plan. That’s in part because of bureau-
cratic delays. While typical tenants sign
leases and submit their first month’s rent
within days, voucher holders in some cit-
ies can wait weeks for local housing agen-
cies to verify ownership of the property,
create accounts and complete safety in-
spections. “It’s not reasonable to expect
a landlord to wait 50 to 60 days,” ac-
knowledges Ben Goldsmith, a volunteer
tenant organizer with the Chicago Hous-
ing Initiative. It’s a problem that “leads
to homelessness or lack of choice for the
[voucher] recipient,” he adds.
The safety inspections are also a stick-
ing point. HUD requires landlords who
accept federal housing vouchers to sub-
mit their units to regular inspections and
to make improvements when necessary.
Landlords say the process can be time-
consuming and costly. But advocates
argue that housing agencies’ require-
ments are often less onerous than mu-
nicipal ones. “To say, ‘I don’t want to do
the inspection process’ is like saying, ‘I
don’t want people to catch me breaking
the law,’ ” says Isaac Sturgill, a North Car-
olina housing attorney.
If a landlord fails to make required im-
provements, the local housing agency can
stop issuing payments. That makes sense
on some level—the government shouldn’t
pay landlords for unsafe units. But it
often leaves voucher recipients in the
lurch. That’s what happened to Shanna
and Lavi Lee in November. When the in-
spector found mold in their home and
her landlord failed to address the prob-
lem, the agency stopped paying the rent.
Shanna, unable to make up the difference
in rent, was evicted. She and Lavi had no
place to go and nowhere to put their fur-
niture. “I had to put it out on the street
and let trash take it,” Lee says.
Local housing agencies are trying
to make the program more appealing
to landlords. For example, Charlotte’s
public- housing agency, which was re-
cently rebranded as Inlivian, now of-
fers cash incentives. Landlords get $250
upon signing a lease with a voucher re-
cipient, and $1,000 risk- mitigation
awards if recipients damage their prop-
erty. Some local governments are also
ramping up efforts to outlaw discrimina-
tion based on where tenants’ rent comes
from. Over the past couple of decades,
more than a dozen states and nearly 90
cities and counties have passed so-called
source-of- income protections, which
forbid landlords from denying tenants
based on that information, and Senator
Kaine reintroduced a bill that would out-
law such discrimination nationwide.
But if such laws are a step in the right
direction, advocates say they’re not
enough. Both Washington, D.C., and
Newark, N,J., have source-of-income laws
on the books, but the 2018 Urban Insti-
tute study found that 15% of Washington
landlords and 31% of Newark ones still
wouldn’t accept tenants with vouchers.
Last year, Tiana Martin, a federal em-
ployee, experienced this disconnect. After
inquiring about a unit in Latrobe Apart-
ments near Washington’s Dupont Circle,
she received a text message from an em-
ployee of the firm that owns the build-
ing. “Unfortunately we do not accept
Section 8,” the text read, according to a
screenshot viewed by TIME. Latrobe’s
website repeated the message: “We
do not accept housing vouchers at this
community.”
Martin, a black transgender woman,
filed a discrimination lawsuit that’s now
pending. “I know what it means to be dis-
criminated against based on your gender,
and now on my housing. I’m like, Dang,
what else can they come up with?” she
says. (Latrobe has since edited its web-
site, and the firm that owns the building
claims the agent who texted Martin was
misinformed, according to a statement
provided to Washington City Paper. Mar-
tin found a willing landlord in a different
D.C. neighborhood.)
Charlotte doesn’t have a source-of-
income law, so Lee couldn’t file suit even
if she wanted to. The stress of dealing
with her living situation is taking a toll.
She was recently hospitalized for a tho-
racic aneurysm, which her physicians said
was stress-related.
On a recent rainy morning in Char-
lotte, Lavi visited her aunt Shneila’s third-
story walk-up so her mother could go to a
doctor’s appointment. Shneila applied to
at least six rental units before she found a
landlord willing to accept her local hous-
ing subsidy. “Those two have compro-
mised immune systems,” she says, point-
ing to two of her children, who were born
prematurely. “I can’t bring them to a shel-
ter,” she adds, too aware of how close she
came. “We can’t be homeless.” □
8 RADICAL IDEAS
FOR EQUALITY NOW
5. FREE PUBLIC COLLEGE
College costs have soared
in recent years, saddling
millennials with huge student
debt—just as the pay gap
between college grads and
everyone else hits record
levels. To solve some of
these issues, Democratic
presidential candidates Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
have both proposed plans to
make tuition free at all public
two-year and four-
year colleges in
the U.S., while
canceling
substantial
amounts of
student debt.
Their plans differ,
but both argue that
making public college free
would give more Americans
access to higher education,
help them get better jobs and
boost the economy.
- WEB ACCESSIBILITY
In 1990, the Americans With
Disabilities Act ostensibly
outlawed discrimination
against disabled people in
all areas of public life. But
30 years later, huge portions
of the Internet are unusable
for people with disabilities.
This is partially because the
ADA does not specifically
mention web accessibility.
Over time, a consortium of
web experts created the
Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines, but the DOJ has
never offered official guidance
about what is legally required.
Now disability advocates, and
lawyers filing a growing number
of ADA lawsuits, are arguing
that companies must make
their websites accessible—
because, they say, the Internet
ILLUSTRATION BY JAMES GULLIVER HANCOCK FOR TIME is fundamental to public life.
