Should all Indy landlords have to take Section 8 vouchers?

A proposal that would require Marion County landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers has sparked a contentious fight between low-income housing advocates and landlords.

City-County Councilman Leroy Robinson, an at-large Democrat, sponsored the proposal, which would add “source of income” to the city’s housing discrimination law. In effect, it would make it illegal for landlords to turn down tenants solely because they rely on government subsidies to pay rent.

But opponents say the federal housing assistance program, commonly known as Section 8, is voluntary for a reason. And — far from increasing housing choice — they fear that making the program mandatory could drive some landlords out of business.

Passage in its current form appears unlikely. After six months of debate, the council nearly defeated the proposal outright this month over the objections of Robinson, who eventually persuaded his colleagues to return it to committee for further study.

But with both sides arguing that their opponents’ position is unfair, there’s no clear path to a middle ground that would appease everyone.

“This has been going on for months — five or six months now,” said Councilwoman Angela Mansfield, a Democrat. “I don’t foresee any changes being made that would make this proposal successful.”

The simplest case for the ordinance is this: If someone can afford a landlord’s rates, it shouldn’t matter whether their money comes from a job or is subsidized in part with government assistance, including vouchers, Social Security and disability benefits.

Denying someone based on their source of income, Robinson argues, is tantamount to discriminating against the poor. According to a survey conducted by the nonprofit Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, about 82 percent of housing providers in Marion County won’t accept Section 8 vouchers. That refusal rate jumps to 90 percent in predominantly white ZIP codes.

“We allege that defeats the whole purpose of the program,” said Amy Nelson, the center’s executive director.

Ideally, she said, residents who use vouchers should be able to move away from low-income areas and into communities that have access to better transportation, better schools and better jobs. Instead, “they’re driven back to the high-poverty areas.”

Some opponents, though, say the proposal would legislate away a problem that doesn’t exist — at the expense of apartment owners.

“There’s not a shortage of housing for voucher holders,” said Lynne Petersen, president of the Indiana Apartment Association. “Now, there’s a shortage of money available for those who need vouchers, and that comes from the federal government.”

Petersen said many landlords reject vouchers “simply because it doesn’t fit in with their business model.” Section 8 landlords, she said, must meet a slew of federal requirements, including mandatory inspections and stricter rules regarding evictions.

“Some apartment communities are equipped to deal with it, and others aren’t,” she said. “If the program was really easy to manage, a lot of people would take vouchers.”

Republican Jeff Miller acknowledged that the voucher program is broken. But he said it isn’t the council’s job to fix it.

“The government has a responsibility to fix it, but it’s not this government,” Miller said. “It’s the (federal) government that put it in place.”

Robinson disagrees. As many as 12 other states have added similar laws to the books, along with close to 40 cities, including Chicago and St. Louis, according to the National Housing Law Project.

He said inaction by Congress, which is heavily lobbied by interest groups, doesn’t mean his proposal lacks merit.

“We get lobbied all day by people who have the wealth to lobby us,” said Robinson, whose family received housing assistance when he was a child. “People on Section 8 vouchers, they don’t have a lobbyist — they don’t have anyone to lobby for them. That’s why they elected us, to lobby for them.”

First, though, he’ll have to lobby his colleagues. Several Democrats said they won’t support the ordinance in its current form.

Call Star reporter Brian Eason at (317) 444-6129. Follow him on Twitter: @brianeason.