(PNN) COUNTY TO POT PATIENTS WITH HOUSING VOUCHERS: YOU ARE ‘SUBJECT TO TERMINATION’

COUNTY TO POT PATIENTS WITH HOUSING VOUCHERS: YOU ARE ‘SUBJECT TO TERMINATION’

(PNN) -- Certified medical marijuana patients who receive HUD Section 8 housing subsidies on Kaua`i “will be subject to termination... if it is found (they) have... marijuana” in their homes according to a letter sent to participants in the program Monday despite Obama administration statements that state laws regarding medical marijuana will be respected by the federal government.

PNN has obtained a copy of the unsigned letter from the Kaua`i County Housing Agency which states:

“The Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8 HUD) is a federal program and subject to Federal laws. Federal law trumps state laws. Therefore, under federal law any marijuana use in federally subsidized housing is prohibited. This applies to both current program participants and new applicants.”

The letter, entitled “Important Alert Regarding Medical Marijuana” says that the county agency which runs the federal program, “has received several questions regarding the use of medical marijuana in federally subsidized housing” before describing the provisions of the medical marijuana law passed by the legislature that became law in June of 2000.

It claims “HUD concludes that State laws purporting to legalize medical marijuana directly conflict with the admission and occupancy requirements of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility act of 1998” and that “a state statute ‘is invalid to the extent that it actually conflicts with a... Federal stature,’” although it does not indicate what or who they are quoting in the last segment.

The letter does not make clear whether it is a federally or county generated directive.

While the list of medical marijuana certificate holders is supposed to be kept confidential it is administered by the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) and reportedly distributed to local police departments.

A list of users was “inadvertently” sent to a Hawai`i Island newspaper by a DPS official a few years back and confidentiality has been a problem according to testimony before the legislature this year.

Bills to move the medical marijuana program to the Department of Health and release names only upon request of local police departments was killed by the legislature last session and a bill to study the state’s program was vetoed by Governor Lingle earlier this month.

The letter does not say what constitutes being “found” to have marijuana or, if discovered, whether participation in the program is considered grounds for termination.

In October 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

The memorandum on the subject from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden was sent to United States Attorneys and reads in part:

As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources.

-------

We’ll be taking tomorrow off and will be back Monday

(PNN) ANATOMY OF A MURDEROUS PROCESS- AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

OBEDIENCE SCHOOL DROPOUT: Senate Bill 456, designed to ban discrimination against “source of income” in housing and real estate – also known as the HUD Section 8 bill- is pretty much dead for this legislative session.

But the way it died is not as simple or straightforward as one might think and the bill’s originator and chief advocate Ann Punohu, head of the Kaua`i Housing Coalition, got a lesson in special interest pressure, political influence peddling and the general frustrations when trying to accomplish something in the public interest.

The view from the state senate is that the bill died for a few of the usual reasons a bill stalls according to it’s sponsor Kaua`i Senator Gary Hooser. He says the problem- which PNN has detailed in a series of articles over the past month- of discrimination against recipients of federal housing vouchers was viewed at the legislature as “mostly a Kauai problem”.

He told us that despite his best effort to shepherd the bill though

(F)or whatever reason even though it clearly occurs on all islands, it appears to be a bigger problem on Kauai than elsewhere. I spoke to the Chair of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and for a variety of reasons he did not feel inclined to hear it. Perhaps it was because the HB444 is consuming and inordinate amount of time his energy, perhaps it is because this is the first time the issue has come up and did not appear to be urgent or statewide, or perhaps there was something else. Actually, it is rare to pass something into law the first year it is introduced and most measures have to be introduced several years in a row before they are finally able to pass through the process. The key to future success is probably to demonstrate clearly that this is a statewide and serious problem and then to build a statewide coalition in support.”
In passing it along the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection (CCR) Committee recommended ridding the bill of that troublesome “protected class” of “source of income” language and substituting a measure banning advertising a rental and saying “no HUD”. They also put an “effective date” of 2015 on the bill.

Then the Judiciary Committee refused to schedule a hearing killing the bill for this session for all intent and purpose

But unbeknownst to Hooser, while the Senate Judiciary Committee was busy playing hide the salami with the civil-union bill, Punohu saw another storyline unfold on Kaua`i as the real estate industry and a hand full of their supporters among Kaua`i officials helped put the one of the biggest nail in the bill’s coffin, at least for now..

What Punohu found was that there are many ways to kill a good idea and one is by ripping out its guts and replacing it with a something vaguely resembling its original intent.

Punohu nearly blew a gasket when she heard what the CCP committee did to the bill and adamantly refused to go along with the “compromise”. Not just was the measure banning ads of questionable legality- since it would apparently restrict free speech in advertising a legal product in a legal fashion- but it doesn’t take care of the actual problem, just the symptom.

When the bill was running out if time to be scheduled in the Senate Judiciary committee- where it eventually died the first thing Punohu did was to write to the Chair saying

This bill does not just discuss section 8 rental discrimination, but all forms of source of income discrimination, and is much broader in scope than what was discussed yesterday at our meeting.

This intent of SB456 is to prevent discrimination against source of income. It is not just about a ban on advertising saying "no HUD, ", but is broader, and more far reaching.

Testimony that has already been submitted is in overwhelming favor of supporting the bill as a whole. That is why a resolution to support the bill in its amended form does not support our efforts at all, but rather runs contrary to what we are trying to accomplish.

Please remember, that it was myself, personally, and Gary Hooser who began this effort, before anyone else was involved, and that integrity of our original goal and purpose must be maintained. That we work cooperatively at the council level on a weaker version of this is fine, for the moment, but I cannot, as I said in my previous letter, go back on my original purpose and now not support my own efforts.

But she also had what she thought was a local champion in the form of new County Councilperson Dickie Chang who along with Councilpersons Lani Kawahara, Derek Kawakami and Tim Bynum had written testimony supporting the original bill.

The idea was to get the council to pass a resolution supporting the original bill - and maybe even create our own local ordinance..

But little did Punohu suspect she was being set up for the meeting from hell where Chang allowed the meeting to be stacked against the bill and for the CCP substitute measure by bringing in the big guns to shoot down Punohu’s anti discrimination provisions.

First apparently seeking to score political points by sucking up to the entrenched old boy network, Chang brought in, not one of the other three supporters of the bill but Councilperson Jay Furfaro.

As a matter of fact, according to Punohu, despite requests from the Bynum and Kawahara that one of them be included, Chang told them “no” and insisted on having Furfaro be the second councilmember there.

No more than two councilmembers are permitted to discuss matters outside of a regularly scheduled meeting according to the state Sunshine law (more on that later).

According to Punohu, at a meeting with Chang in his office, Chang also banned Kaua`i Housing Coalition members other than her daughters from the meeting along with Punohu’s attorney on the matter, former councilperson JoAnn Yukimura, whom Chang personally told to stay away or he would “cancel the meeting”.

Instead Chang allowed Furfaro to select the participants who turned out to be couple of real estate agents including the head of the Board of Realtors- which was the only non-governmental entity to testify against SB456- and two people from the county housing agency which, unlike any other housing agencies on the mainland where these bills have been enacted, was apparently opposing the bill.

According to the meeting notes taken by council services personnel the meeting was held in the council chambers with the following persons staring down Punohu and her daughters.

