2023 KC Metro Housing Provider Survey Results

Faced with questions from the Kansas City Missouri City Council on why the majority of housing providers do not accept Housing Vouchers, MAREI in conjunction with many of the housing groups across the city sent out a survey. Before conducting this survey, just from experience, we believe that the majority of the housing providers who do not accept housing vouchers have issues with the Housing Authority and its processes.

Even a special report for renters we found on the ProPublica website instructs numerous times for renters to take copious notes. Write down who you talked to and what they said at every turn because due to high turnover, you might not speak to the same person twice. Sounds like the Housing Authority is very hard on the renters as well as the housing providers.

Other Housing Provider Surveys

Before we assembled our questions and sent them out, we did several online searches to see what we could find on the subject. We were able to come up with a few other surveys in recent years into why housing providers are not big fans of Section 8 and what can be done to improve acceptance of vouchers.

Urban Landlords and the Housing Voucher Program: This study was prepared by The Poverty and Inequality Research lab at Johns Hopkins University for the US Department of Housing and Uban Development in May of 2018. They were looking at the role landlords play in shaping the residential experience of low and moderate-income renters, especially those with housing vouchers. “

“The final section looks directly at landlords who choose not to participate, explaining how past experiences with the HCV program led them to reject participation. We find that most nonparticipants rejected the program not because of a lack of market fit but because of negative experiences with the program. These experiences generally consist of the following dynamics: (1) inspections, (2) a general frustration with the bureaucratic aspects of participation, and (3) a tenant conflict.”

The National Apartment Association Survey of Housing Providers on the Housing Choice Voucher Program 2023: This past summer, the NAA conducted a survey of housing providers representing 286 buildings with 933,600 apartment units. In this study, 63.6% of providers do accept Housing Choice. When it came to support and administration 54.7% had issues with the local Public Housing Authority. 52.7 % had problems with the Inspection Process and inconsistency and unpredictability. 43% had dissatisfaction with the application to approval time before renters could move in and rents would low and 56.8 thought that the average move-in time for a voucher holder (between 1 and 3 months) was too long. Lack of units was also cited as an issue.

Their suggestions were to streamline & modernize processes, prioritize transparency and be consistent, and enhance communication. Further, the PHS can play a pivotal role in minimizing risk to the housing provider and enhance holding the renter accountable for damage and unauthorized vouchers.

Source of Income Discrimination Among Small Independent Housing Providers in Ohio: The Central Ohio Real Estate Entrepreneurs surveyed their members. Their 454 respondents are a very similar demographic to the housing providers in the Kansas City Metro. They found that most were small housing providers with 1 to 4 units, of diverse races, colors, and backgrounds. Most accepted all sources of income except Housing Vouchers where only 62.6% did. They cited several reasons for their dislike of the Housing Voucher Program:

• The process of getting the applicants approved, moved in and rent started takes too long and is very cumbersome. (87.8%)
• The initial inspection process is too random, there is no way to know what the inspectors might fail. (77.1%)
• The inspection process takes too Long. (50.9%)
• 88% said that if the problems with the program were fixed, they would accept vouchers.

Do you see a pattern emerging?
Perhaps it’s the program, not the renters?

The Kansas City Metro Housing Voucher Survey

Our survey was conducted between December 18th and 28th 2023, during the Christmas Holidays when many are not checking emails or paying a lot of attention to extra projects such as surveys. We sent the survey out via email and shared it across the social media platforms of several local housing provider groups. As of 2:30 pm 12/28, we had 205 responses.

Respondent Make Up

First, we wanted to find out who our respondents might be. Of all 215, 32.1% chose not to answer this question. Of those who did, we found:

• 14.9% of our respondents were Black or Brown, yes minorities invest in real estate.
• 39.5 % were either female or their company would qualify as female-owned.
• 2.8% are from our LGBTQ community
• 20.5% are veterans, first responders, medical professionals, or teachers.

We also found a resource that can tell you the LANDLORD DEMOGRAPHICS AND STATISTICS IN THE US

Local Mid-America Regional Council did a study of the region and they found that “Single-family rentals make up nearly 25% of all the region’s single-family homes. Of the region’s 157,000 single-family rentals, over 80% are owned by individuals or companies with fewer than 10 properties. These are the type of owners often referred to as mom-and-pop. Most of these owners, nearly 87%, use an ownership address in Missouri or Kansas.” Further ” a small number of companies control over 44% of all properties. Nearly 14,000 single-family homes in the region are owned by 33 companies. Of these, five companies own nearly 8,000 homes. Bulk ownership of single-family housing was exceedingly rare before 2012.” They are unsure why we have corporate ownership now but did not before 2012. We can tell you, the great recession saw huge numbers of foreclosures and between 2008 and 2012, hedgefunds perfected buying properties in bulk, managing them, and making money. The have been growing their portfolios since and at lease in Kansas City Missouri, every round of anti landlord regulation sees more homes sold to these 33 companies. (at least this is MAREI’s theory)

Next, we wanted to find out what they do in the real estate arena:

• 89.7% Buy and Hold Rental Property
• 28.9% Fix and Flip
• 8.8% offer Seller Financing or Contract for Deed
• 18.3% Provide Services

Note that these items are not mutually exclusive with many wearing more than one hat. We failed to ask what they do outside of real estate, jobs, retirement, etc. We also didn’t ask their age, but several in comments mentioned being over the age of 70 some over the age of 80.

The majority, 83.5% owned Single Family Homes. 46.7% owned small multi-family property. And 7.7% owned multi-family of 10 units or more. Most offered traditional rentals. 9.6% offered Contract for Deed or Rent to Own properties. 12.9% offered Short Term Rentals, 8.5% mid-term rentals. and 4.1 offer some sort of group housing.

