Housing watchdog groups have filed more than 100 complaints against more than 200 defendants, alleging they discriminated against potential housing applicants who tried to use Section 8 housing vouchers to secure housing. Submitted.
In 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill banning “housing discrimination, including discrimination due to public or private land use practices, decisions, or approvals based on certain personal characteristics, including source of income.” did.
According to the law, the purpose of the bill was to “provide participants in housing voucher programs with the opportunity to receive a thorough and fair review when searching for housing.” text of the bill.
However, an undercover investigation conducted by the federal government revealed that as many as 200 real estate agents, brokers, and landlords are suspected of violating the law by discriminating against applicants for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. housing rights initiative (HRI).
HRI announced Tuesday that a total of 112 complaints targeting 203 defendants were filed with the California Department of Civil Rights. Defendants include some of the country’s most prominent real estate companies. coldwell banker, Exp Realty, Sotheby’s International Realty and RE/MAX.
“For a year, HRI trained, equipped and deployed an army of undercover agents who posed as potential tenants with Section 8 vouchers,” HRI said in a statement. “These investigators contacted hundreds of brokers and landlords via text message to determine their compliance with California’s Fair Housing Act.”
HRI found that among what are called “completed inspections” where inspectors were able to determine whether a business accepted such vouchers, 44% of inspectors in the city of San Francisco used vouchers to search for housing. stated that they had been discriminated against. That number rose to 53% in Oakland, 58% in San Jose, and 70% in Los Angeles.
The announced legal action includes text messages that HRI said investigators had obtained and attributed to brokers at companies including eXp and Sotheby’s. These messages, which were submitted as evidence in the filing but have not been independently verified, were sent to the relevant targets when asked by investigators whether Section 8 slips were acceptable for a particular list. appears to depict the company turning away potential applicants.
If you reach housing wireA spokesperson for Coldwell Banker Realty said the company “advocates for fair housing practices and is committed to enhanced training, awareness, and “We are providing staffing measures.” We are reviewing the complaint. ”
HousingWire also reached out to representatives for eXp, Sotheby’s and RE/MAX for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
HRI is Google Sheets documentation It lists each case of alleged discrimination, including timestamps, broker names, listings, and screenshots of text messages.
“The purpose of these filings is to force real estate companies to end discriminatory housing practices that exacerbate California’s homelessness and affordable housing crisis,” HRI said in a statement.
“Additionally, HRI’s findings demonstrate the need for aggressive and systematic enforcement to combat housing discrimination and the need for California to adequately fund the California Civil Rights Division to address the scale of the problem.” It emphasizes sexuality,” the group added.
A review of documents posted online by HRI shows a variety of answers to direct questions about accepting Section 8 vouchers, with some brokers not wanting to go through the “hassle” of working on the program. said. Some said the landlords of certain properties were “not enrolled” in the Section 8 program. Another argued that Section 8 was “not eligible” for certain lists.
In 2018, the study from urban research institute It found that 76% of Los Angeles-area landlords refused to accept Section 8 vouchers, and that number rose to 82% in low-poverty areas.
In 2019, report by Los Angeles Times He said landlords’ reluctance to accept vouchers included “concerns about red tape.” However, the most common reason is said to be “simple economics: property owners can now charge more than the government is willing to pay.”
