Bill Overview
Title: Fair Housing Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits discrimination against individuals based on their source of income, veteran status, or military status in the sale or rental of housing and other related real estate transactions and services.
Sponsors: Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-52]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals facing housing discrimination due to income source, veteran or military status.
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The bill aims to prohibit discrimination based on source of income. This includes various income sources like vouchers, disability benefits, etc., which could involve low-income individuals and families.
- Veterans and current military personnel are directly mentioned as groups that would be protected under this bill, which includes people across a wide age range and geographical distribution.
- According to estimates, there are millions of individuals in the U.S. who rely on non-traditional income sources. This includes millions who may face housing discrimination due to stigma around such income sources.
- Veterans make up a significant portion of the population. The National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics estimates millions of veterans as of the latest data.
- There is also a global population similar to the U.S. demographic that would theoretically be impacted, as this issue of housing discrimination is not exclusive to the United States.
Reasoning
- Given the budgetary constraints, the policy cannot reach all potentially affected individuals directly in any given year. Therefore, direct impacts may be registered primarily among those most vulnerable to housing discrimination, such as individuals dependent on vouchers or disability benefits, and veterans facing barriers in housing access.
- The American target group is around 25 million people, but the annual budget can only directly influence a fraction of them each year. Hence, a focus on individuals highly likely to encounter such discrimination can be expected.
- Well-being improvements may manifest through increased housing security, reduced stress, and thus an increase in life satisfaction among those positively impacted.
- There will be individuals within these groups who may not directly benefit due to local implementation variations or landlords still finding loopholes.
- Military personnel and veterans might find this policy especially beneficial when transitioning to civilian life, allowing for a more stable housing situation.
- Direct interviews can capture a variety of backgrounds including those who are unlikely to benefit due to geographical or economic reasons.
Simulated Interviews
Veteran, currently unemployed (San Diego, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a veteran, I often face challenges with landlords because they are skeptical about my income from VA benefits.
- If this policy can ensure that landlords won't turn me away just because I'm using benefits, it would relieve significant stress.
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 | 7 | 5 |
Disabled, receiving SSI (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been tough to convince landlords to accept vouchers. This bill might make it easier for my family to find a stable place.
- I hope people like me will no longer have to worry about housing discrimination due to our income sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Single parent, part-time teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean security in knowing that my source of income won't be a reason for denial or eviction.
- It's a step toward fairness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Veteran, student (Minneapolis, MN)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My biggest concern is securing housing near my university that accepts the GI Bill as proof of stable income.
- This bill might help by prohibiting discrimination against income types like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Caregiver (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The discrimination we face makes it hard to settle into a safe and affordable home.
- I hope the policy prevents landlords from overlooking people like us.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Portland, OR)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've often been denied leases due to living on social security and minor pension funds.
- Support from this bill might change that but I wonder how it will be enforced.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Freelancer (New York, NY)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finding housing that accepts unconventional income verification is stressful.
- I'm skeptical about whether a policy like this will really change the landlords' attitudes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Business owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Landlords haven't accepted my income fluctuations positively. Any structural change brought by this policy would be appreciated.
- But as a business owner, my situation might not dramatically change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Software developer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't feel this policy will impact me directly since my income is traditional and stable.
- As a landlord, understanding these protections might alter how I verify tenants but won't change much on a personal housing level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Artist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My income isn't conventional and landlords often see it as unstable.
- If landlords must adhere to the new rules, it might level the playing field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 3: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement costs depend on the effectiveness of current fair housing enforcement machinery and whether an increase in complaints will necessitate additional staff or processes.
- The bill could encourage other jurisdictions both locally and internationally to adopt similar measures, potentially creating broader impacts on housing equality.
- Educational and legal support for both landlords and tenants will be crucial to ensure compliance and understanding of new regulations.