CM Dickie Chang — Economic Development/Housing Committee Chair
CM Jay Furfaro — EDH Committee Vice Chair
Gary Mackler — COK Housing Agency — Development Section
Sandy Ka'auwai — COK Housing Agency — Section 8
Rowena Cobb — Kauai Board of Realtors
Russell Kyono — Kauai Realty

As the notes from the meeting show, Furfaro- whose list of campaign contributors is filled with realtors, real estate developers and large land owners- was seeming fully uninformed about the problem but apparently knew who was buttering his bread.

As he is wont to do, Furfaro got huffy and puffy and took over the meeting, refusing to consider Punohu’s anti discrimination measure whether in the form of a resolution to support the senate bill and/or in a county ordinance to ban source-of-income discrimination in housing on Kaua`i.

They all apparently wanted Punohu to abandon her idea and support “educating” landlords and possibly ban advertising.

After some background info from the county housing people Punohu, according to the meeting notes,

Referred to the documents she submitted; SB 456; City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 248; and the NY Times article, "Judge Upholds City Ban on Section 8 Rent Bias."
• California passed an emergency ordinance that specifies against discrimination.
• 3 key areas of concerns of landlords: payment on time, inspections on time, and owners' paperwork.
• 19 advertisements in the GI newspaper that said, "No HUD." She called the numbers provided and has transcripts of the conversations.
• Many real estate agents follow the requests of the owners.
• Education is the key, as there are ignorant people out there that don't know what HUD is and copy other ads in the newspaper.
• Civil Rights Commission was worried that they would not be able to handle the workload; referring to the influx of complaints should the bill pass.
• New York Bill was upheld by the Courts and was not onerous to the landlords.
• Explained how she and Pua first talked about this issue at her kitchen table; met with the Housing Agency; and the progression to this meeting.

Furfaro was particularly uninformed as to mainland enactment of these types of ordinances despite the voluminous material Punohu provided before the meeting and apparently had not read any the testimony in support of the bill sent to the CCP Committee, including that from the Legal Aid Society.

At first he insisted that there was no problem and intimated that this was all essentially due to the current economic downturn. He said that on

10/17/08, there were 23 ads in the GI newspaper with discrimination against HUD.
03/02/09, there were 3 ads in the GI newspaper with discrimination against HUD.
Correlated the decrease number to the change in market trends.

But Punohu then produced a subsequent newspaper with 19. ”House for Rent-no HUD” ads showing him to be either disingenuous or just plain uninformed.

The county housing officials were particularly opposed to anything that would force landlords to stop discriminating via source of income, saying they were working on educating landlords- a statement they have been making for many years.

HUD Section 8 chief Mackler said he

Has been thinking about this a lot — where is the solution?
• Acknowledged the stigma with HUD assistance.
• Currently, 680 people are leased up (per S. Ka'auwai)
• Believes that the Palo Alto Ordinance contain civil liabilities that we don't want.
• HUD is voluntary.
• It's a challenge to change people's perception. We need to do a better job in educating the public.
• Not sure if passing laws will be a solution, which may drive landlords away and will
look for ways to get around the Law.
• We need to step-up in coming up with ways in our efforts, instead of passing laws.

Furfaro agreed saying

• Educate — put out the information and make it ethical.
• Start looking at the economic indicator — don't discount the economic situation.
• We have some responsibility to support SB 456 by doing a Resolution.
• Issues: 9% unemployment, construction jobs have left, etc.

Punohu didn’t like the direction the talk was going and

Voiced her frustration and upset that she is hearing that a Law is not necessary.
• Wants a County Ordinance
• Ban on advertising
• Asked how do we address the verbal discrimination in phone calls.
• SB 456 was chopped in half.

But Cobb from the Board of Realtors then chimed in saying

You can never stop the way people speak. The more laws we have, there more our hands are tied. However, we can do something about what types of ads are allowed.

Then it started to turn ugly. Furfaro, apparently oblivious to the movement on the mainland to pass these types of laws and the courts’ approval of them

Warned Anne about her statements:
• 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech — landlords have the right to say what they want; however, there are consequences for what they say.
• Suggested to Anne that she ask the Legal Aide Society for "how do you define or correct Ad?"

Punohu didn’t back down reiterating

Protected class:
• Coerced, harassed, or impaired by being discriminated against.
• Adversely affect health and welfare

Then, despite apparent long-term past failures to “educate” landlords Mackler said they still thought “education” would work.

We can bring landlords to the table to help educate them:
• We do not support "No HUD" advertisements.
• Public Relations is very important: put something in the GI newspaper to bring awareness, put a banner outside like how they do it for CDBG week, do a Proclamation and Resolution.

It should be noted that no one mentioned what they were to be educated about and in fact, in our original report we interviewed many landlords who said their “no HUD” ads were because they had had or heard about problems dealing, not with HUD tenants but, with county housing agency.

Cobb agreed with Mackler and

Stressed Education:
• Suggested that there be a catching "tagline." e.g., "Come to See What Happens to your Rental."

Despite the adamancy of Punohu and the dozens who testified in support of the anti discrimination measure, Furfaro then asked for agreement on education and the advertising-ban-only saying he

Emphasized the importance of finding common areas to support each other when coming to together and working together. He recommended the following:
• Council Resolution for SB 456
• Send letter to the Housing Agency to support a grant to alleviate public misconceptions by providing public education via media attention.
• Amendment to the County Housing Ordinance (No. 860) to add HUD vouchers, data, etc.
• Supports modifying the bill.

As the meeting wrapped up the participants summed up.

Kyono made it perfectly clear what his position was saying

We don't support making HUD clients a protected class.

Furfaro, still in denial of the long term nature of the problem,

Reminded the group about the market trends and how it affects housing.

Lacking any support and having had her attorney specifically banned from the meeting Punohu

Stated that if no one agreed with her, that her bottom line was to inform the group that she would bring a class action lawsuit.

For Chang’s part, as he had throughout the meeting just seemed to want some kind of agreement and compromise and in ending the session

Reemphasized the goal of creating an agreement and model that would set the framework to address the issue of housing discrimination against HUD clients and bring fairness and opportunity for seeking rental housing.
• Kaua`i County can be a leader for the other counties statewide.

Parenthetically, the meeting- which was described to Punohu as standard practice that occurs all the time at the county council- apparently blatantly violates the state open meetings or “Sunshine” law in that neither this nor any other such meetings have ever been reported to the full council at a duly agendaed and conducted meetings.

HRS §92-2.5(b) "Permitted interactions of members” says.

(b) Two or more members of a board, but less than the number of members which would constitute a quorum for the board, may be assigned to:
(1) Investigate a matter relating to the official business of their board; provided that:
(A) The scope of the investigation and the scope of each member's authority are defined at a meeting of the board;
(B) All resulting findings and recommendations are presented to the board at a meeting of the board;

Punohu is still furious, as much at the attempt by Chang and Furfaro to intimidate her into selling out those who testified in favor of the discrimination ban as she is at what she sees as a disingenuous attempt by vested special interests to misrepresent the problems and solutions.

In a letter to the council and the meeting participants she said

I appreciate the time and energy that was put into yesterdays meetings.