And of 267 responses the majority or 59.1% own between
1 and 10 units. 90.1% own less than 100 units

Do They or Will They Take Housing Vouchers

We asked about several types of assistance programs to see what they consider a good source of income for a renter:

• 88.2% had no problem with VA Benefits
• 19.9 would accept renters who received SSI
• 89.8 accept renters with social security or other retirement benefit
• 74.4% would accept people with gig-type jobs as long as the income was provable
• 39.8% accept or would accept housing vouchers

When asked if they voluntarily accept Section 8 vouchers specifically, 70.3% said no and only 29.7% said yes. So between 29 and 39% of our respondents would accept housing vouchers.

Why They Do Not Accept Housing Vouchers

We had several reasons why they did not accept vouchers:

• The number one reason was the time it takes to get a unit up and paying at 53%
• Tied for first was the inspection process at 53%
• The Inspection Process Takes too long at 40.4%
• Dealing with the Housing Authority is too hard 35.4%
• Vouchers Holders losing voucher mid lease 40.9%
• Bad experience with a renter at 39%

Comments on this question garnered a lot of write-in responses as well. Many express that they had taken Section 8 in the past but stopped due to all of the above situations. Many cited damage caused by renters and a refusal by the housing authority to hold the renter accountable or to help the housing provider make repairs. Perhaps more education on how the housing authority qualifies people to receive a voucher and that just because they have qualified for a voucher does not make them a good candidate for a renter. The housing provider still needs to conduct typical screening on a voucher holder the same as open market renters.

You can read the all of comments on our spreadsheet

“I have a lot of experience with the Housing Authority. At one point I was the director of operations for a management company here that had 2000+ units in the metro. There are two primary reasons why we eliminate HAKC at every property. 1) HAKC is managed terribly, the communication is horrible. On routine requests, it takes as many as 10 attempts to get ahold of the right person. Even then, you may not hear back from them for weeks. There is no accountability. They often make mistakes with payments and it could be months before the error is resolved. 2) The damage caused to our units by HAKC residents vs market rent-approved applicants is approximately a scale of 10 to 1. While a normal resident-approved applicant may cause $200 worth of damage to an apartment….it’s closer to $2000 and as high as $5000.”

“KC section 8 is the worst. We accept Independence Sect 8” a sentiment that this author has heard expressed over the past 20 years numerous times, so perhaps Kansas City needs to see what they are doing right in Independence.

What if The Ordinance Passes

As all of this was prompted by a Ban Source of Income Discrimination Ordinance in Kansas City, we wanted to see what respondents might do if it does pass:

• 12.9% see no change as they already accept vouchers (note the above questions were would you accept questions)
• 23.8% will just keep going and add this as another cost and accept a voucher holder if required
• 17.3% say it will not affect them as their rental values are higher than what Section 8 will pay.
• 30.6% are still not going to accept vouchers, they will find a way to not accept them, which seems to waste an applicant’s application fee money
• 55.2% say they will sell their properties.

Let’s unpack that a bit. About 30% either already accept or will accept and pass on costs.

Another 30% will not accept the vouchers, so renters with vouchers would be applying to rent and paying all those application fees only to be denied due to other factors. Telling them up front that you do not accept vouchers seems to be a better option for them, so they don’t waste time on units that would not take them otherwise and save their application fee. This seems to be the case for all screening factors. It seems that the tenant group would rather we not clearly state our rental criteria up front, that we take the renter’s application and let them pay fees, with the rainbow hopes they will somehow get in despite issues they know should disqualify them. Then the applicant is out several days or weeks on the hunt for a new rental unit as well as their screening fees and the housing provider has wasted their time going through the motions to not get fined for having screening criteria. . . JUST AN OBSERVATION from a non-landlord.

Retaliation

There was a section on how to make complaints about housing providers who are violating the ordinance that seems to have no burden of proof and after 3 complaints made could end in the housing provider losing their rental license. 94.6% fear retaliation in regards to this whole “guilty until the fine is levied” as the ordinance states, making them rethink investing their money in Kansas City Missouri

Investing in Kansas City Missouri

We also want to look at the whole concept that the city council and supposedly the tenant organization want more, local, housing providers who care vs large out-of-state hedgefund type owners. Several commented to this effect at the committee meeting regarding the ordinance. We thought it was important to see if all the anti-landlord regulations created in the past 5 years have changed the makeup of who owns rental property in the city. While we can’t point to who now owns properties sold, we do have significant numbers of respondents who have sold their Kansas City Missouri rental property.

• Number of Units Owned Today (anywhere): 13,321
• Number of Units Owned 5 Years Ago (anywhere): 9.270
• Overall our respondents, mostly local people, with between 1 and 10 units overall have added 5,051 units in the past 5 years.

When we posed the same question but just Units Owned in Kansas City

• Number of Units Owned Today (KCMO): 3,773
• Number of Units Owned 5 Years Ago (KCMO): 3627
• Overall, in Kansas City Missouri we only see an increase of 146

This is significant when you look at the two categories as a whole: units owned anywhere vs just in Kansas City Missouri. Overall the units owned have gone up by about 40%. Yet in Kansas City Missouri the number of units has increased only by 4%. When we asked specifically how many units they have sold in Kansas City Missouri due to all the ordinances and city council action, the number was 873 doors.

This does not speak at all to all the development of new housing that has been tabled and turned away through the efforts of the “tenant advocates” efforts at protesting at various permitting and planning meetings. (look it up, we need more housing but they are fighting very hard to prevent it from being built.

Further Testimony

We had a lot of comments to our what else would you like to say? Note these are quick off-the-cuff responses, not nicely typed up and checked for spelling and grammar, but they do share the thoughts of the writer that are very important to consider.

