Evanston resident packed a public hearing held by the Human Services Committee on Monday night to discuss an amendment that would make it illegal for landlords to discriminate based on a potential tenant’s source of income.
The discussion at the standing-room-only hearing centered largely on whether landlords would be compelled to accept rent subsidies, including Housing Choice Vouchers, formerly called Section 8 certificates.
The amendment was proposed by the Human Relations Commission and had its first hearing in early August.
“We do get calls routinely from our residents that (landlords) would not accept their vouchers,” said Paula Haynes, the city’s Human Relations director. “At this point, all we can say is ‘I’m sorry.’ The ordinance doesn’t cover it.”
Evanston currently houses 1,005 voucher recipients, but most of those renters are located in the Fifth and Eighth wards, according to the Cook County Housing Authority.
“Housing choice for voucher holders is extremely limited,” said Gail Schechter, the executive director of the Interfaith Housing Center of the Northern Suburbs. “If you really want equality, you would have a law that would prevent the resegregation of people based on source of income.”
But residents at the meeting, including several landlords, complained that the amendment would force them to accept a new wave of federal bureaucracy.
“In order to rely on receipt of Section 8 vouchers we have to become involved in a relationship between the tenant and the housing authority,” said Patrick Nash, a local landlord.
Several property owners expressed concern over required governmental inspection of rental property and speculation that the housing authority could limit increases in rent rates.
Sandra Sharp, a representative from the Housing Authority, acknowledged that the federal inspection was mandatory.
But only a few of the night’s speakers “accurately reflected the program,” she said. “(The amendment) does not require landlords to accept any kind of a rent that a housing authority imposes.”
Property owners can also reject a potential tenant who fails to meet other criteria that does not fall under Evanston’s Fair Housing Ordinance.
Ald. Gene Feldman (9th), a member of the Human Services Committee, said he had not received enough information to completely understand the issue.
“This is one of the most complicated issues I’ve faced on council,” he said. “And we’re amazingly devoid of reading material.”
Although the majority of people present opposed the amendment, some residents said the city would benefit from the proposal.
“I find it very valuable that Evanston has a rainbow of residents,” said Paul Rathburn, a four-year resident. “Part of diversity is economic diversity as well.”
