Opinion ID: 1946648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether Source of Income Includes Section 8 Vouchers

Text: Although this issue, of whether the source of income provision in MCC § 27-12 applies to Section 8 vouchers, was certainly raised in both the administrative proceeding and the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court's ruling was based almost entirely on the court's view that Section 8 vouchers do not constitute a source of income for purposes of MCC § 27-12, Glenmont does not press the ordinance-construction argument in this appeal. The thrust of its argument before us is that the application of § 27-12 to Section 8 vouchers is preempted by the Federal law and that Glenmont had legitimate reasons not to rent to Section 8 voucher holders. Nonetheless, because the Circuit Court's decision was so centrally premised on the ordinance-construction issue, we need to address it. The source of income provision, as noted, was added in 1991. It applies only to the housing discrimination part of the law, § 27-12. The term is defined in MCC § 27-6 to mean any lawful source of money, paid directly or indirectly to a renter or buyer of housing, including income from any lawful occupation, any gift, alimony, child support, other lawful compensation or benefit, or any government or private assistance, grant, or loan program. Unquestionably, HCVP is a government assistance program, and, although the housing assistance payment under that program is made by the PHA to the landlord, rather than to the tenant, that payment is in partial satisfaction of the rent due by the tenant under the lease. The housing assistance payment to the landlord is thus clearly and identifiably on behalf of the tenant and, in this context, is the functional equivalent of the money being paid to the tenant and then paid by the tenant to the landlord. [5] It therefore constitutes money paid indirectly to the tenant, the same as if the tenant arranged for income from employment to be paid directly by the employer to the landlord. That construction is not just supported, but mandated by the legislative history of that part of the ordinance. The provision was added in 1991 by Bill No. 70-90, introduced by Councilmen Leggett and Potter. The Legislative Request Report states as the problem intended to be addressed by the Bill [deported cases of discrimination in the rental of housing against recipients of Section 8 housing assistance. Most of the people who testified at the public hearing on the Bill assumed that source of income would include Section 8 vouchers. [6] From that testimony and from the comments of the Council members, it is clear beyond cavil that everyone understood not only that source of income, as defined in the Bill, included Section 8 vouchers, but that such inclusion was the major thrust and purpose of the Bill. The press release from the County Government issued upon enactment of the Bill stated that the definition of source of income includes participation in a housing subsidy program such as Section 8 Rental Assistance and that, under the new amendment a housing provider may not refuse to rent a unit to a person with a Section 8 certificate or voucher merely because the person is participating in the program. Reading the language of the ordinance, in light of this clear legislative history, we hold that source of income does include vouchers issued under HCVP.