If we need more housing for people using vouchers then the government should build and operate their own housing. Or, incentivize housing providers enough that the appropriate amount of housing units are made available because its beneficial to the housing provider. Has anyone ever asked the question, “why aren’t more housing providers eager to use vouchers?” Without the prejudice that providers are racist. The majority of my tenants are minorities, women, and mothers. (The categories that are singled out as being prejudiced against.) I’m for more truly helpful programs in our city. Things like housing, job training and placement, substance abuse, improving education, etc. BUT, one-sided and purely punitive approaches are not a productive answer. It will create divestment from providing housing among local investors and lead to less available and less affordable housing options because the housing stock will be sold to owner occupants and larger companies that don’t have the same concerns as local investors. And I’m unable to input my info in the fields below. Darin Scholl 816.591.3244 darinscholl@gmail.com

HA is a pain in the butt to deal with. I used to have many Sect 8 tenants, around 15. My experience is they are not good tenants and tear up properties. For those 2 reasons I quit accepting vouchers several years ago.

Kansas City is hostile to real estate investors. It should be encouraging investment, not making it more difficult.

Section 8 Policies are too far below my standards of housing responsible tenants

The city is driving out business. People are already pulling out of KCMO and just buying in a different metro city. What’s going to happen is history will repeat itself. KCMO will lose tax payers and become completely run down and dilapidated until someone new takes over the city office again that passes ordinance that builds the city instead of destroying it.

i presently have one house on sect 8, and i will sell all my rental and get out of the business if this passes. watch me

Joco is offering incentives to landlords the program has been very successful. I would argue for the price incentives are more powerful than penalties and regulations.

All of MO is awful for investing, the state thinks RE agents are evil and land loads are crooks

Due to the oppressive legislation that the city of Kansas City, Mo has already imposed and is seeking to continually force on landlords, we are specifically not buying any rental units located in Kansas City, Mo. We are continually working to improve the properties we do own so our tenants have nice homes to live in. I believe the city legislators are doing their tenants a great disservice by enacting laws that keep good landlords like us from wanting to invest in the city. We will simply choose to invest in other communities that appreciate our efforts to improve neighborhoods and who allow us to run a business in ways that allow us to stay in business and provide desirable housing for renters The city will likely be left with many landlords who can’t afford to maintain their properties or pay their mortgage payments because they were not allowed to verify that their tenants really had a viable source of income.

This ordinance is terrible having this shoved down our throat. This is a business if people don’t show they can pay for a loan at a bank….will the back loan them money???? We need proof of income before renting so we will not have to evict for lack of income AND the city gives the tenant a FREE attorney to represent the tenant… THE CITY COUNCIL IS CREATING A VERY BAD SITUATION FOR LANDLORDS!!!

Nearby Section 8 properties are already a nuisance for my renters. Drugs, crime, objectionable behavior. I have had several moveouts because of this.

The issue of past evictions is something I have a problem with. If an applicant has been evicted several times over the last 7 years and is being sued by many different entities and has judgements on their record I don’t want to have to even consider that person. If I’m forced to consider them then all I am is next on the list of evictions and judgements and now I’m thousands of dollars in the red as well as having to repair the house I was forced to rent to that person anyway. What sane person would allow that to happen?

Over reach laws that work in reverse of the property owner. One bad renter can cause $40k in damage and that’s not covered by insurance. Property owner could be out of pocket to repair for the next inspections and renter owner looses all rights and forced to allow who ever with no way to govern with out huge impact from city govt fines along with more cost does not make for affordable housings it forces owner to sell and not invest in the city.

I avoid that side of the river (East) for a reason.

I find it interesting where they only target the housing industries and owners for rents. Let’s have a conversation of what causes high rents – fraud in the county appraisal, each line ( entity) which gets tax dollars – it’s time they stop the spending. I have a rental in shawnee which went up $300. a month in pure cost due to fraudulent appraisals. Would any grocery store stand for tenants to demand they cannot raise prices on their food? They expect to get it for free? I have seen for almost 40 years bad tenants tearing up properties, I have also seen bad management companies abusing tenants. There are no consequences for each side for the bad actors. I definitely will not buy anything in Missouri with this stranglehold on owners . Will Ford tolerate them being told a ford pickup truck with all the bells and whistles which costs only $6K to produce that they can no longer sell them for $100k. I highly doubt it. The owners are losing this battle on renting, it’s bad policy, developers will not play in that arena.

I accept vouchers voluntarily if the applicant qualifies and I can check on the condition of the property the applicant lives in at the time of the application. Accepting vouchers should be voluntary, not mandatory with fines attached. I am afraid that if I have several applicants and I select a person with no voucher, a denied applicant with a vouched could file a complaint and I would need to defend myself legally.

THis ordinance is only going to cause rents and fees to increase to the very people it is intended to help. The individuals passing it are very ignorant to Landlords needs.

Govt should not interfere with management policy of business they do not own. Past behavior best predictor of future behavior. Giving keys to real estate asset becoming much riskier without better screening. Kcmo attempts to reduce screening only increases risk to owners. Not wise.

I only short term rented because of the hostile environment toward small mom and pop property owners in KCMO. I can’t afford to go without income and eviction laws are skewed toward the renters. Now there is also a hostile environment to STR owners as well. I haven’t sold any property yet but I certainly won’t purchase any more in KCMO because of the uncertainty for both LTR and STR.

I’m willing to take Vouchers on some properties but don’t want to be forced into accepting on all properties.

Current KCMO mayor & counsel are undermining small businesses & use no logic in their proposals & policies. This policy will have a severe backlash , mass exodus of home owners & landlords.

I do not currently own in KCMO and have been watching policy making to decide if I want to. I think I will stay away and invest in other places.

The city has no right to tell us who we rent our properties to. It’s our money on the line, with zero support or backing from the city for the property owner.

