As a practical matter no.
Periodically, the issue arises whether local ordinances should require landlords to accept Section 8 housing vouchers from the local Housing Authority
(HA).
A legal requirement for landlord participation in the Section 8 program seems unenforceable.
When a household receives a section voucher, the head of household can begin calling landlords.
The voucher does not specify the amount that the Housing Authority will pay an owner, but rather a total for rent and the HA’s estimate of utility costs.
The actual amount the tenant pays (based on the unit’s rent and tenant’s income) is not calculated until the dwelling has passed the HA’s inspection.
Assuming an owner accepts this uncertainty and section 8 tenant likes an owner’s unit, then the owner must fill out a form requesting to start the lease approval
process, the first step being an inspection by the HA. Upon receiving the form, the HA schedules the inspection within two to ten days, depending upon the availability of inspectors. For the initial inspection of the unit must be vacant. Several days later the owner receives a list of required repairs.
Once the owner has completed the repairs, the owner schedules re-inspection. After that a lease can be signed. The owner, before receiving money from the HA, must sign a ten page agreement.
An owner not really wanting to accept a section 8 applicant can easily stop the process at the beginning by
(a) having a policy of not renting to a tenant who does not have the financial ability to pay for damages equaling three months rent;
(b) refusing to accept the tenant’s rental application without knowing how much of the rent the tenant will pay;
(c) refusing to fill out the initial form;
(d) requesting copies of all forms and agreements that s/he will have to sign, and requesting changes before proceeding; and /or
(e) requesting an up front fee to pay for the owner or employee who must attend the inspection.
(f) refusing section 8 applicants for occupied units, since the initial inspetion requires that the unit is vacant.
An owner might “miss” the appointment with the inspector. An owner might also choose to not complete the repairs requested in the initial inspection, and never
schedule a second inspection. A prudent owner might choose to require a security deposit from the applicant before starting the requested repairs,
because occasionally the indigent section 8 applicants do not have the required security deposit saved. And of course any time before the
final inspection is completed, the owner can find and rent to an unsubsidized tenant.
Thus, more than enough ploys exist for an owner wanting to avoid the Section 8 program, making any ordinances requiring participation unenforceable.
On the ohter hand, more than enough local landlords do participate because in C-U's low income neighborhoods owners can get higher and guaranteed rents by renting on section 8. Thus, unsurprisingly, the local HA has never actively advocated amending local ordinances to require property owners to participate in the program.
