'far-right' content, which he describes as 'dangerous.' Musk fired off a response rejecting Schiff's alleged praise of the tech billionaire's position on the bill. 'Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!' On May 30, Musk's time with the administration came to an end, and he seemed to leave things on good terms. President Donald Trump thanked Musk for his work with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and gave him a symbolic 'key to the White House' as a parting gift. 4 Elon Musk appeared to jokingly reconsider his stance on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill after a California Democrat came to his defense. via REUTERS 4 'I can't believe I'm saying this – but [Elon Musk] is right,' Schiff wrote on X, leading to Musk responding with 'Hmm, few things could convince me to reconsider my position more than Adam Schiff agreeing with me!' SenAdamSchiff/X Following his departure from the White House, Musk said he was looking forward 'to continuing to be a friend and adviser to the president.' However, things took a sharp turn as a feud between Trump and Musk quickly heated up after the Tesla founder began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill. After the legislation passed the House, Musk said that the 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Musk's criticisms received mixed reactions from Republicans, with some — such as Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — agreeing with him. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was 'surprised' by Musk's reaction and claimed the two of them had a good discussion about the bill. 4 Musk originally left the White House on good terms, but later began publicly criticizing the Big Beautiful Bill. Getty Images 4 Musk and Trump have carried their feud to their respective social media platforms, X and Truth Social. realDonaldTrump/TruthSocial Trump and Musk then began slugging it out on their respective social media platforms — X and Truth Social — as well as TV. The president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was 'very disappointed' with Musk and claimed that the former DOGE head knew what was in the bill, something that Musk denied. The heated exchange led to two explosive tweets, both of which were later deleted. In one post, Musk claimed Trump was mentioned in files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased sex offender and disgraced financier. In his other post, Musk endorsed a message that called for Trump's impeachment and said that Vice President J.D. Vance should take over. While it's unclear whether Trump and Musk will reconcile, for now it seems unlikely. Trump told Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier that he was not interested in talking to Musk and that 'Elon's totally lost it.'
