Source of Income Legislation Passes Michigan Senate – But Bill’s Effectiveness Is Highly Limited By Exemption

Steve Tomkowiak • October 12, 2023

The Michigan Senate Exempts Landlords Holding 4 of Fewer Rental Units - Making Fewer Rental Properties Available to Voucher Holders

The Michigan Senate, by a narrow 20-18 vote, passed Senate Bills 205, 206, and 207 to bring long awaited source of income protection to Michigan.*


Senate Bill 207 will amend the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include source of income protection. The bill broadly defines source of income to include “benefits or subsidy programs 21 including housing assistance, housing choice vouchers provided 22 under 42 USC 1437f, public assistance, veterans' benefits, Social 23 Security, supplemental security income or other retirement 24 programs, and other programs administered by any federal, state, 25 local, or nonprofit entity.” As the Senate Fiscal Agency’s Bill Analysis points out, “[t]he Housing Choice Program is a Federal Program meant to assist very low-income families, elderly, and disabled individuals in affording housing.”


Unfortunately, Senate Bill 207 exempts landlords who own fewer than 5 rental units. For several reasons, this exemption will nullify the effectiveness of source of income protections, thus failing to serve the needs of low-income families, our elderly population, and persons with disabilities.


The problem with the less than 5 rental properties exemption is shown by the data contained in a recent report by Detroit Future City, entitled “Understanding the Rental Landscape: A Profile Analysis of the Detroit Landlords to Inform Lead-Safe Housing Policy (August 2022)(“Detroit Rental Landscape”).


Page 17 of the Detroit Rental Landscape report estimates the total rental properties and units, along with an estimates of landlords owning 1-2 rental units, 3-4 rental units, and 5 or more rental units. The Detroit Rental Landscape data for Detroit* shows the following:

 

  • 141,616 total rental units
  • 95,032 rental units held by landlords with 1-4 rental units. This represents 67.11% (95,032 / 141,616) of the Detroit rental market.
  • 46,584 rental units held by landlords with 5 or more rental units. This represents 32.89% (46,584) of the Detroit rental market.

 

Approximately 2/3rds of Detroit rental units will be exempt from source of income coverage. There is no reason to believe that the percentages would be significantly different in other Michigan communities. As such, the 5 or more rental unit requirement means that the majority of rental units in Michigan will be exempt from source of income protections. 


Sadly, as to Detroit, source of income coverage will probably not even be available for the 32.89% of the rental units involve landlords with 5 or rental units.** This will likely be the result in other Michigan communities. For a variety of reasons (typically, for investment and tax purposes), property owners often hold title to rental housing in limited liability companies (LLCs), partnerships, or other corporate entities. Rental property owners could easily evade source of income coverage by setting up additional corporate entities and deeding the title to rental properties into those entities.


The 5 or more rental units exemption will increase litigation and investigation time and expense by the Michigan Departments of Civil Rights (MDCR) to resolve threshold concerning the ownership of properties to determine source of income coverage. To illustrate the necessity of detailed investigation and litigation, the bill requires the MDCR or private litigants to examine whether "person", defined as "an individual, partnership, corporation, association, limited liability company, or any other legal entity", is a "related entity", defined as "a person that, directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another person."


Further, the remaining units owned by landlords who chose to retain title to 5 or more rental units may still be unavailable if the rental rates for the units exceed the Fair Market Rent rate established by HUD.

 

Finally, to examine the number of rental units exemption in its historical context, Congress included the no more than 3 single family home exemption into the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1)) upon its enactment in April 1968. The congressional record (and text of the FHA, 42 U.S.C. § 3601) is replete with Congress’ concern as to the constitutionality of the FHA. Congress believed  restricting the number of homes subject to the FHA would increase the likelihood of the FHC being found constitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968)—holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1982 reached purely private housing transactions—was not issued until June 1968. Section 1982 has none of the exemptions found in the FHA. Id. at 415 (“§ 1982 contains none of the exemptions that Congress included in the Civil Rights Act of 1968 [FHA]”). Had Jones been issued earlier, there would have been no Congressional concerns as to the FHA’s constitutionality and, therefore, likely no such 3 single family exemption.