However, after careful consideration of my feelings, and the intent and purpose of what I am trying to do, and out of respect to many people and agencies who came to the Senate to testify in support of SB456 as it was originally written, and to Senator Hooser, Representative Mina Morita, and Neil Abercrombie, (Congressman), and the hours and hours we put in to ask people to support this bill, I cannot in any good conscious ask people to know change their minds, and vote in favor of something that does very little to support the intention of this bill....

I am sorry that I am not "cooperating", or being "compliant", or "working together", but I cannot in all good conscious do that. I have a moral obligation to hold to my beliefs and stick to what I have said on this issue, that I have worked so long and hard at. I am under no obligation to any of you to agree with any of you...

I hope this does not offend anyone, and if it does I apologize. But I have worked long and hard on this issue, and I did not work so hard on it, than to disenfranchise the clear supporters of it, by now participating in its demise.

Finally here’s Punohu’s statement on what she sees as the whys and wherefores of Bill SB456. It details all the shenanigans she encountered with both the real estate industry and, more so, the state and county housing agencies.


I believe that forces working behind the scenes worked to kill the bill...


I had suspected that landlords and the real estate agencies would not particularly like the idea, and despite all of their rhetoric to the contrary, they are vehemently opposed to anything that brings on punitive damages, or makes "source of income" a protected class, essentially making it illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their legal source of income.


What this does, is offer the proper protections that I was looking for, based on the laws in other states, and the facts that in every single instance, the law has been upheld in the courts.


However, after our triumph, or so I thought in the first Senate committee, the CPN, when the committee report came out, it was suggested that our bill be downgraded and changed to be very weak, only asking for a "ban on advertising", and therefore not addressing any of the broader discrimination aspects of the bill, and punitive damages that would be involved. The main reasons cited, were the Civil Rights Commissions concerns that they did not have enough staff to take care of what they assumed would be an influx of calls, thus confirming what we have been saying all along, that this is a serious issue throughout the state.


Their concerns were that they were going to need more funds to accomplish the task, according to the law and respond promptly or lose their funding. The committee reasoned that this may be impossible to fund, and thought it would be an undue burden on the civil rights commission, therefore asked that the bill be downgraded to a ban on advertisements, and not be put into effect until 2015 in order to "allow for more dialogue, and for the real estate companies to change their paperwork.


None of this,. of course makes sense, unless you look at it from the aspect of the real estate companies who say a few things decidedly on the matter:

1. They are not to blame, and they do not discriminate in their advertising

2. They are not against a ban on advertisements.

3. They are against a "protected class" for "source of income", even though the bill protects landlords by not forcing them to rent to section 8 (participants), and allows the landlords to independently determine an applicants worthiness.

4. They feel that merely "educating" landlords will stop the discrimination. Further, the Housing Departments take on this bill was highly unusual, and the first of its kind in the nation, when dealing with these matters.


Usually, the HUD Department is the one championing these bills and pushing for them in the legislature.


Not so with the State of Hawaii. The testimony by Chad Taniguchi stated that the state "prefers to deal with landlords on a one on one basis with these types of situations". Further, our own (Kaua`i) housing department has made several statements with regards to this issue in a closed meeting on Monday.


They stated nine things:

1. That they had been negligent in not informing landlords better about these types of discrimination.

2. That they had not informed their clients adequately about their rights according to the Federal Law and what sorts of statements made to them could have been pursued legally.

3. That they failed to keep exit statistics on why people lose their vouchers.

4. That they had only 40 vouchers left, and that there were not enough vouchers to accommodate everybody on their lists, which would have required them informing the Federal Government that they were at 100 percent, and needed to fund more vouchers.

5. That they did not feel that laws or punitive damages would solve the discrimination problems, in direct contrast to HUD agencies in the other states where this law has passed.

6. They did not admit that people lose their vouchers due to being turned away from housing because their clients were on HUD, even though they were presented evidence to that effect, because they insisted it was due to other facts, even though they have no statistics to back up those claims, over the direct experiences of the general public.

7. That they sided with the landlords, and would not agree to any further protections for section 8 clients other than a ban on advertising.

8. That they felt that landlords should have adequate opportunity to have proper education, so that they do not get into trouble with the Federal Law.

9. That they do not support "source if income" legislation, again in absolute contrast to other HUD agencies in other states.


When we looked at this issue overall, due to the fact that the Landlords, real estate companies and the State Housing agencies seem to all be in collusion, and that no testimony was given by our own housing agency, or by any real estate agents or major companies at the hearings, and that the JGO committee would suddenly not accept even the extremely watered down version of the bill and give it a hearing, even in light of overwhelming testimony in its favor, from a broad range of testifiers, one can only assume that there were other forces at work that would not step foreword and make their opinions known.


Another very curious fact, is that individuals stopped advertising "No HUD", temporarily, for awhile while the bill was alive. Suddenly, as soon as it was assumed that the bill was dead, in this past Sunday edition of the GI, there were at least 19 ads in the newspaper stating "No HUD". I called each and every one of them. Some of them were others we had spoken to before. Again, I did hear many stories that were flat out discriminatory.


A ban just on advertising would not stop this particular practice. Landlords could still refuse to accept HUD, and not even accept someone’s application based on the fact that they were on the program. They could also reject other income from people that are not on the HUD program, such as social security, veterans benefits, or unemployment insurance.


This issue is not just about HUD, but about all sources of legal supplements individuals might have to put towards their rent.


A ban on advertising would also not prevent someone from making statements over the phone that would be derogatory and insulting to HUD clients and others, such as: "I don’t like HUD", "HUD people will trash my unit", "HUD people don’t work, or are bums".


This type of abusive behavior would still be allowed. When our coalition looked at the definitions for a protected class, the law is very clear. In the 1968 Civil Rights Act, which created the Fair Housing act in the US, and where the Housing Agency was born from, it is clearly stated that several criteria counted to create a "protected class", and these are:

1. That a certain group of individuals is singled out for harassment, coercion, and the deliberate steering away from Constitutional rights, such as food, shelter and medical attention.

2. That it would be adverse to the health safety and welfare of everyone should this situation continue to occur.

3. That the discriminatory acts are blatant, and readily visible to all.

The situations as described by those that have been victims of this sort of discrimination can attest to all three of these.

Is it harassment? It is certainly harassment to refuse to speak to someone, make derogatory statements and refuse them housing and shelter based on the fact that they have a needed, and legitimate source of supplemental income with which to pay for their housing needs with.

Is it a health, safety and welfare issue? Of course it is. With the mass refusals to rent to those on the HUD program, where else have they to go but the streets, whole families becoming homeless, and thus becoming an even larger burden to the health, and safety of the rest of the community, as extra resources are needed to house them in temporary shelters, and provide for other services such as mental health issues, and other needs to care for them as they continue to be without adequate housing.

SENATE PANEL JUST SAYS NO TO NO HUD

SENATE PANEL JUST SAYS NO TO NO HUD: Senate Bill 456 to ban discrimination against source of income in housing and real estate- and stop those “No HUD” advertisements for rental units- passed it’s first hurdle today when it was unanimously passed out of State Senator Roz Baker’s Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee, headed for another hearing in the Judiciary Committee, according to Anne Punohu of the Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition.