These are not protected classes. Some of these questions are not phrased well making them hard to answer. I’ve taken gig workers, for example, with substantial extra security, just as with other self-employed residents. I do not usually get the other type of applicants, so my units must be higher priced than these folks look for. I have taken them in the past when I owned and managed a wider unit mix, although not many have inquired organically, even then. This ordinance will substantially deter investors in this market, especially smaller landlords like myself. Subsidized housing is really a specialty niche. I’ve done it, it’s just not what I prefer. It would be a huge PITA to be forced to deal with this. I think the statistics they’ve thrown out are fabricated or, at best, substantially slanted and taken out of context. I invest, and live, in midtown, not far from Armour and Broadway. I’m surrounded by one type of subsidized housing or another. People who think it is not available are absolutely wrong. It’s the reason this part of midtown has always been several hundred dollars cheaper a month than downtown. Again, these units are all over this area. They just do not have signs out front promoting them. Same with low-income units. This area is almost totally owned by out-of-state investors. They all used to be from California, now it’s shifting to Colorado. This will push local owners out. The area has been trying to rebound for the 20 years I’ve been here, this will send it the wrong direction. I sold when the market was right to streamline my unit count and substantially renovate to reposition for long-term hold period with lower upkeep. If I am forced to take whoever the city wants or am not allowed to screen using the usual checks (credit, criminal, rental, income), I will not stay in this market. What would be the point? This is upsetting. Between the CIDs, the streetcar assessments which affect small landlords in this area more than downtown or the next planned area, the crooked property tax assessments that, again, almost cripple small landlords while don’t affect the larger buildings (***by large, I only mean OVER four-plexes, someone should look into this), and the plan for putting parking meters in front of our residential buildings and forcing our residents to use them, and now this? I will not invest my future in this neighborhood if I have to give keys to someone I am not comfortable with, or with this outrageous parking meter nonsense. It’s that simple. All renovation plans are on hold. It’s hard to believe I now have to start looking at alternate investment plans, but that is the reality. The city will do what it wants, but they will lose the local investor if it keeps pacifying these crazy activists, and that will hurt this area. Thank you for your work on this. Most landlords I know are uncomfortable speaking up against this, but all are concerned.

I had to become a landlord because my pension was stolen. I need to provide for my family with passive income. I will sell the home and buy investments or give it to one of my children with special needs. In the end, I resent the government interfering with property rights. I’ll see you in re-education camp comrade.

If the city is going to demand us to take section 8 vouchers then they also should be the one to pay for damages and they can go after the individuals.

If this ordinance passes I will no longer be investing or purchasing properties in KCMO. It makes no sense for me to invest in KCMO if I will only lose money.

“If you could reason with a democrat, there wouldn’t be any democrats.”…clint eastwood

I have owned these 2 houses since 1993, and it is my retirement income. I am a single 70 year Old woman. I consider each renter for their entire financial history: rental history, income, employment, and references. This criteria has been very successful for me with NO evictions. If anyone of the criteria is weaker than others I try to seek a solution thru a co signor etc. No one criteria would cause me to not rent to the applicant. But all criteria gives me a great picture of who I will rent to.

I take section 8 but I still think the landlord should rent to whom ever they want to.

Over Regulation will discourage growth in our city We should be promoting programs in our schools better transportation parks KC jobs KC employment promoting Local business promote small business This type of law encourages National Housing companies that do not care for their tenants

This ordinance is like giving sea water to the thirsty. Whatever is done to raise the cost of the property owner, high taxes or whatever, will be passed down to the renters, or will reduce the available rental property. The victims will always be the people the government is trying to help– the renters.

The fact that there is a fund for tenants to have an attorney paid for in an eviction for non-payment already, coupled with the fact that the people “dictating” the rules have ZERO lknowledge or experience (and nor do they seem to even care to) in working in the housing industry and the problems we see and deal with on a regular basis astounds and saddens me. We pay property taxes out the wazoo, we pay for all the repairs and costs that these ordinances impose—WE DESERVE A VOICE AND SEAT AT THE TABLE TOO. Come see how things are done. It is not like simply being able to hire/fire an employee as Mayor Lucas compared it to. We have people in our homes for another 60-120 DAYS (sometimes more) once a situation goes south. The damage that can be done in that amount of time is INCREDIBLE. And who foots the bill—we do. We are ALL for working together for policies that actually WORK, and we have ideas and answers for almost ALL of the problems your constituents have. ASK US—WORK WITH US—LET US ACTUALLY HELP! You need us too!

When my current tenants move, I will sell properties hopefully to homeowners

I have helped many other landlords clean-up after section 8 move out/evictions. Every single house was a mess!! Evictions are a nightmare and my fellow landlords have gone months in the process without any income from their investments. I have been threatened after telling prospective renters I don’t accept vouchers. I am a single female!

This regulation will reduce available rentals in KCMO. KCHA should support efforts to resist this regulation since KCHA actively lobbies owners to use vouchers

Every ordinance KC passes seems fashioned to help tenants at the expense of landlords. It is we landlords who pay the property taxes. When are some laws going to be passed to help us? More than the tenants, it is WE who pay the taxes that keep this city vital! (yes, I’d be curious to see the results)

Kansas City rent increases in the last few years are amongst the highest in the nation. That is not proportional to RE price changes. There are two primary drivers for such rent increases: Unreasonable property tax hikes, and the adoption of many policies by the City in the last few years that increase risk for housing providers. Ultimately, renters are burdened with that cost, making rental housing less affordable for everyone. If it comes a point when the cost of the extra risk cannot be absorbed by the rental market, investors will sell these properties and seek more viable opportunities elsewhere. https://www.rent.com/research/average-rent-price-report/. I’m a retired individual who relies on rental income for my livelihood. I do not accept housing vouchers for two primary reasons: 1) difficulty working with the Housing Authority, and 2) requirement for housing providers to fix damages caused by the renter without any support from the Housing Authority to recoup the cost from the renter. Being able to effectively and objectively screen prospective renters is the only way I have to ensure my retirement investment will provide a housing benefit to individuals that will respect it and without causing them an unaffordable financial burden. This is not a case where a customer comes to a store for a one-time purchase and the owner takes a risk on a bounced check. This is a case where I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and taken on debt, so that I have an adequate income stream in my retirement. I should have the right to appropriately screen prospective renters that I entrust with my limited assets, which I depend on for my livelihood.

