Engrossed House Bill 1956 would add source of income as a protected class and therefore require all landlords to accept tenants with Section 8 vouchers. This is a no-brainer so please oppose EHB 1956!
Why should landlords NOT be mandated to accept Section 8?
-Orca Information Broadcast
1. Section 8 is a federally funded program that is administered by local housing authorities. The federal government sets the rules and guidelines that apply to the Section 8 program and the local housing authorities are not permitted to waive or vary the rules set down by the federal government.
Congress recognized that some landlords may not want to participate in the Section 8 program because of the rules and regulations that are imposed such as limits on rent and requiring good cause for termination of a tenancy.
Congress does not require landlords to participate in the Section 8 
program. It does not make sense to have the state require landlords to participate in the program when the state does not set the rules of the program and cannot vary the rules set by the federal government.
2. The rental amounts that landlords can charge are set by the federal government and local housing authorities. Rents can be adjusted on once each year and the landlord is required to get approval from the housing authority for any rent increase. This sounds like rent control and rent control is prohibited by statute in this state.
3. The housing authorities conduct annual inspections of most housing that is under the Section 8 program. Any deficiencies found during the inspection become the obligation of the landlord to repair even if the problem was caused by the tenant. If the landlord does not make the repairs the housing authority cuts off the subsidy and the landlord’s only option then is to evict the tenant. If the tenant caused the problem and the landlord fixes it the landlord can require the tenant to reimburse for the costs of repairs but the tenant will probably not have the financial resources to pay the landlord and the only option for the landlord is to evict the tenant.
4. By definition, Section 8 recipients have limited income. If the tenant does damage to the unit that exceeds the amount of the security deposit, the landlord had the option of pursuing collection actions against the tenant to recover the costs. This option is not available with a Section 8 tenant because of their very limited income. One solution for the landlord would be to charge a higher security deposit in an attempt to minimize the risks of losing money. However, if a landlord charged Section 8 tenants a higher security deposit the landlord would be illegally discriminating against Sections 8 recipients under this bill.
5. In 1996, the Washington State Human Rights Commission conducted a study and concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that source of income should be or needed to be a protected class. There is no subsequent evidence or study to indicate that the facts have changed since 1996. If the legislature believes that it may be appropriate to add source of income as a protected class, the legislature should direct the WSHRC to conduct another study.
6. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently issued guidelines dealing with people who have limited English proficiency (LEP).
These guidelines require landlords who receive federal funds to insure that tenants who are LEP are provided with rental documents and other information in their native language. The costs of providing for the translation of documents fall on the landlord. These guidelines were set to take effect on February but they have created quite a controversy and their implementation has been delayed. This is an example of the type of federal rules that Washington landlords would be required to follow if this bill were to pass.