And if the amount of supporting testimony is any indication Punohu, the bill’s chief and original proponent, has certainly stuck a nerve with not just HUD recipients and the community in general but even elected officials from our local council all the way to congress.

Hawai`i US Congressmember Neil Abercrombie’s joined Kaua`i Councilmembers Lani Kawahara, Dickie Chang and Derek Kawakami and Tim Bynum in submitting written testimony and former Kaua`i Mayor and Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura made the trip over to Honolulu with Punohu’s daughter and a friend in tow to give her testimony in person.

In addition testimony in support was received from such diverse groups as
-The Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission
-The Institute for Human Services
- Kaua`i Agency on Elderly Affairs (Ludvina K. Takahasi)
-The Legal Aid Society of Hawai`i (Jennifer La’a, Fair Housing Program Manager)
-Malama Kaua`i (Andrea Brower, Project Manager and Keone Kealoha, Executive Director and
-The Kaua`i Food Bank, Inc, (Wendi Rusaw Food Stamp Outreach Coordinator)

The only negative testimonies were from Chad K. Taniguchi of the Hawaii Public Housing Authority who said they prefer the apparently failed policy of “negotiating” with landlords, Coral Wong Pietsch, Chair of the Hawai`i Civil Rights Commission which worried that they would have to enforce the law and, predictably, the O`ahu chapter of the National Association of Residential Property managers who apparently would like to continue their discriminatory practices.

In addition testimony was received from
-Brad Parsons
-Healani Akau
-Puanani Rogers
-Jeff Sacher
-Judy Dalton
-Katy Rose
-Lani Rae Suiso Garcia
-Loren
-Tracey Schavone
-Trisha Kehaulani Watson
-R. E. Flora
-John Constantino
-Sam Goldberg
-Marina Mireles
-Jordan Grainger
-Shanarae Kaulananapuaikaikamaolino Donovan
and of course Anne Punohu for the Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition

We’ll try to find out more about how the hearing went and what to expect next week but today we’re going to present and excerpt some of today’s testimony.

-----------

Testimony of U.S. Representative Neil Abercrombie

I am writing in support of SB 456. relating to "source of income' discrimination.

It's no secret that we have a housing crisis in Hawaii. Property values remain high making the average working family--even with two salaries--unable to afford a median-priced home. Homeless estimates in our state start at 15,000 people, but may increase under a newer definition of "homeless" that can include two, three or more families who are forced to live in the same house.

At the same time, landlords are closing their doors to individuals and families that qualify for government assistance programs, like Section 8 or Housing Choice vouchers. From January to March 2008, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated that only 710/. of Housing Choice Vouchers were being utilized. Many families who had Section 8 vouchers either couldn't find or were denied qualified housing and remained in crowded or unacceptable living conditions.

To protect the civil liberties of everyone seeking decent shelter and a place to call home, legislation to add "source of income" protection to our fair housing laws is vital. SB456 will help to provide improved access to housing for many individuals like seniors collecting social security; single parents receiving child support; veterans being paid for military service; and individuals with a chronic disease getting government assistance. SB456 is an equitable and just step in the effort to increase housing availability and improve our fair housing laws.

I urge Chair Baker, Vice-Chair Ige and the members of the Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee to support 8B456 and the enforcement of fair housing practices for all. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Testimony of former Kaua`i Mayor and Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura

Chair Baker and Members of the Committee,

Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

I speak in favor of SB 456. I want to thank Senator Hooser who introduced this bill and Annie Punohu for initiating this effort. Annie is a courageous and passionate single mother of two beautiful girls. She has been homeless herself in the past and knows first hand what it is like to struggle against discrimination. Annie Punohu is not able to be here today, but representing her is her lovely soon-to-be 17-year old daughter, Kaulana, who will be testifying. Kaulana is a participant in the Leadership Kaua`i youth program. Also testifying from Kaua`i is Pua Vidinha. We feel very privileged to be able to speak before you.

Last month, we all celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday. A week after Dr. King was tragically assassinated in 1968, the Fair Housing Act was passed by Congress as a way to honor and advance Dr. King’s agenda for freedom and equality.

Today, over forty years later, we still struggle to make Dr. King’s dream a realty. Against the reality of his time, he saw people finding decent housing and living in good neighborhoods no matter what their race, source of legal income, sex or age.

SB 456 would help move us in this direction.

Let us be clear what SB 456 does and doesn’t do.

SB 456 prohibits discrimination against renters based on source of legal income. In all likelihood, the greatest impact of this bill will be to stop overt discrimination. Covert discrimination will be harder to detect, prove or stop, though if enough proof is amassed, it will be possible. But stopping overt discrimination itself will have benefits! It will set the tone. It will make clear to all what is not acceptable. It will at least allow HUD voucher holders to go through the process of applying, which in and For example, it prohibits a landlord or realtor from refusing to accept applications for rental units based on categories of income—such as HUD vouchers, social security or SSI payments, etc. It will prevent landlords and realtors from advertising rentals with outright prohibitions against HUD voucher applicants, which essentially stops them from even applying. It will also prevent some landlords who don’t understand what HUD is, from stating in their ads that they won’t accept HUD voucher applications, simply because “that’s what other landlords are doing.” of itself, could help the landlord see an applicant as an individual rather than a stereotype. Apparently, in states where a law similar to SB 456 is in place, HUD voucher holders seem to have a better rate of finding housing.

What SB 456 does not do is to dictate that a landlord must rent to a certain HUD voucher holder.

In other states, where there are laws similar to SB 456 in place, overt discrimination is clearly reduced. This bill will not solve all problems of housing discrimination, but it will help to create a more even playing field for renters—especially those in the lower incomes who have struggled to find decent housing and who sometimes become the homeless.

It will not prohibit landlords from refusing to rent to individual
applicants based on past performance, bad references, bad payment records. Please see section 4 of Bill 456 on page 10, which allows a landlord to make an evaluation of a potential renter’s ability to pay and stability.

It is Time to Stop Overt Discrimination against Certain Legal Sources of Income

It is clear that we need this law on Kaua`i. A survey of classified ads in the local paper, The Garden Island shows that overt discrimination against HUD voucher holders is significant. While some argue that the slowing economy will make such a law unnecessary because we are moving toward a “renters” market, the slow economy is also creating more people with financial, and consequently, housing problems. So the problem of accessing affordable housing remains even in the slow economy.

Furthermore, the “down” economy will not last forever. We are all familiar with the “boom and bust” cycles that occur in Hawai`i’s economy periodically, and we must be prepared for the return of the terrible affordable housing stresses that we recently experienced over the past 5-6 years of a boom economy.


HUD voucher holders are not the only ones who will be protected. Elderly, who are growing in proportion to population, and the disabled will also be protected against landlords who discriminate against limited income sources such as social security or SSI.

Please pass this law which will prohibit, and which has been shown to effectively prevent, overt discrimination based on income categories such as HUD vouchers. It will increase the chances for law-abiding, sincere, often hard-working families and single people to access affordable housing in Hawai`i.


Testimony Of Kaua`i councilmember Lani Kawahara (with similar testimony from Councilmembers Tim Bynum, Dickie Chang and Derek Kawakami)

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S.B. No. 456 relating to discrimination in real property transactions based on lawful sources of income. My testimony is submitted as an individual Kaua`i County Councilmember.

