In a decision of under-appreciated importance, a New York State appeals court is bolstering the rights of property owners in the Empire State. The court struck down as unconstitutional a law requiring landlords to accommodate tenants whose rent is paid by housing vouchers. Backers of the measure call this “discrimination” based on the source of income, but it’s common sense for landlords to be cautious about renting to tenants on housing welfare.The decision, by a panel of appellate judges in New York’s Third Judicial Department, will be appealed by Attorney General Letitia James, but the logic of the ruling will be hard to overturn. Plus, 17 states and the District of Columbia have similar laws which could be successfully challenged by the same legal argument — that a requirement to accept voucher holders open property owners to federal housing inspection against their will. The decision restores reason to the housing market and, in the long term, will help, not hurt, the poor. Think of it as rolling back a law that added income diversity to the counter-productive thinking of diversity, equity, and inclusion rules. It does not mean that all landlords will cease participating in the program; many, especially in low-income neighborhoods, need the subsidy. It not only protects small landlords from the red tape of a federal program but restores the incentive for low-income tenants to take steps to be able to pay rent on their own — and move to less-poor neighborhoods through their own efforts, rather than a government boost.Vouchers — known as “Section 8” subsidies — are the country’s largest housing “affordability” program, serving some 2.5 million households. That’s three times the number in physical public housing projects. It’s the biggest item in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s budget. Voucher holders pay only a third of the rent themselves, an average of just $490 a month. Landlords get a direct-deposit check for the rest — in what might seem like a good deal. In return, though, they are asked to rent to tenants who are disproportionately single parents with children. Only 3 percent are two-parent families; more than 10 times that number are single, female parents with children under 18, the majority under 12. There are plenty of strong, single parents — but young children can be tough on apartments and fatherless boys can be especially hard to handle. Section 8 is cast as an affordability program, but it can just as well be seen as a program that encourages single-parenthood.When landlords are free to turn away voucher holders, low-income tenants have a new set of incentives. Rather than hoping for a voucher — which provides for a lifetime rent subsidy — they suddenly have reason to earn enough household income to pay the rent on their own. That can lead to the best possible outcome for children — a two-income household, ideally with two parents.As it stands, voucher recipients are not only low-income, 79 percent are classed as extremely low-income. Only 27 percent report income from a job as a source of income. That alone provides good reason for landlords to be skittish. HUD may pay much of the rent — a national average of $1,255 a month — but if tenants don’t pay their share, property owner income will be at risk. So will the maintenance of their buildings. Advocates of the source-of-income law want voucher holders to be able to move to higher-income, so-called “high opportunity” neighborhoods. Yet it’s by making constructive life decisions — finishing school, waiting to marry before having children — that Americans create their own opportunities. New York City, which distributes 119,000 federal housing vouchers, has its own source of income discrimination law and, under Mayor Zohran Mamdani will surely defend it. It’s part of an official housing mission that any resident should have the opportunity to “reside in any neighborhood of their choice,” no matter what “neighborhood into which they want to move.” This is both utopian and absurd. There have always been richer and poorer neighborhoods. Indeed, Census-based research has long shown that shared social, economic, and educational backgrounds are the strongest indicators of who our neighbors are most likely to be — even stronger, for instance, than race or ancestry. Americans implicitly believe that we earn our way to our neighborhoods.That doesn’t mean turning our backs on the poor. Instead, rather than subsidizing a lucky few to move to a more expensive neighborhood they can’t otherwise afford, and forcing landlords to rent to them, cities could be doing all they can to ensure that poor neighborhoods where voucher holders are most likely to live are good neighborhoods. Such communities feature good schools, safe streets, clean parks and all the “public goods” that provide a launching pad for upward mobility. Government housing programs, at their best, would send the message that improving one’s life prospects is one’s own responsibility. Then landlords will want to say yes.
