Kansas City, Mo. – Amidst rising concerns over housing discrimination, two local landlords have initiated legal action against Kansas City’s newly enacted housing ordinance, which aims to safeguard tenants against discrimination based on their income sources. The ordinance, approved by the city council in January, has generated significant discussion on the balance between tenant protection and landlords’ rights.
The legal challenge, brought forth by landlords Kennedy F. Jones and Stephen J. Vogel, contends that the ordinance represents an “unconstitutional overreach.” Specifically, their concern lies with the requirement to accept various non-traditional income sources, including federal housing choice vouchers, as legitimate income for rental payments.
Kansas City officials have defended the ordinance, emphasizing its role in preventing discrimination against individuals who rely on government assistance, disability benefits, child support, or tipped wages. The city modeled its regulations on similar laws that have been upheld in other jurisdictions, hoping to bolster affordable housing options throughout Kansas City.
Mayor Quinton Lucas has been vocal in his support for the ordinance, expressing confidence in its fairness and legal soundness. “Kansas City has strived to create a program that fairly addresses the needs of both landlords and tenants,” Lucas stated. He also pointed out that the legislation mirrors laws in other cities, like Clayton, Mo., and Tempe, Ariz., which have faced and withstood legal challenges.
Councilman Johnathan Duncan expressed frustration over the lawsuit, viewing it as a misallocation of taxpayer resources that could otherwise promote tenant protection. “It is disappointing to see taxpayer dollars spent defending a law that supports our community,” Duncan said. “However, I am confident that our law department will successfully defend this necessary ordinance and the courts will affirm its constitutionality.”
The impetus for the ordinance came from advocacy by tenant-rights organizations such as KC Tenants, who highlighted the struggles faced by renters dependent on varied income sources. The passage of the ordinance followed vigorous debate, with landlords and tenants packing council chambers to voice their opinions.
While the ordinance prohibits income source discrimination, it does permit landlords to deny tenancy based on other factors such as criminal history, credit score, eviction history, alleged damages, and rent-to-income ratio.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment and claims for relief, arguing that federal law does not mandate landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and that participation in the program should remain voluntary. By requiring acceptance of these vouchers, they argue that the ordinance places undue burdens on property owners—an issue recognized by Congress in the voluntary nature of the Section 8 program.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome will likely set a consequential precedent for how cities can balance protection against income discrimination with landlords’ rights to select tenants under federal and local statutes. This case also highlights the evolving responsibilities of landlords in the context of contemporary social welfare policies.