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination based on a lawful source of income in real estate transactions, including advertisements of available rental units. Currently, the State of Hawai`i does not prohibit discrimination in its advertisements of real estate based on a lawful source of income.

I support the concept of prohibiting discrimination in real estate transactions and advertising and feel that people with any lawful source of income should be given the opportunity to apply for housing. It is unfair that people who participate in government assistance programs are not allowed a chance to apply for rentals because of discrimination in classified ads. Many people who participate in government assistance programs already suffer economic hardships that make it difficult to acquire affordable housing and they should not have to endure additional challenges in trying to provide for themselves and their families.

For the reasons stated above, I support S.B. No. 456 in concept and humbly request your further consideration of this measure.


Testimony of Mr. John Constantino, Single Parent and Displaced Homemaker Coordinator, Kaua`i Community College, Bridge to Hope Coordinator, Assistant Professor in Counseling and Advising, Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition

I am in support of SB456, and HB 1274 that would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income. As a counselor and coordinator to Single Parents and Displaced Homemakers, I have seen my fair share of students who have faced discrimination and humiliation.

Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.

Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the State of Hawai`i. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.

These households are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.

I believe that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest‐income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program. However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing. It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low‐income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing. Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.

Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low‐income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, I respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report.


Testimony of Sam Goldberg, 5th Grade Student in the class of teacher Suzanne Messinger, Kula Elementary, Kilauea, Hawaii with similar 6th Grader Marina Mireles and 5th Grader Jordan Grainger

Aloha, my name is Sam Goldberg. I am fifth grader at Kula Elementary in Kilauea, Kauai. My class, my teacher and I would like to express our support for Senate Bill 456.

A couple months ago, Suzanne took our class to the Eco-Roundtable in Lihue. It was there, that we met a motivated woman who taught us the difference between equal and unequal housing. We also learned a lot about HUD. We hope that Senate Bill 456 will guarantee that people who qualify for HUD are not discriminated against when they try to rent a house on Kauai.

During the past two months our teacher has been helping us to learn more about discrimination, human rights prejudice and segregation in our inquiry unit called “Fair Play for All.” When studying the history of prejudice in America from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, I was mortified by the hateful and unfair treatment of people in our country. People like Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King, Jr., have shown us that change is possible and all people should be treated equally.

When I learned that some families on our island who have lower incomes then others are not able to rent a house as easy as a family with more money, I became angry and confused. How could this discrimination still be happening today? We found out that there are people who work hard, but because they received HUD could not find a house to rent. We think all people on Kauai should have an equal opportunity to rent a house as long as they work hard and pay their bills.

I am writing to you because I believe in this issue. Suzanne inspires us to try to do something about what we believe in. She says, kids have important ideas and strong voices and we should take action when we feel frustrated. I, Sammy, believe in Senate Bill 456. I strongly feel that all people on Kauai are equal and should be treated fairly. If someone who gets HUD is able to pay rent, they should be able to rent a house just as easy as someone who does not. I am so thankful for my home here in Kilauea. I want to live in a place where all people are treated equally and there is no prejudice. Please try to stop this discrimination. Please listen to what I am saying, because it truly means a lot to me.

Testimony of Shanarae Kaulananapuaikaikamaolino Donovan Age 17

Aloha. My name is Shanarae Kaulananapuaikaikamaolino Donovan, and I am the daughter of Anne Punohu, who started the Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition Kauai, and I am here to testify on her behalf, and also to represent the children's side of this issue. I will be 17 in a few days, and I will be able to vote for the first time in the next election in Hawaii. As a future voter, and a child who has been homeless before, I can tell you that it is very hard to see our parents when they try to get a place to live, and cant because people say no. If you have a HUD Voucher, it takes a long time to get one. At first your parents can be very exited to go out and find a rental. Maybe they will find a house with a yard, and maybe the kids can have their own rooms. Maybe there will be a nice kitchen where you can cook your food, and a bathroom with a nice, hot shower. Those are the things you think about when you are homeless and a kid. You are not thinking about how you can damage the house, you think about how you can fix it up nice.

All your parents can think about is us kids being safe, and your mom, being able to sleep finally because she doesn't have to keep one eye open all the time, because when you are homeless your parents will never sleep so they can protect you. Its also easier to keep your job, because you can stay cleaner and get more rest and eat better. So, after you are all exited, your parents are all exited, reality sets in. Your parents start to make phone calls and look in the newspaper. Sometimes you help them. And then you see the ads that say: NO HUD. Your parents make phone calls, and start to hear all of the excuses over the phone, some are not very nice. Some people tell our parents they don't rent to HUD, because HUD people will trash their house, or they don't want kids there, or they just don't want HUD people there, or their house is not going to pass a HUD inspection. After awhile, everyone starts to get sad, and cranky, and stressed out. Soon, our parents know their time to find a rental will run out. Soon, they will lose the voucher, and we will have to stay homeless even longer. Sometimes kids have a real hard time being homeless, but our parents are the ones that have it even harder, because they are trying so hard, but they cant find places to rent. I think that is wrong. I think its morally wrong, and I think its against human rights. Everyone has the right to a decent, safe house to live in, even if you are poor, even if you are disabled, even if you need help to pay for your rent, even if you may not be perfect. People who have places for rent, should not be able to discriminate against people just because sometimes help is needed to pay for the rent. Think about all of the children who you are turning away. Think of all those great people you didn't even give a chance to apply for your rental. Most of us kids, who have been homeless have really great parents, they try really hard and do their best. But everything is so expensive. I am born and raised here, and I feel that people that are from here should not have to leave, so that other people can move here and get the rentals because they don't need help. They get to live inside, while the rest of us have to live outside, just because we don't matter or count as much as they do. We are not as good as them.

I think that is very wrong. My mom, and my sister and I have a place to live. But lots of other people don't. That’s because they cant find anywhere they can afford. If they get help so that they can get a place, they should have a chance to get it. Its not right to have it legal that you don't even have to give them a chance.

That’s why my mom asked Senator Hooser if he would be willing to write a bill to stop this, and he did.

In the house, Representatives Mina Morita, Representatives Har, Herkes, Chang, Cabanilla and Tokioka introduced a mirror bill in the house called HB1274. My mom made phone calls and emails to everyone and got people to send in testimony. Joann Yukimura paid for me to come today, and my Auntie Pua is here too. There are a lot of people who support this bill.

Our new President, Barack Obama, said this about equal rights, and civil rights. He said:

The teenagers and college students who left their homes to march in the streets of Birmingham and Montgomery; the mothers who walked instead of taking the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry and cleaning somebody else's kitchen – they didn't brave fire hoses and Billy clubs so that their grandchildren and their greatgrandchildren would still wonder at the beginning of the 21st century whether their vote would be counted; whether their civil rights would be protected by their government; whether justice would be equal and opportunity would be theirs.... We have more work to do."

-- Barack Obama, Speech at Howard University, September 28, 2007

KIBBLE AND BITS

KIBBLE AND BITS: Former County Attorney (CA) Matthew Pyun couldn’t run fast enough to escape the morass of the bizarro-world of Kaua`i County’s through-the-looking-glass view of law when administrations changed.

