Latest news with #HousingChoiceVouchers
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri lawmakers on the cusp of legalizing housing discrimination
The Missouri Capitol in Jefferson City (Tessa Weinberg/Missouri Independent). This week, the Missouri Senate passed legislation moving us one step closer to enshrining discrimination against the state's poorest tenants into state law. If this bill becomes law, the state will prevent municipalities in Missouri from enacting source of income discrimination bans, and will void bans already in place in St. Louis, Webster Groves, Columbia and Clayton, along with a portion of Kansas City. Source of income discrimination bans are designed to prevent landlords from refusing to rent to potential tenants based solely on the kind of income that they have available to them. Many landlords will only consider W-2 wages when evaluating potential tenants, but this helps to prevent many of the poorest among us from being able to access safe, stable housing. A single mother may have child support payments as her primary source of income, but a landlord isn't bound to consider that when she applies for tenancy. A bus driver who has suffered repetitive stress injuries and now receives Social Security Disability Insurance may also struggle to find a landlord who is willing to rent to them. However, the most common form of source of income discrimination is a refusal to accept Housing Choice Vouchers, also known as Section 8, a federal housing program that has been addressing homelessness in the U.S. since 1974. Despite being chronically underfunded by the federal government, these vouchers have been proven to lift people out of poverty, improve mental and physical health outcomes, and decrease homelessness. Seventy-five percent of HCV holders have extremely low incomes, defined as less than 30% of the federal poverty line (currently $32,150 for a family of four) or less than 30% of the local area median income. These folks do not earn enough money to qualify for tenancy on their own; the section 8 program allows these families to pay 30% of their income in rent while the government pays the balance. The legislation, which has cleared the House and Senate in differing forms, would make it extremely difficult for these low-income renters, the majority of whom have already experienced chronic homelessness, to find housing. It's like finally finding a golden ticket after years of searching and then having it snatched away. A 2018 study showed that over 67% of landlords refused to rent to voucher-holders in cities without source of income anti-discrimination laws. In comparison, less than 31% of landlords refused to rent to voucher holders in cities with source of income discrimination bans in place. This demonstrates that source of income discrimination bans are effective local public policy and should not be preempted by our state government. This legislation is being framed as a protection for landlords, seeking to prevent them from being 'forced' to participate in a federal program. They say that this is government infringement on the property rights of landlords. They say that it's too hard to comply with government regulations for landlords who participate in the section 8 program. This is utter and complete nonsense. To participate as a landlord, property owners simply have to submit to an annual inspection and ensure that their rental rates are in compliance with federal Fair Market Rent standards, which are typically very generous. Inspection protocols have recently been revised to only consider key health and safety factors rather than cosmetic issues. And, quite frankly, in listening to legislative committee discussion on this issue over the last two years, it seems like the concerns of landlords are actually centered on a prejudiced belief that poor renters are bad tenants. Federal data shows that renters using housing vouchers are actually excellent tenants who stay in a unit for an average of 7 to 8 years, despite the fact that landlords are free to evict them for breaking the terms of their rental agreement. This is because of the program's smooth transitions in employment status of renters, adjusting the amount paid by the government based on fluctuations in the income of the renter. Voucher holders are also typically assigned a case manager that helps renters to understand the terms of their lease and comply with landlord regulations. Over 86% of rental units in the country are owned by for-profit entities. If we allow these landlords to opt-out of renting to single parents living on child support, individuals with disabilities that prevent them from working full-time, and seniors and other low-income families utilizing these federal vouchers, where do we envision they will go? We are a nation that abhors the homeless, but we continue to pass policies that exacerbate homelessness. Time and time again, Missouri legislators prioritize the perceived 'rights' of business owners over ensuring the basic needs of Missourians. Our state motto, 'salus populi suprema lex esto,' translates to 'the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.' Our legislators continue to defy this principle in favor of making it easier for business owners to make money. The highest profile example of this behavior this session is the legislature pushing to overturn the new requirement for business owners to provide paid sick leave to employees that was just approved by voters in November. If you can't afford to pay sick leave to your employees, you shouldn't be in business. And you shouldn't leave families living on the streets because you are unwilling to take part in a fifty-year-old safety net program designed to keep them safely housed.
