Kansas Senate Bill SB77

Kansas 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/23
• Refer: 1/24/23
• Failed: 4/30/24

Caption

Authorizing the Kansas human rights commission or any city or county to remove an unlawful restrictive covenant by recording a redacted plat or declaration.

Impact

The passage of SB77 would have significant implications for homeowners associations and the enforcement of housing discrimination laws in Kansas. It empowers the Kansas human rights commission, as well as local cities and counties, to take action against associations that fail to comply with the provisions outlined in the act. Notably, the bill stipulates that a failure to remove such covenants may enable affected individuals to seek injunctive relief in court, thereby reinforcing the legal framework against discriminatory practices in housing. This mechanism seeks to protect individuals from the adverse effects of outdated and discriminatory housing rules.

Summary

Senate Bill 77 aims to address housing discrimination in Kansas by authorizing the removal of unlawful restrictive covenants that are in violation of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The bill allows for homeowners associations to be compelled to amend their governing documents to remove such restrictive covenants within a defined timeframe. Specifically, associations must delete these unlawful provisions within 60 days of the bill's effective date, and they can do so without needing approval from the members. This streamlining is intended to facilitate compliance with non-discriminatory housing practices.

Contention

Discussion around SB77 may reveal points of contention regarding the authority and space local governments hold in addressing discriminatory practices versus the self-regulatory environments of homeowners associations. Critics might argue that the bill's provisions could be seen as an invasion of the autonomy of these associations, and there could be concerns regarding the potential for litigation should associations fail to remove the covenants in the assigned timeline. Additionally, debates could ensue on the balance between state intervention and local control, especially on matters pertaining to community governance and individual property rights.