Requesting The Governor To Order Executive Agencies To Review And Revise Their Policies And Rules To Prohibit Discrimination In Rental Transactions And Advertisements For Rental Transactions Based On Source Of Income Or Participation In Housing Assistance Programs.
This resolution is intended to enhance access to affordable housing for low-income individuals, particularly in the wake of challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic that have caused job losses and increased housing instability. By eliminating practices that allow landlords to refuse applicants based on their income source, it aims to improve housing equity and ensure that vulnerable populations, such as single mothers and those relying on housing assistance, have better access to housing opportunities. Current studies indicated a notable improvement in housing finding success when such discrimination is prohibited.
Senate Resolution 154 requests the Governor of Hawaii to order executive agencies to review and amend their policies and rules to prohibit discrimination in rental transactions and advertising based on an applicant's source of income, including participation in housing assistance programs like the federal Housing Choice Voucher program. It highlights the gaps in current state laws and acknowledges that many landlords can still deny rental applications from individuals using these vouchers due to lack of clear prohibitions against such practices. The resolution identifies Honolulu as a notable example of a major U.S. city without protections against source of income discrimination.
While the resolution encourages progress towards equitable housing practices, it may face challenges based on differing views about government intervention in rental markets. Supporters argue that enforcing these changes can alleviate discrimination against economically disadvantaged individuals and promote fair access to housing. However, opponents may voice concerns about how such regulations could impact landlord rights and their ability to make business decisions, ultimately leading to a debate around the balance between protecting tenants' rights and maintaining a free rental market.