^{The Latest} Landlords Forced to Compensate when Government Safety Net Fails

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides subsidies that help millions of households afford housing. But when the subsidies are discontinued, which can happen for a number of reasons, landlords are often forced to make up the difference. The financial hardships this causes for property owners are another example of a housing system that is seriously out of balance in protecting the rights of both landlords and tenants.

Government housing assistance in the form of Section 8 housing vouchers are part of a safety net of services designed to keep people stably housed. The name “Section 8” refers to a housing law passed in 1937 that would give birth in 1974 to today’s housing choice voucher program. Housing vouchers allow tenants to pay a set rent based on their income and receive a government subsidy to cover the rest of the rental cost. In 2024, 2.3 million households are renting on a Section 8 voucher, and the program operates on a $28.5 billion budget.

But what happens when even the safety net isn’t enough to keep someone housed? Tenants can lose their Section 8 vouchers for a variety of reasons, and when that happens, landlords may find themselves obligated to provide continued housing without compensation.

For example, at an affordable apartment community in downtown Seattle, one resident on a Section 8 voucher was paying $228 a month for her apartment while the government subsidized the rest of her rent. In September 2023, the tenant lost her housing voucher for unknown reasons and her share of the monthly rent, without subsidies, increased to $1,008. For nine months, the tenant did not pay rent and then received an eviction notice in March listing nearly $7,000 in unpaid rent.

The event illustrates how just as tenants can lose their housing vouchers, landlords can lose the share of rent subsidized by the government. Another way that landlords can lose the share of rent subsidized by the government is if the local housing authority determines that certain repairs are needed to make a unit habitable for its Section 8 tenant. Unless the repairs are made, the landlord will lose the rent covered by the government.

This is not unreasonable, unless you consider that it applies even if the damages are caused by tenant behavior. For example, at a housing community in the City of Lakewood, a tenant caused almost $1,000 in damages to the unit’s carpet. In most circumstances, this cost would be covered by the security deposit. But because this tenant is on a Section 8 voucher, the property owner was required to make the repair or face losing rent payments through the voucher program.

A similar occurrence happened at a unit in Tacoma, where a tenant on a Section 8 voucher broke all of the appliances numerous times and destroyed the carpet with animal waste. The housing authority threatened to stop paying her rent subsidy unless property management replaced the appliances and carpeting at their own expense. Photos of the unit below dispel any idea that the needed repairs were a result of landlord negligence. Inspections of Section 8 units occur annually, and if repairs are needed, landlords must cover the cost and navigate scheduling repairs with the residents. According to property management, many repair vendors will not work in occupied units for liability reasons, making the task even more difficult.

Instead of holding tenants accountable for destructive behavior, the city’s expectations for tenants and for landlords are, once again, woefully unbalanced. When the housing authority removes a tenant’s rental voucher, landlords are left to compensate while they navigate a lengthy eviction process. When a tenant on a rental voucher causes damages, landlords are left to pay for repairs under threat of nonpayment from the housing authority. Merits of Section 8 vouchers aside, the program has unfair consequences, and those consequences are exacerbated by existing injustices in the eviction process and burdensome rental legislation.

A recent column in the Seattle Times described a flavor of far-left progressivism that “loves builders who create more housing, but they hate landlords.” It’s this same tribe of idealogues who advocate for increases in housing assistance but have no concern when the landlords that provide that housing suffer under the consequences of assistance gone wrong. Those consequences are a far cry from the desire for justice that motivates tenants’ rights advocates. There is nothing just about punishing landlords for the behavior or circumstances of their tenants. As columnist Alex Fryer exhorts, this dynamic needs to change. Until it does, landlords will continue to be forced to provide free housing and shoulder destructive behavior when the existing, taxpayer-funded safety net fails.