And we’ve been trying to figure out what exactly is going on with the county council’s confirmation of previously rumored and sort-of announced CA appointee, former deputy prosecutor and now defense attorney Al Castillo.

We were kind of taken aback by the selection since he apparently has no experience in governmental law and comes from the criminal law community but chalked it up to more of the same from Mayor Bernard “You (can go to hell) and Me (I’ll pay off my supporters) Together (we’ll steal you blind)” Carvalho.

Almost two months have gone by with no confirmation from the council as is required by the county charter- and no word as to why.

But at the last full council meeting our ears perked up when deputy CA Darren “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” Suzuki introduced himself as the “acting CA” while he was not answering a question, as is apparently part of the CA’s job description these days.

Now, silently and stealthily, it appears that another appointment has been made.

Former deputy county attorney and county council legal analyst Amy Esaki’s name appears on this week’s council agenda, with Carvalho requesting council confirmation for her to lead the office of the county attorney.

Now of course you’re expecting the usual tirade and excoriation along with the requisite exposition of another revolving-door hack and crony, listing the misdeeds and sneaky crap the nominee has pulled over the years.

But apparently Carvalho was asleep at the wheel of his patronage-addled office because Esaki would be on our short list of who we would pick if we had the ability to do so.

Esaki is one of those attorneys who hasn’t been through that revolving door except for the time when she apparently quit the CA’s office under the widely reviled Lani Nakazawa to work for the council, writing and reading legislation.

She’s actually one of the most straightforward and seemingly honest, diligent and even (gasp) helpful lawyers ever employed by the county.

We have nothing but good things to say about her and can only hope against hope that she will bring a new era of openness and professionalism that’s been lacking in the office for a long time.

-----------

With the legislature doing it’s biannual dance-of-the-headless-chicken over the budget and its projected shortfalls, we’ve heard about of a lot of cockamamie bills containing schemes ranging from the brainless to the downright dangerous..

It’s the time of year when un-enterprising reporters can sit at a desk, riffle though the stack of introduced bills, stop anywhere and find something that causes heads to shake back and forth and eyes to roll..

But we have to wonder why none of them have seen one little ditty that has thus far gone unreported, whereby the state would steal the county’s share of the Transient Accommodation Tax (TAT) for the next six years.

Although to the relief of all the state’s mayors and councils it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing, House Bill 1744 (Status) would “(s)uspend... for 6 years from 07/01/2009 to 06/30/2015 the distribution of transient accommodations tax revenues to the counties.”

The measure, introduced under the radar by House Speaker Calvin Say, has passed first reading and been referred to the Finance Committee.

It amends HRS 237D-6.5 by adding a section at the end that reads:

Subsection (b)(3), with regard to transfer of revenues to the counties, and subsection (c), with regard to computation and payment to the counties, shall not be operative from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2015. During the period that subsection (b)(3) is not operative, the remainder of the revenues collected shall be deposited into the state general fund."

Subsection (b)3 reads:

44.8 per cent of the revenues collected under this chapter shall be transferred as follows: Kauai county shall receive 14.5 per cent, Hawaii county shall receive 18.6 per cent, city and county of Honolulu shall receive 44.1 per cent, and Maui county shall receive 22.8 per cent.

The TAT is collected, as one might expect from the name, from people staying at tourist accommodations. The counties’ shares were originally included as a way to mitigate the impact of tourism on the counties’ budgets by giving them a share rather than allowing them to have their own taxation power (perish the thought), as had been proposed before the measure was enacted.

But now, rather than keeping their grubby paws to themselves they’ve got a bill handy to either rob Peter to pay Paul or use in some kind of extortion scheme to balance their budget by sloughing off their politically untenable choices- like actually taxing their precious campaign contributing faux hi-tech companies, land-raping developers and bottom-feeding military contractors- on the county level pols.

The measure would cost Kaua`i an estimated $15 million a year in revenue- more than 10% of the island’s operating budget- on top of the 10% across the board cuts ordered by Mayor Bernard Carvalho for the upcoming ’09-10 fiscal year.

---------

And finally an update- and a happy one for those following the HUD non-discrimination bill in the Senate that we reported on again yesterday.

After a flurry of emails and phone calls yesterday from many people to Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee Chair Roz Baker, SB 456 is now set for a hearing on Friday February 13 at 8:30 a.m..

Testimony may be emailed, if it’s less than 5 pages in length, to the Committee at CPNTestimony@Capitol.hawaii.gov Indicate it’s “Testimony for SB 456 for the 2/13/09 8:30 a.m. hearing” in the subject line.

THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?

THE PIT BULL CAN STAY, BUT YOU?: It’s good news bad news Senate bill 456 to stop housing discrimination against people and families that receive federal housing subsidy vouchers through the county housing agency- a subject we wrote about twice recently.

The bad news is that without testimony the bill in Sen. Roz Baker’s Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection could die, according to Anne Punohu of the Kaua`i Fair Housing Law Coalition

But the good news is that representative Mina Morita and four others have introduced a house companion bill HB 1274.

Anne’s testimony is an in depth look at the real problems HUD Section 8 recipients face and a good description of what the bill would do and what it wouldn’t do. It is presented here to give those who care about the issue and want to testify some ideas on what to say.

Testimony can be emailed for now to Committee Chair Roz Baker at senbaker@Capitol.hawaii.gov along with a request to schedule a hearing


STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL SB456
HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME -
Anne Punohu, organizer Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition, HUD OK NOW

The coalition testifies today in support of SB456 which would prohibit landlords from discriminating against potential tenants based on the source of their income.

Decent housing is a fundamental right. The protection of the human dignity of every person and the right to a decent home require both individual action and structural policies and practices. Our concern is not simply for houses or programs but for the people who inhabit these dwellings or are affected by these programs. The statistics we cite are not simply numbers or points on a graph; they are individual human tragedies.

Governor Linda Lingle has estimated that as many as 15,000 people may be homeless in our state. According to a recent national study, in regards to housing discrimination faced by Asians and Pacific Islanders, the discrimination rates held at 37% percent, the same rate as for African Americans. The statistics in large part came from the state of Hawaii. HUD Choice Voucher lists are currently closed on O`ahu, due to not enough people moving off the lists to make way for new people to sign up. Reports have been stated that up to 60% percent of individuals who obtained HUD Choice Vouchers were unable to use them. Not because they suddenly found a rental on their own, or came into a lot of money but because they simply could not find a rental that, in many cases would accept HUD Choice Vouchers.

Our coalition made over 250 calls to individuals who placed rental ads in our local newspaper on Kauai. At times, the rates of ads stating “No HUD” was at 40%, not including vacation rentals. Cold calls were made, sometimes 4 and 5 times to the same phone number, using different voices and personalities. 80% of the time, the caller would originally site one of three main options for their discrimination. They were: Ignorance of the HUD program, not liking HUD paperwork or inspections, or a previous bad renter.

(However, although we realize that a minute percentage of these reasons may be legitimate, we are of the opinion that these are superficial and unsubstantiated reasons for discrimination. HUD has paperwork, yes, but it is no more cumbersome than anyone else’s, and the inspections are based on current codes. As for bad renters they happen without someone being on HUD.)

After these initial responses were brought forth, we continued to engage the landlords in conversation, and were able to obtain numerous statements that were made verbally stating preferences, prejudices and opinions which violated the Federal Law, such as familial status, race, age and disability, the four most frequently mentioned categories.

