The city of Atlanta can’t require landlords to accept publicly subsidized rent vouchers, because a 2020 ordinance seeking to mandate just that conflicts with state law, an attorney with expertise in local government told Atlanta Civic Circle on Friday.

The Atlanta law requiring landlords to accept vouchers and other rent subsidies as sources of income came into the fore last week, when City Councilmember Amir Farokhi warned a luxury apartment owner that it can’t refuse tenants’ government-subsidized rent payments.

But EDGE on the Beltline’s owner, real estate company Carter Haston, told Atlanta Civic Circle it isn’t declining renters’ Section 8 vouchers. Rather, a Carter Haston representative said, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) stopped paying the bill for tenants at the Old Fourth Ward complex after the firm bought the complex from developer North American Properties in January. HUD did not respond to repeated requests for comment this week.

Farokhi’s letter, which cites the anti-discrimination ordinance, raises the question of whether the “source of income” clause is enforceable, since it conflicts with a state law that bars local municipalities from enforcing fair housing laws that are broader than the state’s, according to one local lawyer focused on government accountability, Matthew Cardinale.

As of Friday, the city was unable to say whether its Human Relations Commission, which determines code violations, has ever received a complaint over landlords refusing to take rent vouchers. Rayna Plummer, Mayor Andre Dickens’ deputy press secretary, said the commission is looking into it.

Cardinale, the editor of Atlanta Progressive News and a longtime thorn in the side of city officials, said in a text that “Atlanta lessors are not required to accept vouchers,” citing Georgia code that prohibits local governments from expanding the state’s fair housing law, which does not bar discrimination against renters based on sources of income.

The 2020 ordinance is “illegal” and “the city knows this,” said Cardinale. “I support this policy—just not until it’s of legal effect.”

Prohibiting landlords from refusing to rent to people based on their source of income is good policy, and state lawmakers should change the law so the city can enforce the 2020 ordinance, said Michael Lucas, the executive director of Atlanta Volunteer Lawyers Foundation, which handles evictions and housing cases for low-income Atlantans.

“This kind of tenant protection is an important part of addressing the problem we have here in Atlanta,” Lucas said of the housing affordability crisis. “If state intervention is needed in order for it to be fully enforced, then that has to be part of it.”

As the city legislation addressing fair housing, authored by Farokhi and former city council member Antonio Brown, approached a vote in early 2020, the city’s legal department suggested adding an amendment to delay enforcing “source of income” as a category protected from landlord discrimination until the state legislature changes the state law to allow it, according to WABE.

But the council decided against the amendment and passed the legislation by a 13-2 vote.

City Councilmember Howard Shook, one of the two naysayers, said he voted against the ordinance because he didn’t want to vote for a law that violated state law.

Join the Conversation


  1. My landlord has refused the Georgia Rental Assistance Program for payment of rent because he says, ” he doesn’t have to. ” which discriminates against me race/gender. What case law can I use in court?

    1. To LaShurn, You could make the case that actually Section 8 requires you to be a MORE THAN IDEAL renter, because it involves many visits by the government to the property to ensure that you don’t have anyone extra staying with you, that your place is clean, that there are no drugs/addicts/criminals hanging out (or bothering you). It would mean you and the landlord are both doing your part to maintaining the property’s safety, security, structure well and because you know how valuable the voucher is you would want to keep the voucher, so you would take great care of the place.) However, “doesn’t have to” isn’t either against race or gender, because if you take it in that direction you lose by saying “I am worthless” (It’s a victim mindset and allows a gap in power Don’t emphasize that because you are worth something for who you are no matter race or gender. NEVER devalue yourself.) Try showing how what you have to offer (WHICH HAS WORTH AND VALUE) CAN HELP YOUR LANDLORD, AND HELP YOU … WIN WIN. He gets the same amount of money AND YOU’RE A BETTER TENANT THAN THE 20-something who destroys the place because they are overpaying in rent every month and they are a trainwreck when they lose it all.
      City Councilmember Amir Farokhi’s law firm helps landlords evict tenants illegally as they don’t do sufficient due diligence. It’s doubly bad that he’s stating that all the other landlords (NOT his clients) should be following the CITY law, the law that he failed to accurately interpret, and he doesn’t know state law is above city law?) Dude, you can get disbarred.

  2. Property management at Maverick Apts & Towneshomes states that they do not accept payment from 3rd party payor. As program directives read as a participant in Atlanta Housing Choice Voucher shows clearly that the agreement of participation is between Atlanta Housing and HCV recipient, while the agreement of cost associated with rental is an agreement between issuer Atlanta Housing HCV program and Property Owner, therefore this is not a 3rd party payor. Therefore, incorrect informed or discriminatory practices are being implemented throughout housing priority and is direct violation if fair housing laws governing tenant acquisition. Property owners should not be allowed to build or lease property without full knowledge of laws and guidelines. Property owner is being market standards or above for participants to obtain safe and affordable housing of choice. If this is untrue, why are vouchers issued to individuals with time constraints outlined to gain approved residency? If empowerment zone communities are being swallowed up in low income areas at low cost replaced by income standards barriers to even those who rental assistance programs equalizes the scope of opportunity to housing choice in all communities, but are denied by simply the discriminatory fact of the color of a potential renters skin, or where your monthly rental income is derivde. This is a blatant discrimination practice no different from the era of Jim Crowe. Why? Better yet, if anyone can explain with legal justification, and provide a explanation of legal steps to take. Truly this is your opportunity to do so and respond promptly, I’m running out of valuable time?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *