Bill Overview
Title: Landlord Accountability Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill provides protections to tenants of certain federally assisted housing and establishes a low-income housing maintenance tax credit for eligible landlords. Specifically, the bill prohibits discrimination, in the context of rental housing, against individuals who possess a housing choice voucher. Additionally, the bill prohibits landlords from taking or failing to take certain actions with the intent to make a unit ineligible to receive assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Landlords that violate this prohibition are subject to a penalty for each violation and may be sued by tenants who are harmed. In addition, the bill allows HUD to provide grants to states, Indian tribes, local governments, and affordable housing organizations to develop, expand, and assist tenant harassment prevention programs. The bill also provides protections to tenants of multifamily housing projects by requiring HUD to (1) increase the staffing level for the Multifamily Housing Complaint Line, (2) create a Multifamily Housing Complaint Resolution Program, and (3) publicly disclose on its website information regarding each complaint received under the program. Landlords must also display in certain multifamily housing projects information about the complaint line and the phone number of the regional or local HUD office. In addition, the bill provides a tax credit to qualifying landlords that is equal to the landlord's low-income housing maintenance expenses for the year. To qualify, landlords must have addressed within 30 days any complaints filed against them under the complaint resolution program.
Sponsors: Rep. Velazquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7]
Target Audience
Population: People in federally assisted housing or multifamily housing projects
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The bill impacts tenants of federally assisted housing by providing them with additional protections against discrimination and harassment.
- Landlords of federally assisted housing are directly affected as they must comply with new regulations and can receive a tax credit if they maintain their properties properly.
- The bill also impacts states, Indian tribes, local governments, and affordable housing organizations, as they may receive grants from HUD to develop tenant harassment prevention programs.
- HUD, as an organization, is impacted due to the increased need for resources to handle complaints and provide grants.
- Tenants of multifamily housing projects are impacted as they gain more access to complaint resolution services.
Reasoning
- The population affected by this policy is diverse, primarily encompassing low-income individuals in urban areas who rely on federally assisted housing.
- It's essential to include landlords in these interviews as they are directly impacted by the maintenance and tax credit aspects of the policy.
- This policy heavily impacts areas with a higher concentration of federally assisted housing, such as larger urban centers.
- Consideration of resource allocation for HUD will affect the breadth and effectiveness of the policy, impacting its reception and implementation.
- There's a blend of immediate and long-term impacts that affect different groups in various ways.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (New York City, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to protect people like me from unfair treatment by landlords.
- I worry about the retaliation from landlords even with these protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Apartment building owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support some of the measures for tenant protection, but worried about the cost of compliance.
- The tax credit is a good incentive but might not be enough for smaller landlords.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate having more ways to address issues with my landlord.
- Having access to a complaint line is a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is needed to prevent homelessness and exploitation.
- I don't foresee it affecting me personally but it contributes to a fairer housing market.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Public School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy will stabilize my housing situation.
- Trust in landlords has been low; this could change that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
City Planner (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is great in theory, but needs proper funding and execution.
- It could alleviate housing stress for many if done right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t think this policy will affect me much, but it’s important for others.
- Hope it doesn't add too much red tape for small landlords like myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a game-changer for addressing inequality in housing.
- Over time, if implemented well, it could lead to significant improvements in tenant rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Houston, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’s good to strengthen tenant rights, even if it doesn’t affect me directly.
- Better tenant experiences might ripple across all rental sectors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Social Worker (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing this policy gives me hope that my clients will face less discrimination.
- Need to ensure support systems are in place for effective policy enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $410000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $510000000)
Year 3: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $520000000)
Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $550000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 100: $800000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $900000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring HUD has adequate resources and training to handle increased responsibilities effectively.
- Potential legal challenges regarding enforcement of anti-discrimination laws need to be considered.
- Providing sufficient funding and oversight for the tenant harassment prevention grant programs.