(In addition, after we held a public meeting, we received calls from individuals that stated that they were discriminating, but may be willing to pull their ads which made the “No HUD, or No Section 8”, voluntarily, and we also heard of some success stories where individuals which had been adverse to renting to HUD were now willing to try it.)

Our coalition is of the strong opinion that even though these may be some improvements, this law is necessary to ensure a continuing “safety net” during these most difficult of economic times for these individuals and families.

The assumption that at this time some people may be more willing to rent to HUD clients does not erase the cold hard fact that during most of these phone calls we made, the majority of those who would consider it were more concerned with how to evict the tenants rather than how to keep them.

This is a red flag to all concerned, and accurately reflects what will happen to those who may have benefited in the short term, and may suffer in the long term.

(Our coalition does want to express our general opinion that there are many rental agents and rental companies that have an excellent working relationship both with HUD agencies and clients. This law is not aimed at rental agents and rental companies. We wish to make that case very clear. This law is in the name of equity, across the board, and would involve any rental regardless of whether it came from a rental agent, a rental company or a private sector landlord.)

To give you two examples of the types of answers we received over the phone, here follows two different quotes from landlords :

(Again we wish to clarify that these were private individuals, and not rental agents or rental companies).

CALL #1

“This is an upscale neighborhood.(Wailua house lots, typically an area full of local Hawaii residents of mixed ancestry).We are getting rid of these people here, and we are making our neighborhood nice now. You can park a car here and not get it broken into now. We don't have those people around here, so don't worry, you will like it.”*This was a woman who responded, for this call we were assuming the personality of someone who had recently moved here from California, had a job, and was inquiring about the rental.

Same woman, second time calling different personality:

“No, no, no, no, we don't accept HUD. No. You are from here? Anahola, oh I see. Yes, well, you know we don't have a lot of room, here its only a two bedroom, we are not set up for HUD people here. And you know, you people have big families, and they all come over here with their cars and things. Do you work or have a job? Then why do you need that HUD thing? Well, we don't accept HUD here, no so sorry. Goodbye.”*The caller was responding to a personality claiming to be from Anahola, an area populated heavily with Native Hawaiians, and using a heavy pigeon accent.

CALL #2

“Hello? What? HUD? No, no, no, no, no, we don't accept those people here. No no, you have to be working to rent over here. No we don't want any lazy people here, and all those local guys they have too many cars and kids running all around, no, no way. Why are you calling me? I said no HUD in the ad. Is it legal for you to call me? Yea, I know that’s against the Federal law, that’s why I put that in there. That way I don't get calls from those bums.”*This in response to a call using our coalition name, and inquiring as to why the landlord stated no HUD.

Same man, second time calling different personality:

“What? Oh, yes, OK do you work? Oh, you have a kid? What is it boy or girl? Girl? That’s good, girls are quieter. Yes, that’s the rent. Do You work? That’s good. You have HUD? Oh we don't accept that here. Oh, you cant find a place huh. Where are you from.? California? Oh you just moved here? Oh well you sound nice. Do you do drugs? Well, I might consider it. Do you have parents? What do they do? Did you get a divorce or something? Well, I cant have any guys running around here, you know this is a respectable neighborhood. Well, I'm not sure, I don’t usually accept HUD. Well, Ill let you know. Give me your number.”*The man is responding to a different personality claiming to be a single mother, recently moved here from California and employed, on HUD.

The case for “source of income” legislation

These households are more than a figure in a table. They are real families experiencing the tragedies of homelessness or inadequate housing. The households are made up of parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews. Each is affected by their family’s difficulty in affording an adequate place to live. Adults worry about how to pay utility, clothing, and food bills when the great majority of their income goes toward rent. When they can’t pay their rent, they strategize on moving between hotels, friends’ sofas, and shelters. Children suffer from exposure to unsafe and unstable living conditions.

The coalition holds that one of government’s primary responsibilities is to ensure that the most basic needs of its people are met. In the United States, our federal government does this, in part, through the Section 8 Rental Choice Voucher Program. Hawaii serves the housing needs of its lowest-income residents through the State’s Rental Allowance Program . However, though a family may be successful in accessing assistance through Section 8, or some other program, in most parts of Hawaii, they face yet another hurdle in their search for housing. Hawaii residents receiving housing assistance are often discriminated against in their search for housing.

It is common to see newspaper or internet ads that contain the words, “No Section 8.” It is more common for low-income Hawaii residents to hear this refrain when they inquire into available housing. Such discrimination is also faced by people who base their income, in part or in total, on disability assistance, cash assistance, child support, or alimony. To anyone who encounters it, the discrimination is frustrating and demoralizing.

Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent or buy housing should not be denied that housing based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit-worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent or buy – the single mom depending on child-support payments, the low-income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability assistance, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent or buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.

Recognizing housing as a fundamental human right, and also the severe hardships – including discrimination – low-income Hawaii residents face in finding housing they can afford, we respectfully ask that you give SB456 a favorable report. Thank you for your consideration.

SB456- HOUSING – DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SOURCE OF INCOME; Sponsor: Senator Gary Hooser

What does SB 456 do?

SB456 prohibits “source of income” discrimination against those seeking housing. That is, the bill prohibits landlords/sellers from discriminating against potential renters/buyers based on the source of their income.

What does “source of income” mean?

“Source of income” means any lawful source of money to be used in the rental or purchase of housing. It includes money from: (1) any lawful profession or occupation; (2) any government or private assistance, grant, loan, or rental assistance program, including Section 8 vouchers; (3) any gift, inheritance, pension, annuity, alimony, child support, or other consideration; (4) and any sale of property.

What does SB456 NOT do?

SB 4561 does NOT prohibit a landlord/seller from determining the ability of a potential renter/buyer to pay a rent/purchase price, by: (1) verifying the source and amount of income of the renter/buyer; and (2) evaluating the stability, security, and credit‐worthiness of the renter/buyer or their source of income. SB 456 does NOT prevent a landlord/seller from refusing to consider income derived from any criminal activity.

Who would benefit from the passage of SB 456?

Individuals and families planning to rent/buy housing, in part or in full, with income from Section 8 vouchers, Rental Allowance Program subsidies, disability payments, Temporary Cash Assistance grants, pensions, alimony, child support, and other lawful sources of income.

Why should SB456 be passed?

Individuals and families having the lawful means to rent/buy housing should not be denied that housing, based on where those means come from. Those with the income, credit worthiness, and other applicable credentials to rent/buy – the single mom depending on child support payments, the low‐income family depending on a Section 8 voucher, the man depending on disability payments, the elderly couple depending on a pension – none should be denied the opportunity to rent/buy because their incomes don’t come entirely from a job.

Does source of income discrimination happen?

Yes. It is common for landlords to refuse to consider applicants who will use a Section 8 voucher as part of their rental payment. This makes it difficult for Section 8 recipients – who may have spent years on waiting lists before receiving the vouchers – to find places where they can be used. It may also have the effect of clustering voucher users in the poorest sections of a community, where landlords receive few rental applicants.

Is source of income discrimination already prohibited in other places?

