Should landlords be permitted to use background checks to deny housing to individuals? Do they have a responsibility or duty to make housing available to as many people as possible? What constitutes discrimination, and what counts as due diligence? These are some questions at the center of the fair housing debate. Today, that debate continues to rage as cities nationwide attempt to create more tenant protections. More than a mere matter of fairness, some see it as a central part of fighting homelessness.
Fair housing proponents argue that housing is a human right. They expect landlords to face limitations on how they decide to grant access to housing. The debate also centers around rent costs, upkeep, and when landlords should be able to evict someone. Landlords, from individuals to property management companies, believe they’re owed a broad amount of freedom. Some may argue that specific fair housing laws even violate their rights as private property owners.
Consider two stories that have evolved over recent years that highlight this contentious relationship between tenants, property owners, and the government.
In 2019, Philadelphia made waves when it was one of Pennsylvania’s largest cities to propose restricting how landlords screen tenants. Instead of focusing on criminal background checks, the law proposed tightening eviction rules. Called the Renters’ Access Act, the law mandates that landlords disclose their screening criteria. It also requires them to make such information accessible to prospective tenants. After vigorous debate, the proposed bills passed into law, and by 2022, they were in full force.
The law restricts what landlords may and may not consider as part of their screening criteria. Evictions older than four years can’t impact a landlord’s decision to provide housing. Any blanket policy excluding individuals with evictions is illegal under the law. If a denied applicant can show that they meet tenancy obligations, landlords must offer them a unit of similar price and size when available.
In force for several years, landlords have adapted their screening processes to align with the law. No significant challenges to the law have occurred. It would have made any evictions two years or older inadmissible, as initially proposed. In compromising at four years, Philadelphia found a solution mostly satisfactory to both sides of the debate. Elsewhere in the nation, such rules are the subject of substantial court battles.
In 2021, landlords won a notable victory against a fair housing initiative in St. Paul, Minnesota. That year, the city passed the S.A.F.E. Housing ordinance. The law aimed to limit what landlords could consider during tenant selection strictly. Landlords would have had to provide written explanations for denials and non-renewals. The law also included limits on credit and eviction history alongside criminal charges. Landlords sued, calling it an unconstitutional overreach.
A few months later, a judge agreed and tossed out the SAFE Housing law. The city repealed the law shortly after that. However, as of March 2024, St. Paul is exploring re-implementing the SAFE Housing ordinance in another form. Council members have begun soliciting information from the community on their rental experiences. Legislative work will continue to engineer a new law that can survive a court review. Work remains ongoing, but it seems likely that landlords in St. Paul will have new rules to contend with in the future.
The shifting regulation landscape in the housing sector makes compliance a continuous challenge. Therefore, effective September 2024, backgroundchecks.com no longer offers tenant screening services. Due to the rapidly expanding regulatory burdens nationwide, we cannot devote the necessary resources to service a non-core business area. As the fair housing debate continues, landlords will likely encounter new legislation. Developing strategies for responding to these changes and managing one’s investment will be vital.