There are already too many regulations concerning Kansas City housing. Dealing with regulations already takes up 25% of our rental management man hours. Deciding who to rent to is already regulated by State and Federal regulations.

Kansas City drives away landlords and developers at every turn. They are responsible for housing shortages.

Mom and Pop housing providers with fewer than 8 units should be exempt as done in other cities where this type of ordinance exists. This KC ordinance is too “radical” (KC Tenants right words!). It’s unfair & cumbersome for small time landlords. Plus, nearly all types of businesses use credit ratings to qualify their clients. The city would be forcing me to turn over keys to an unqualified tenant to a $200-350K valued property? Or a potential tenant could claim they were unfairly assessed and thus the rental and the rental income are in limbo while the potential tenants gets free legal representation? And then.. I could be subject to $1K fines and 170 days in jail? Wow. All said and done, it’s no longer financially viable. Too risky. I’m out.

Real estate owners are private citizens who own private property. I do not believe government of any kind should be able to tell those owners how to choose who will live in the property they purchase, maintain and pay taxes for, along with paying taxes on the rental income.

I would turn houses into short term rental, or rentals of 30 days or more, such as travel nurses. As they vacate. Or sell them.

I don’t like the message this sends within our country. It seems to be just another step to protect people who contribute less to society, than they take

Our properties became targets for break ins and robberies after the STR laws passed in KC MO and we lost more income than we could gain in a whole year due to that law being passed. At this point we have no faith in KCMO being for investors or the small business owner trying to serve the community. If this law passes I would not only sell everything I own in KCMO but I would consider moving myself just so I would no longer be giving 1% annually to this government.

It would appear that the KC ordinance seems to be designed around the scope & experience of a small percentage of landlords (ie questionable landlords). Most landlords seem more amenable and cooperative with their tenants, than the ordinance would acknowledge.

If approved it will have a big negative impact in so many Landlords and we’ll move our investments somewhere else

If Kansas City and KCTenant’s wants to require seciont 8 housing or the proposed ordanice. Then I’d like for them to start by requiring One Light, Two Light and all of the big condo’s require it first. If they become 100% seciont 8 and no background checks then I will be on board.

Aside from one building that I am holding, I will not operate any rentals going forward. I will only offer fix and flips to local homeowners

Should be an incentive program, not mandated

I applied for a rent increase in July and I can not get anyone to respond to me. I emailed my paperwork in twice and I had the head of section 8 Mr Singh talk to me back in September and he said email him the paperwork and he would have the case manager contact me. I haven’t from the case manager or Mr Singh This is one of the reasons I don’t like dealing with section 8. There is no way of talking to someone.

It is very disheartening to hear recent negative comments against small landlords. I feel in the twenty years I invested in the neighborhoods just east of Troost , I was able to make the neighborhoods better and provided housing at a reasonable cost by fixing up properties that were not habitable and turning them into nice affordable homes. We are not the enemy! I truly think this is going to backfire. You are alienating the people who were most interested in providing good housing to people at an affordable price.

I understand the motivations behind this legislation, but I think that tenants are being given far too much power. I think that landlords are being held up as easy scapegoats for failure to address the real issues: income/educational inequality, unwillingness of “could-be” future homeowners to buy in marginalized areas, the city’s unwillingness to invest in low-cost housing while freely giving wealthy developers tax breaks to invest in “blighted” areas like the Plaza. I fear that this legislation, if passed, may result in unintended negative consequences for tenants.

If you want to find out how to house low income residents in Kansas City you should talk to the people who own the housing and rent to low income renters. Punishing them in to compliance will not work.

Our screening criteria is specific to stay in compliance with Fair Housing. Now we are almost caught in limbo between this law’s demand for taking a holistic view and Fair Housing’s demands for treating everyone the same.

KCMO city just needs to follow Missouri state laws

This proposed ordinance takes away my ability to manage and screen prospective tenants. I might just as well throw out the application process. Furthermore I don’t take credit cards, crypto currency, venmo, chickens or vouchers. I only take cash or checks. I will liquidate as soon as the property becomes vacant.

Not screening for criminal convictions is dangerous to other residents who want a safe place to live. Not screening for prior eviction history or credit history is inconsistent with all other forms of extending credit (i.e. a bank will not give you a car loan if you do not regularly pay your bills). A tenant who does not pay rent takes between 4-6 months to evict, costing the landlord tens of thousands of dollars. Often times, the tenants under eviction fail to pay their utilities and damage the home in many other ways that require expensive repairs. This assumes that an eviction moratorium is not in effect, which we have seen recently as well. If the City of KCMO wants to house criminals or those who have a bad credit history, the City can buy the properties at market value or build their own housing units and operate them using whatever rules they elect. These are investments, after all. There is no reason the City can’t make their own investment and accept whatever financial returns their properties would generate as a result of their policies. However, City officials know their policies are unprofitable, so they are, instead, trying to put the burden of these very real costs onto private property owners. Property owners have a right to screen for criminal convictions, credit history and eviction history. These are not protected classes under the constitution. Taking these property rights from property owners without compensation is unconstitutional. The results of this policy will have the opposite effect of what they are intended to do. With disinvestment comes fewer housing options. With fewer housing options, rents will increase for higher end properties that are unattainable for the people the ordinance is trying to help. And the quality of the more affordable housing stock will get worse and worse over time because there is no motivation to keep a property maintained.

Won’t be investing in Kansas City Missouri, if those bills are passed.

As a small property landlord, the liability and risks are getting too high. i’m retired and cannot afford the additional costs, like the county assessment debacle. I’ll be forced to sell if this passes and it will be to investors who will probably raze the existing structures and build new high-end apartments. I’ve already been approached several times.