Yes. In Maryland, Howard and Montgomery Counties have laws prohibiting source of income discrimination, as does the city of Frederick. Nationwide, twelve states (CA, CT, ME, MA, MN, NJ, ND, OK, OR, UT, VT, WI) and the District of Columbia have housing laws that prohibit source of income discrimination. Several cities and counties – including, as of last month, New York City , and now the State of New York– also have such laws.

Kauai Fair Housing Law Coalition
C/O
Anne Punohu
4417 Maka Rd #3A
Kalaheo, HI 96741
Phone: (808)332-0341
email: coalitionkauai@yahoo.com

NO ROOM AT THE DOGHOUSE

NO ROOM AT THE DOGHOUSE: The heroic efforts of Kaua`i activist Ann Punohu regarding the blatant discrimination against protected classes by landlords who reject tenants receiving “HUD” Sect 8 housing subsidies has amazingly enough found it’s way into the pages of the local newspaper... and not a moment too soon

But from the way the issue is described one would think the main reason for all those “No HUD” ads in the “for rent” classified ads is that landlords are worried about the “type” of tenants who receive the subsidies.

But while many landlords may feel this way PNN has found that there is an at least equal if not far greater reticence to rent to HUD Section 8 recipients based not on dealing with the tenant but on having to transact business with the county housing agency that administers the federal program.

First a little background, it seem that despite the fact that all people who receive the HUD “vouchers” are by definition members of one “protected class” or another- family status (having children), disability and age (being senior citizens)- it is somehow ok to discriminate against them all together... or at least it is “legally unsettled”.

After seeing those “No HUD” ads for many years we decided to ask the Kaua`i Legal Aid Society office, which serves many of the indigent who make up the HUD recipients, how this kind of blatant housing discrimination could take place. Surely it must be illegal. And surely it must be their job, if anyone’s to do something about it.

But the laws against discrimination have generally been interpreted by the American corporate-personhood-recognizing courts to say that there must be an individual member of a protected class being specifically discriminated against by a specific individual in a specific case of housing, employment or public accommodation.

And, according to the Legal Aid attorney we spoke to more than 10 years ago, even though the matter is not settled law in this specific case they are too strapped for funds to take on broad, potentially lengthy litigation and they would rather concentrate on helping their qualifying clients in limited personal cases such obtaining restraining orders, divorces, child custody and other minor, personal civil matters.

The reality is that worries over damages and non-payment by HUD tenants is a red herring because HUD guarantees that they will pay for the damages or the tenants’ share of the rent if the tenant does not pay – and then kick the recipient off the program. Of course this leads to an automatic acceptance of damage claims by HUD even if the tenant didn’t cause them.

One would think landlords would love to have HUD tenants – as they do in other places- because the rent, except for a small portion paid by the tenant, comes to them in the form of a monthly check from the county delivered, not on the first of the month but five days before.

The fact is that most landlords we’ve spoken to during the 15 years we’ve been looking into this story and who have rented to tenants with HUD have had it with dealing with County Housing Agency’s bureaucracy .

The Kaua`i County Housing Agency’s HUD Section 8 program has been as corruption- riddled as any in the county and for the last few years has been operating under real and threatened sanctions from the federal Housing and Urban Development Department in Washington D.C., according to testimony before the county council.

Much if it is because they aren’t serving the people who HUD is designed for- primarily those who make up to 80% of the median income and especially those at or below 50%.

While the maximum is 120% there are guidelines saying much higher percentages of clients must be at 80% and an even higher percentage at 50%- levels that the county housing agency seems incapable of achieving after five years of attempts.

In addition the feds found their verification system was severely broken and their paperwork was found to be inconstant, arbitrary and generally useless and incomplete.

Instead of making sure on an individual basis that the exceptionally needy find and keep housing the county agency- run out of the mayor’s office rather than as a chartered department- has become self-absorbed with constantly shifting around the paperwork and requirements in a futile attempt to placate the feds without doing anything concrete.

One bizarre antithetical move in recent years was to change the policy regarding the severely permanently disabled. In the past if someone receiving Social Security disability payments couldn’t find a house within the proscribed time allotment, when they reapplied, they went to the top of the list.

But, according to the agency’s testimony this includes many mentally disabled who they deemed to be “un-housable”. Whereas housing agencies on the mainland see their responsibility as including making sure these chronically homeless find a safe and secure place to live and assisting them in keeping it, here the policy has apparently been to throw them under the bus and let them live on the beach.

Landlords are constantly besieged by the incompetence of the county agency. Whether it’s the seemingly daily change of requirements and resulting paperwork or the landlord’s inability to get coherent answers to their queries, it has become a nightmare to deal with the agency according to many landlords on the island causing them to shun not necessarily the tenant but the agency.

One recent Catch-22 type insanity typifies what’s wrong with Kauai County Housing Agency and of course the county government in general.

When the “Ohana” charter amendment requiring a 2% cap on yearly property tax assessments passed at the polls- and before it was struck down by the Supreme Court of Hawai`i- the county council passed it’s own similar tax scheme for owner-occupants of homes on the island.

But because of the perennial, perpetual housing crisis they also passed Ordinance 833 giving a 6% cap to owners of “long term affordable rentals”.

“Affordable” was based on what was those making 120% of the Kauai Median Household Income- as set forth in the Kaua`i Housing Agency Affordable Rental guidelines- could afford to pay, using 30% of their income for housing as a base.

The council discussion at the time centered around how an “affordable” rental would be defined.. And for that they turned to the County Housing Agency which told them essentially, “oh, well we just happen to have that defined already in the HUD Section 8 affordable housing guidelines- it’s 30% of the income of a person who makes up to 120% of the median income".

So the council put that in the ordinance. But the discussion also centered making sure that it was a “long term” affordable rental.

Although we testified at the time that many if not most rentals on Kaua`i – especially the cheaper ones- were traditionally “month-to-month” and that very few people have one-year leases, the council ignored that testimony and defined a “Long Term Affordable Rental” as “a dwelling subject to a written lease agreement with a term of (1) year or more”.

At the time county housing processed Section 8 “contacts” along with their “voucher program” but has since gone to an all voucher system.

The way it works, according to recipients we spoke to is that there is a one year agreement signed when the tenant first moves in but after that year is over that changes to a month-to-month agreement, supposedly to attract landlords because then they can have the freedom to kick out the tenant without regard to a lease... which is essentially meaningless because even with a lease under Hawai`i law, a 45-day notice is all that’s required, lease or not.

So the Real Property division dutifully created the form for receiving the 6% cap, which reads as follows:

To qualify, you must submit an executed “CURRENT” copy of your (one year) rental agreement with this application.

And county housing rules apparently forbid their clients from signing any agreements with their landlords outside that which is Section 8 approved.

So, as you might have figured out by now, landlords who do rent to Section 8 clients- the very people who the law was designed to help and whose guidelines they used- cannot get the 6% cap on their affordable rental by simply showing that they participate in the program.

Only no one at county housing tells the landlord this until the year is up and they have to file their yearly exemption form.

The can of worms seemingly opened by Punohu have rather been slithering around the County’s Round Building for years. As landlords have found out, any reason for turning down HUD tenants because they might not be ideal, pale in comparison with the headache of having to deal with the county’s bureaucracy and myriad conflicting rules and regulation.