Axios
15-04-2025
- Business
- Axios
Arizona leaders seek fix to outdated housing voucher aid
Arizona and Nevada elected officials are teaming up in hopes of changing how the federal government doles out housing assistance. Why it matters: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development currently uses population counts from the 2000 U.S. Census to divvy up coveted Housing Choice Vouchers, which cap rent at 30% of a household's income. The outdated formula punishes cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas, which have seen significant population growth since the turn of the century, the lawmakers argue. The big picture: Most Arizona housing agencies — especially those in the Valley — do not have enough federal vouchers to meet the demand. It's not uncommon for low-income Arizonans to wait months or even years for a voucher. Rapid rent increases over the past decade have only exacerbated the issue. State of play: U.S. Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly and their Nevada counterparts introduced legislation last month to modernize the voucher system by allocating an additional $2 billion to support affordable housing in the nation's 25 fastest-growing big cities. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. House by Arizona Democrats Greg Stanton and Yassamin Ansari and Dina Titus of Nevada. This would boost voucher supply in metro areas including Houston, Atlanta, Jacksonville and Charlotte in addition to Phoenix and Las Vegas. Zoom in: The bill is supported by the National Association of Realtors, National Housing Law Project, Arizona Housing Coalition and the city of Phoenix's housing department. "As Phoenix continues to grow, it becomes evident that our current voucher allocation does not adequately address the needs of the fifth largest city in the nation," Phoenix housing director Titus Mathew said in a statement. "There has never been a greater need for affordable housing than the present." Stunning stat: Using the current formula, Phoenix, the nation's fifth largest city, receives 7,487 vouchers annually while Philadelphia (the nation's sixth largest city) gets 22,000. It's not clear exactly how many vouchers the proposed legislation would bring to Phoenix, but the $2 billion allocation would be required to address the "historical shortfall" in fast-growing cities, per the bill language. Reality check: The bill faces an uphill road. The Trump administration has been looking for opportunities to cut federal spending — not expand it. Gallego introduced a similar bill while serving in the U.S. House last year to no avail. What we're watching: Even if renters qualify for housing vouchers, they can struggle to find landlords willing to accept them.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Nashville affordable housing fund makes first loan. Here's how it works.
Nashville's Catalyst Fund, designed to help affordable housing developers and landlords acquire and preserve attainably-priced homes, has announced its first loan deal. The fund on Wednesday announced its first investment, a $450,000 low-interest loan to Gentry Investment Properties to acquire a four-unit home in Madison. The company plans to purchase the property and update its individual units as they become available over time. It's the first major action for the Catalyst Fund, which was launched in June as a collaborative effort between Metro Nashville and the Community Foundation of Middle Tennessee. The central purpose of the fund is to give affordable housing developers a competitive edge to preserve more housing units that would likely otherwise be replaced by high-end homes in Nashville's fast-paced market. The fund's financing structure requires that two of the four units be maintained as attainably-priced for families with incomes at or below Nashville's Area Median Income (AMI), which is currently $96,250 for a family of three. Tenants at the Madison property may also use federal Housing Choice Vouchers to subsidize rent payments for families making a very low or extremely low income (defined as being below 50% or below 30% of the Nashville AMI, respectively). Vandale Gentry, principal at Gentry Investment Properties, said the fund has been instrumental for the project. He is a participant in Urban League of Middle Tennessee's Real Estate Developers Academy, which trains emerging affordable housing developers from minority backgrounds. 'Their support has been invaluable," he said about the Catalyst Fund, in a news release. The fund also announced the results of its first round of capital fundraising, which totaled $76 million. Investments came from Regions Bank, Citizens Savings Bank & Trust, Pinnacle Financial Partners and others. The fund aims to raise another $20 million in its next investment round. First Horizon Bank contributed a $50 million line of credit while Vanderbilt University invested $5 million. "When we launched the Catalyst Fund, we joined forces with the financial and philanthropic community to add another tool to preserve affordable homes in Nashville that might otherwise be lost to redevelopment,' Mayor Freddie O'Connell said in a news release. 'I'm encouraged to see the shared investment beginning to pay off in the community." The following is a complete list of the first round of fund investors: Citizens Savings Bank & Trust First Horizon Bank FirstBank Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Pinnacle Financial Partners Regions Bank Ryman Hospitality Studio Bank The Healing Trust Vanderbilt University This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Nashville Catalyst Fund makes first investment for affordable housing
