Leggett Challenges Voucher Case Ruling

Appeal Could Have National Impact

County Executive Isiah Leggett called the decision a serious blow. (Courtesy Isiah Leggett Campaign)

When Elaine Walker set out to find a place to live in Montgomery County, she tried to use a federal housing voucher to help pay the rent. But she was turned away at a Silver Spring complex where one-bedroom apartments now go for more than $1,000 a month.

Convinced that she was the victim of discrimination, Walker complained to the county's Human Rights Commission, which found that the Privacy World garden apartments had violated a county anti-discrimination law.

But late last year, a county judge reversed that decision, saying after a trial that he could find no evidence of discrimination.

County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) has vowed to appeal, and last week, he decried County Circuit Judge Durke G. Thompson's ruling as a serious blow to Montgomery's long-standing efforts to help low-income people find a decent place to live in an expensive housing market.

"We are working extremely hard to make affordable housing available to everyone who calls Montgomery County home and we need the cooperation of all segments of the community in order to achieve this," Leggett said in a statement announcing the county's plans to appeal.

Affordable housing groups say the case, which now goes to a state appellate court, could reverberate well beyond Maryland. At least 12 states and several cities, including the District, have similar laws that ban discrimination against people trying to pay rent with government vouchers. Although a Maryland ruling has no legal authority outside of the state, local courts across the country often look at how different states handle similar cases.

The company that owns the apartment complex denied practicing discrimination when it turned away Walker in 2002, saying it avoided the housing voucher program solely to limit its dealings with the federal bureaucracy. Jay Holland, an attorney for the partnership that owns Privacy World, said the landlord doesn't like the non-negotiable federal contract used in the voucher program, known as Section 8.

"Simply put, the county cannot force the landlord to enter into a contract with the federal government where the landlord is unable to negotiate the terms. That is beyond the scope of the county's power. This is not about discrimination, this is not about politics. This apartment complex and the management are responsible members of the community," he said. The company rents to tenants who participate in a county-run rent subsidy program, he said.

Thompson found that Privacy World was well within its rights to turn Walker away to "avoid the administrative hassle" of the Section 8 program. And he rescinded $5,000 in damages that a county commission had ordered the company to pay her. Walker could not be reached for comment.

The decades-old federal housing voucher program has long been viewed by supporters as a positive piece of social engineering that has helped thousands get out of shelters for the homeless or sub-par housing and begin to make their way toward the middle class. The goal is to try to spread low- and moderate-income residents throughout jurisdictions to encourage economic and geographic integration. The program gives prospective tenants a piece of paper that can be used to pay up to 100 percent of their rent.

The program also is touted as a successful alternative to government-run public housing projects.

"What you are trying to do is move people into areas where they might have better access to education and job opportunities," said Lisa Rice of the National Fair Housing Alliance, which encourages landlords to accept Section 8 tenants.

But communities must convince landlords that it is in their interest to accept the vouchers, which guarantee on-time rent payments from the government. By law, landlords do not have to participate.

To encourage participation, many jurisdictions, including Montgomery and Howard counties, have toughened anti-discrimination laws to prohibit landlords from rejecting renters based on method of payment. Montgomery approved its law in 1991, and it was not challenged until Privacy World's owners raised questions, said Michael Dennis, compliance director of the Human Rights Commission.

If Thompson's ruling is upheld, it "could completely gut the law," Dennis said.

"You don't have to rent to anybody. You can turn people down if they don't meet credit standards or reference stands" he said. "But at least you have to bargain with people and negotiate with them. If we lose this, no one has to do that anymore."

Many tenants who use the program have jobs but don't earn enough to pay for housing. They often must wait years for vouchers and then must use them quickly or be required to hand them back so they can be assigned to someone else.

Thompson's ruling came in the waning days of the administration of County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), but it drew little attention until Leggett announced the county's appeal last week. The case is being appealed to Maryland's Special Court of Appeals, the state's middle appellate court. No schedule has yet been set for arguments.