Last question not clear for my understanding. And has typographical errors.

I am opposed to this ordinance. I believe investors have committed to renting to units to all qualified applicants for decades without mandating or policy interference. If this ordinance is approved the backlash will prove to be costly and punitive and not accomplish the desired outcome.

This Source of Income is a terrible policy and will have negative consequences.

KCMO need to live in the real world

Giant yes to the fear of retaliation question – I provide a needed service in the form of reasonably priced housing – almost 70 – why would I do this for longer in face of threats?

It is my opinion that this ordinance is unlawful. It is taking away a landlords’ freedom of choice.

I don’t understand the above question.

If KC tenants are wanting ONLY apartments & rentals owned by corporations, then keep going in this direction. It IS working! The end results will be the opposite of their goals. They do not understand the basic economics of the situation.

I manage 2 small apartment buildings in midtown owned by my family. I’m especially fearful of not being able to properly screen applicants regarding credit, criminal and eviction history. We had 2 evictions last year and the cost was very hard on us financially. These are old buildings that require tons of costly maintenance every year. As units turn over we have renovated and increased rents above section 8 guidelines but we haven’t increased on long time residents and won’t. I have a couple questions about the ordinance and don’t know who to ask.

I’m already considering moving and how to sell property

If a city’s policy results in a property becoming a liability, then the property will be sold or abandoned.

Rentals are a business and just like any other business we should be able to qualify a tenant before we put them into a property that is the source of our income. They are also moving into a property that can be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. We need to be able to protect our investments. Automobile dealerships get to use income and credit to qualify someone before they purchase a car. That is for less than 100k investment, properties can be way over that.

The COVID respons and the ongoing attacks on housing providers had pushed me out of business after 40 years. No body seems to notice that 85% of the retners in K have no complaints.

Not sure what the “guilty until fine portion ” means

I do not have to rent out my properties. If the government wants to get into the rental real estate business then let them put up the capital to buy the property, deal with the operations, and take the risks and I’ll move my money to a place where I can maintain control over the success of my business.

Property owners should have freedom to enter a rental agreement with anyone that the owners choose. If the city wants to help renters, it should create incentives for the property owners to benefit from accepting certain renters. Coercive measures only reduce the desire for owners to keep investing rental properties in the city, and eventually leading to less available properties. There is no nice way to put it, but this is a dumb and shortsighted ordinance that will exactly hurt the renters the most.

I currently use a property manager who is experienced with section 8. If not, I would invest in higher value properties to be above what section 8 pays for. Please send me a copy of your results.

I will not own anything in Kansas City

Relying on private companies to handle public housing is extremely cumbersome.

Kansas City is continuing to make it unprofitable for landlords and seeks only the best for unqualified people …there is no win here for hard working people investing in kc–I am out!

I have had three section 8 renters recently. One lost her section 8 benifits within two months of moving in. Two had issues in the last year with paperwork errors on the part of section 8 that held up rent for months and caused me headaches. Annual inspections are cumbersome even though i pass 90% of the time. Both rents are lower than anyone else in the building. I only take them because i am trying to be a good citizen, not because it is profitable. I would sell, or raise my rents significantly before i took on any more section 8 tenants. It has been nothing but problems.

This is government overreach, pure and simple. It is a political stunt to make those in power look great (woke) on the national stage. If you want landlord participation in solving a problem that they had no hand in creating, use a carrot approach, not the stick. Offer intelligent incentives to induce their enthusiastic participation. When facing the ham-fisted threat from local government, landlords will always find a way to thwart those bureaucrats’ low-minded strategies.

Under no circumstance will I accept section 8 rental vouchers.

Renting to HCV voucher holders is not a problem for us per se. However this ordinance goes much further than that in removing the possibility for landlords to screen applicants with criminal records, evictions or bad rental history. Screening is a key part of a landlord’s business: not being able to separate good and bad renters makes it not only a liability to our business but also to the tenants with good history who could benefit from our properties.

KCMO with crime, earnings tax, bad governance, and lack of support of housing providers prohibits any interest in property ownership there

I would like data collected with pictures showing how this goes of unpaid rent , move in and move out pictures from the day this ordinance passes for 2-3 years of goood provable data to prove that not being able to screen or hold tenants accountable, the harm it had caused to owners and properties. Also stats on the rise in Evictions. And the costs to provide owners to implement new processes and procedures to try to protect their property. Rent increases. Again move in move out pics of how properties are when a tenant moves in and how properties are left by tenants at move out and/or eviction with damage costs!

I refuse to invest in KC. Too tenant friendly. Hating on landlords because of a few bad apples is not a good way to go.

KC is becoming less and less landlord friendly. I will move my investments to a different city that is more landlord friendly.

I get flagged for an intact screen leaning up against the bldg (ac was being moved) when house next door has wires hanging, peeling paint, trash & furniture on porch, etc and squatters in house on other side with a yard full of knee-high trash in back drawing rats, that I called on 3 x’s! KCMO has it out for landlords and Im tired of it. I rent out my grandmothers house (I grew up in) since she passed in 1998, the house nextdoor & another a couple blocks away. My other properties are in NKC. They are WAY easier to deal with. I personnally had Sec 8 in KCMO when I was a single parent (1980’s) and they were as awful to tenants as they are to landlords. Everything in KCMO cityhall sucks.

none

Who is out to protect the investor? It is already so hard going through the legal system to get someone out when they violate the lease and don’t pay rent. How are we to qualify to make sure people can pay/afford a place to rent? You have to qualify to buy, the same applies.

If the ordinance passes, there will be substantial safety issues for myself and our female tenants. I am very concerned . We are not prepared to suffer the financial losses of waiting for Section 8 inspections as well

I have previously rented (in Independence) to Section 8 tenant, but it got harder over the years to deal with the inspectors and delays because tenant had paperwork problems.

