If you’re like me, you weren’t familiar with the term ‘preemption’ before the 2024 legislative session (or maybe you’re still not familiar with this concept). In legislative terms, preemption means that the state government can create laws that override laws and ordinances at the local level—basically, the opposite of local control. Mallory did a great overview here if you’d like to do a deeper dive. What I’m going to discuss is how preemption is being used to take away the already limited rights of tenants in Missouri, especially those with lower incomes or those who use subsidies to help cover their rent.
During the 2024 legislative session, HB 2385 was filed and quickly gained a lot of traction. HB 2385 is a Source of Income discrimination ban preemption bill that would have ended the current Source of Income discrimination bans in place in St. Louis, Clayton, Webster Groves, Kansas City, and Columbia, MO. Source of Income discrimination bans provide protections for tenants against discrimination that could prevent them from renting a unit based on how they would pay rent, whether that is with Housing Choice Vouchers or income through alternative sources, such as child support or gig work. While HB 2385 did not pass in 2024, an identical bill, HB 343, along with two companion bills, HB 595 and SB 507, have been filed this year and have the support of the Missouri Realtors Association, landlords, and property owners.
Much of this support is based on a misunderstanding of how Source of Income discrimination protection works. Landlords fear that the ban will force them to accept all tenants, but tenants who have a voucher are subject to the same lease requirements and background and credit checks as other tenants. They are also subject to the same eviction requirements as tenants without subsidies, and tenants with vouchers have a housing case manager to ensure that the housing is safe and that the tenant is abiding by the terms of the lease. The goal is not to take away rights from one to increase the rights of another; the goal is to make the process of applying for housing equitable for every applicant. Historically, access to safe and affordable housing has not been equitable, especially for Black mothers, who have long been used as the face of subsidized housing. Source of Income discrimination also impacts tenants who are older, disabled, or female.
During my time as a Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program Manager, I saw this discrimination first-hand. It was not always overt but hidden in fees or extra background checks on certain tenants. A High Risk Fee was often requested, in addition to deposits that were two to three times the amount of rent. Landlords would also deny lower income applicants due to their credit score, requiring a higher score than applicants who were not using subsidies or had employment income. As we are facing both a historic one-year increase in homelessness of 18 percent, higher rates of vacancies in subsidized housing versus unsubsidized housing, and an ongoing shortage of housing that is driving up rent prices, making housing less accessible is not the solution. While Source of Income discrimination is not the only reason for a higher rate of vacancies, as funding cuts mean that only a quarter of people who qualify for a voucher are able to get one, it contributes to the vacancy rates.
Source of Income discrimination also creates segregated neighborhoods, concentrating poverty into small areas while providing fewer resources. When localities ban Source of Income discrimination, tenants with a voucher are able to locate housing more quickly, which is crucial when the standard timeline to find housing is 60 days. Locating housing in well-resourced neighborhoods provides a better path towards moving out of poverty. Studies also show that subsidized housing is no different than non-subsidized housing in neighborhoods, and there is not a higher likelihood of problems from a tenant who uses a voucher than a tenant that does not.
Housing that is accessible and affordable is an evidence-based approach to addressing the rising housing costs and homelessness we are seeing in our communities. Denying local governments the freedom to make decisions based on what is best for their communities creates more barriers to addressing the housing crisis in Missouri. Less access to housing means more money needs to be spent on short-term solutions like emergency rental assistance and shelters. Both of these resources are necessary but face their own challenges as communities vote against shelters opening in their neighborhoods and funding for emergency assistance is limited. The long-term solution that makes sense is equitable access to housing for every tenant in Missouri.
English 
Spanish