<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"By now you\u2019ve probably heard the news that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been banned for life from the NBA for his racist rant. But as numerous outlets have noted, this isn\u2019t the first time Sterling has come under fire for bigoted views and prejudicial actions.\nAs Dave Zirin reports for The Nation, Sterling has repeatedly faced allegations of housing discrimination from his tenants (he owns property across Southern California). For instance, back in 2004, Elisheba Sabi, an immigrant from Iran who held a voucher for low-income rental assistance, sued Sterling for refusing to rent to her.\nIn the end, the court sided with Sterling. While California laws prohibit discrimination based on a tenant&amp;#8217;s income, the court ruled that it did not cover Section 8 vouchers.\nMORE: Federal Reserve: Expect business as usual\nHousing discrimination was supposed to go away with the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. But as Sterling\u2019s banishment from the NBA reminds us, the fight to end discrimination continues today. We\u2019ve made some progress, but there\u2019s still a gaping hole in America\u2019s fair housing laws \u2013 one that leaves renters like Sabi vulnerable to discrimination.\nYou might assume that people participating in a federal housing program would have federal protection from blatant discrimination in the housing market. But surprisingly, recipients of federal rental assistance are not covered under the Fair Housing Act. That means that people receiving Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are not considered a protected group, like racial minorities or people with disabilities are under federal fair housing laws. That policy oversight leaves millions of low-income households vulnerable to unfair treatment in the rental market.\nHow? Well, let\u2019s start with why this program matters. The fight for equality of opportunity starts at home\u2014where we live shapes the education we receive, the safety we feel in our neighborhoods, the jobs we\u2019re able to find and take, and the community resources we\u2019re able to enjoy. Policymakers (prodded along by advocates and community organizers) have worked to improve the situation in important, measurable ways, but we haven\u2019t eliminated housing discrimination entirely.\nMORE: How Bank of America lost billions and forgot to tell regulators\nHere\u2019s what it looks like on the ground: Low-income families that receive housing assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (frequently known as \u201CSection 8\u201D or \u201Cvouchers\u201D) are able to rent homes in the private rental market by essentially splitting the cost of rent with the housing authority\u2014the families contribute 30% of their income to rent and the housing authority makes up the difference for a fair market rent. \u00A0This is supposed to give them more housing options.\nBut landlords often don\u2019t like the extra paperwork, and use that hassle as an excuse to avoid these tenants. Once a family qualifies for and receives a voucher, they\u2019re facing a race against the clock: If they can\u2019t find a place to accept their voucher in a set window of time, they\u2019ll lose the subsidy altogether and be back to square one.\nThis isn\u2019t just theory: At a recent meeting in northern California that I attended as a policy analyst for New America Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank, employees of several housing agencies talked about how hard it is for their voucher holders to find housing.Sure, California is a tough rental market, but staff noted that many landlords go out of their way to avoid Section 8 tenants because they don\u2019t want to deal with the paperwork required to participate or they perceive tenants to be irresponsible or hard to work with.\nThis can mean spelling out \u201CNo Section 8\u201D in a housing ad, refusing to return a prospective renter\u2019s phone calls, or claiming certain units aren\u2019t available for rent. In some cases, landlords rely on race- or class-based stereotypes to justify why they don\u2019t want Section 8 tenants. As one staff member put it, landlords tell the housing authority: \u201CThose people don\u2019t belong here. You\u2019re bringing in an element we\u2019re not used to.\u201D\nMORE: RadiumOne fires abusive CEO after backlash\nThe National Fair Housing Alliance reported last year that only 13 states offer protection to voucher holders against this type of discrimination. California is not among them, though a few California counties have introduced local ordinances to prohibit singling out voucher holders. But with no federal protection, many landlords across the U.S. are free to turn away qualified tenants with vouchers\u2014 without risking the financial and legal repercussions they would if they turned down a person with a disability or because of racial bias.\nMounting evidence suggests that widespread inaction on this issue has paved the way for unequal treatment of low-income renters with vouchers. The impact? A family already struggling to make ends meet can\u2019t freely choose where they want to live and it undermines the effectiveness of a program designed to promote stability and improve housing options.\nThe first step is a clear policy that protects voucher holders under federal fair housing laws\u2014complete with concrete penalties to aid in enforcement efforts.\nThis change might not end all discrimination by landlords (more on that in another column) but it would send them a strong message that the federal government is watching.\u00A0 Since it\u2019s a federal program in the first place, this solution seems overdue.\nHannah Emple is a policy analyst at New America Foundation. Her research focuses on U.S. housing policy, racial wealth disparities, and strategies to improve public benefits programs to promote the financial stability of low- and middle-income families."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://fortune.com/2014/04/30/donald-sterlings-racist-rant-what-it-says-about-the-flaws-of-americas-housing-laws/>