More regulations increase costs to owners, causing rental prices to be raised. Regulations also slow down the rate of transactions in a market, so that first time buyers and renters have a harder time buying or renting.

Kansas City needs to realize that they are running out businesses because they are short-sighted on making a quick buck and making it hard on investors as well as tenants. This is not going to help anyone in the long run. There’s already plenty of places who accept vouchers and I believe it should be illegal for them to dictate who I can rent my property to.

I do not agree with the terms of the proposal.

My rents were very affordable before this years taxes made me raise most of them. And even now 80% of my rentals are under Section 8 rent levels. If this passes I will be forced to raise all my rents up to section 8 allowable rent prices and that combined with taxes etc will drive out any hope of offering “affordable housing” that Jackson County claims they are striving for.

I disagree with the terms of the proposal.

If this goes into effect, I will never consider moving back to the KC area.

Based on what I’ve heard in the ordinance, if I knowingly rent to a convicted felon, am I partially to blame if they commit another crime in my neighborhood, at least morally? The ordinance seems to not let me take criminality into consideration. Or if they have a history of evictions, I am stuck with the choice between legal and repair expenses or fines from the city.

Section 8 is not consistent on inspections, I’ve been failed on inspection for not having white caps on toilet bolts while the news is full of unsafe housing with serious issues, mechanical and safety issues, for years. Good landlords seem to be targeted for minor things while the above apparently are allowed to continue.

It is already hard enough to evict for non-payment, damage to property, and violating lease agreements. I would not have an issue with renting to anyone with any type of voucher provided there were laws to protect me from loss and ensured complete recoupment of loss due to renters failure to pay and damages. As it is now then tenant can stop paying rent and make false claims, get a lawyer and tie up the house in court for over a year and I loose income to collection agents, courts, and lawyers, and the tenant lives there for free until resolved, and then they have so many loopholes to keep from having to pay immediately or even the full amount owed because they could just claim bankruptcy.

The inability to screen applicants as I do now is another major factor that would drive me out of this market.

This will decrease affordable options

Small family owned rental businesses feel the burden of government regulations and stipulations to do business far more than large investors who snap up properties around the area and then raise rent on normal working people. We purposely keep our rents relatively low so long term rents can continue to afford it. If we were to sell our buildings an investor could come in redo the units and double or triple the rents making them unaffordable for the lower income clients we provide safe suitable housing for.

Many changes to city policy have made doing business in KC more expensive. These expenses have been passed on to my tenants which contradicts what these special interest groups are trying to accomplish, “affordable housing”.

Bottom line is there needs to be a mutual benefit to accepting section 8. At this point in time there is none, so I will move my investment dollars out of the city if required to participate.

Small mom and pop landlord owners should be allowed to choose the most qualified tenants. It is part of their retirement income. We do not do this out of charity. We are here to create a retirement income for ourselves and our family. It is not fair to lose money because we worked hard to save up money to purchase rental property to create a future for ourselves.

I own the properties. City has no right to dictate how I do my business. Tenants that I have given an opportunity that didn’t have great records tore up the house and did not follow through on paying rent all the while driving a Jaguar! Took a year to evict.

I have not, and will not, make any real estate investments in KCMO due to their anti-landlord laws and policies.

Housing vouchers is only one component and I think there could be a workable solution, however, no screening process whatsoever is very problematic. I could not buy the home I’m renting without a lender screening process, I had to qualify in order to get the loan to buy the house to rent. I’m not sure why there shouldn’t be one for the party that rents it so that I can in turn use those rents to pay the mortgage I have on the property. The ordinance is so one sided it’s incredible.

This should be a voluntary program.

We do not own the property numbers listed above, but are property managers of the properties. It is a concern of us for the new ordinance of being forced to accept housing vouchers as well as the terms we will have to follow when declining applicants, should the ordinance pass. We feel we are very fair in our processing, however should not be forced to accept a program.

The issue with housing availability/affordability in the Kansas City Metro has been driven by bad governance at the federal, state, and local levels. This is not an investor or developer driven problem, this is a legislative and community problem.

It’s better to use incentives instead of forced compliance and fines.

Find a way to incentivize Landlords to accept Section 8 rather than penalizing them. Onboarding an individual with section 8 already takes longer than someone without. So, the Landlord is already losing rent-time there (this is a penalty). If the program truly is an incentive, it will be used. We have to remember that the world is made up of individuals. Is the city of Kansas City going to start vouching for everyone’s content-of-character?

Given the city has deeper pockets than I do, I can’t afford litigation trying to evict bad tenants who lie about nearly everything during screening.

I operated in KCK for years, and OP for years. I never considered doing business in the People’s Republic of Kansas City, Missouri. This business is hard enough without the hassle of a leftist big brother to deal with.

I screen all applicants on their track record and ability to pay for housing. It is concerning that the city is getting involved at this level as there are already fair housing guidelines in place. Seems like another money grab, waste of City resources and government overreach on the rights of citizens that are property providers.

Kansas City’s ordinances are becoming more onerous every year. My renters love me (I have a great bunch of tenants right now) and I hate to abandon them but I live in fear that the city will keep raising my costs. It breaks my heart when I have to raise rents. Guess that makes me a bad landlord.

The whole heart of the matter is housing. If the city wants to increase housing they must appeal to those who invest in housing. Added incentives will help like bonus payments for accepting section 8 tenants. Insuring broken items will be paid by city. Help with making rentals passable if rentals need repairs under 5k to pass. Special tax reductions for section 8 housing providers. The city has vacant dilapidated houses. Giving special grants to those who will purchase and fix the houses. Adding incentives if they rent to section 8 residents. Punishment will make people reconsider investing in the area especially as a rental.

Please take into consideration that Landlords are the one will lose. Section 8 or not. I lost thousands of dollars due to a Section 8 tenants who refused to pay for 8 months and had to be evicted. He had income, reference but decided to rent out his bedrooms for a brothel. Section 8 kept paying their portion but it took the courts forever to get him out. Not fair to the Landlord who still had a mortgage and the water to pay while he tore up my property. If all the scrutiny is going to be done and put in place, then maybe Section 8 should be responsible to pay for all the damages that will incuror those 3-4 city council people. However we must screen closely or the little people like myself will not be able to feed our family or survive.

Most section 8 applicants cannot pass my screening criteria. So I think I can still operate somewhat normally. However if the new ordinance also prevents me from screening based on credit, evictions, etc then I will likely sell my properties and reinvest in another city that wants to work with investors. If the mayor had half an ounce of common sense in his brain he would be creating programs to incentivize landlords instead of dreaming up more city mandates. Pretty soon the city will be telling us we can’t even manage our own properties and that the city should do it for us. KCMO has become a joke. I’m embarrassed to tell people I even live in this city!!

Penalties in the ordinace are execessive.

Our homes are especially well maintained with 24 guaranteed response on all maintenance request. Our tenants post us 5 star reviews and our vacancy rate is exceptionally low. We rent al all people from all walks of life. We are careful in our application process that we don’t rent to people who cannot afford our homes or who cannot properly maintain them. I have always said that when regulation becomes so strict that I cannot make good decisions that I will liquidate them. and invest in commercial real estate instead of residential.

Too many collection of rent problems

I will only invest in income property as long as renters meet MY qualifications which includes the ability to pay the rent and a history of being a responsible tenant or home owner.

Healthy Homes is too difficult and time consuming to reasonably manage. The landlord can have twenty tenant violations and have begun to evict and the tenant is still assumed the victim. No thank you.

My rentals are in the $4,000+ range per month. If I’m forced to accept housing vouchers for a portion of the rent, how do I verify the renter can pay the rest of the monthly rent, if this ordinance passes?

I’m selling already due to very bad experiences with judge appointed mediation. Renters took advantage of that time and moved in meth dealers for 6 months. We were shot at 4 times, .45 to my head.,machete,and 40000 in damages. So dirty we fell many times. My husband broke his neck, I broke 4 vertebrae and have had 2 back surgeries.

Are We Realy Discriminating Against People of Color

We took a look at a few heat maps on BestNeighbrohood.org and found that if we looked at areas of Kansas City Missouri that were labeled as “Most Affordable” when it came to rent, this area coincided with the same area on the the majority of race map as being primarily Black. If you consider that most vouchers will be used in areas where the rents are affordable or low enough to be covered by a voucher, and those affordable areas show the race being primarily black, how we ask you can a housing provider in these affordable areas be considered racist and discriminating against black people. If this were the case, they would not be offering homes for rent in an area where the majority race is black.

Now they may say that this is redlining, that there is an imaginary dividing line along Troost to keep one race on the west side and one race to the east. Look at the rent map and the race map and it is clearly a straight line down Troost. But how is requiring housing providers to accept Section 8 vouchers going to help with this? The higher-end rents are on the west side, yes, but for the most part, these higher-end rents are much higher than what the housing voucher will cover. To solve this, the vouchers would need to pay significantly more.

How Many Vouchers are Not Being Used

When we look at the HAKC Annual Plan for 2024, they show us that they had 13,027 on the wait list for Public Housing as of June 2023, a 24% interest from the end of 2022. And they had 17,206 on the Housing Choice Voucher Program waiting list a 5% decrease from the end of 2022. When one is on the waiting list you are waiting for a voucher to become available, this could take up to 3 years according to the HAKC. Once you receive a voucher, you are then given only 60 days to find a reasonable residence. If you can’t find a place, you lose your voucher and it goes to the next applicant.

We see several problems with this program, including lack of funding as there are between 13,000 and 17,000 on the waiting list at the Kansas City Housing Authority alone. So if you were going to force housing providers to accept vouchers, how would that secure the necessary 13,000 to 17,000 vouchers needed right now? Then when an applicant does receive a voucher, they only have 60 days to find a place that will fit their needs in the number of bedrooms, amenities, rental values, or amenities they might have if they have special needs. In 2024’s super tight rental market where ANYONE SEEKING a rental might have a hard time finding a place to rent, even at market rates and non-voucher holders, 60 days may not be long enough to find a place. And if you don’t you lose out and have to go back to the bottom of the list. One report we have seen from the Housing Authority shows about 360 or so people with vouchers in June 2023 who were not yet placed in a rental unit. And another report shows about the same number.

When 75% of the people on the waiting lists are looking for studio and 1 bedroom units. And according to the United States Census Bureau, there are only 4.5% of all units in Kansas City are studios, and only 15% are one-bedroom. So until there are smaller units built, again forcing voucher holders with 2 and 3-bedroom units would not help those with vouchers for studios or one-bedroom or who have special needs that need to be accommodated. Perhaps some of the housing projects that were proposed by developers in the past 5 years but were chased out of KC by the advocates might have helped solve this problem.

Are the “Tenant Advocates” Really Advocating?

One last thought. While all the people testifying on behalf of this ordinance and other policies passed in the past 5 years may believe they are doing good on behalf of the renters who struggle to find a place to live and to afford a place to live, are they? Every one of these policies has seen local housing providers sell out. Every one has added time and costs to the local providers who have passed those costs on in the form of higher rents, and this ordinance will be the same. We have read of large developers being pushed out.

What the city needs is more housing, any housing. To increase supply, lower demand and help house everyone that needs housing.

What the city needs is more industry, especially in our urban core that offers good-paying jobs and training programs to teach people how to do those jobs.

Take a look at the MARC Study on who owns the Metro and more and more the housing is ending up in the hands of the few.

Other Resources

• Housing Choice Voucher Comparison (search for Missouri and HAKC)
• Fair Market Rents
• Source of Income Laws Across the Country