 

Unfortunately, the unnecessary pre-Jones exemptions continue. HUD aided the continuation of these exceptions, acquiescing in the inclusion of the pre-Jones FHA exemptions in state statutes and local agencies seeking substantial equivalency status (24 C.F.R. § 115.204(a)(4)) well after the Jones decision. So now 55 years later we must deal with an outdated exemption approach that will severely undercut the beneficial effects of source of income protections. Our marginalized, low-income Section 8 recipients—many of whom are elderly and persons with disabilities—deserve better.

 

Let’s hope the Michigan House of Representatives, upon consideration of Senate's bills, will fully consider actual effects of the exemption on the number and percentages of rental units in Michigan communities available to voucher holders and remove this exemption its entirety.


*Currently, at least 14 cities in Michigan provide source of income protections: Ann Arbor; East Lansing; Ferndale; Grand Rapids (not enforced as to vouchers); Holland; Jackson; Kalamazoo; Kentwood; Lansing; Oak Park; Royal Oak; Royal Oak Township, Saginaw, and Wyoming. Additionally, Detroit provides similar, if not broader, coverage for “public benefit status”.


**As noted above, Detroit prohibits discrimination based on “public benefit status” under Article IV, Section 27-4-1 (Selling or leasing real estate—Unlawful practices). Few Detroit residents and applicants for Detroit housing, however, are aware that "public benefit status" affords the same protections as source of income provides.

Seniors, Disability Rights, and Fair Housing

By FHCMD Staff • July 28, 2026
Many of us will experience physical changes or cognitive decline as we age. Whether seeking new housing or living in a condo, apartment, rental housing, or even an assisted living facility or nursing home, seniors with disabilities are entitled to fair housing protections. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) , approximately 2 in 5 adults aged 65 and older experience disabilities that affect daily life. Vision or hearing loss, mobility impairment, chronic health conditions, and cognitive decline are more likely to occur or become more significant as people age. Ultimately, disabilities do not have to restrict a person's housing options. Understanding Accommodations and Modifications Disabled individuals, as well as family members and caregivers assisting them, can make requests for accommodations and physical modifications. Common examples include: Physical Modifications: Installing grab bars, raising toilet seat heights, or adding visual safety features like flashing lights connected to fire alarms for individuals with hearing impairments. Rule and Policy Adjustments: Reserved parking space, granting a move to a lower floor, or permitting a live-in caregiver. Communication Support: Sign language interpretation or auxiliary aids. When a resident makes a request, a housing provider may ask for documentation from a healthcare provider linking the disability to the requested accommodation or modification. Housing providers must generally grant these requests as long as they do not impose an excessive cost or unreasonable burden. Housing providers should be mindful of ways that make the accommodation process as accessible as possible. Tenants who are not tech-savvy or who may be experiencing cognitive decline may have challenges completing an online form or using an app. Remaining proactive and offering alternative methods if a resident appears to be struggling with an accommodation process will help ensure that your accommodation and modification request process is accessible. Who Pays for Modifications? Responsibility for modification costs depends on the type of housing. While residents in market-rate housing are generally responsible for funding physical modifications, those living in subsidized or low-income senior communities may not have to pay. Landlords who receive federal financial assistance are required to fund approved reasonable modifications for residents with disabilities. (For a deeper dive into making requests, read our article: Fair Housing Rights: Knowing Your Options for Disability Accommodations and Modifications ) We Are Here to Help You don't have to navigate housing accommodation and modification requests alone—we're here to help. Contact us through our website or give us a call at 313-579-FAIR (3247) to discuss fair housing rights and questions, receive support with addressing possible fair housing law violations, or to receive help in requesting disability accommodations and modifications.

What You Need to Know about Sexual Harassment

July 21, 2026
Identifying Sexual Harassment in Housing

Fair Housing Rights: Knowing Your Options for Disability Accommodations and Modifications

By FHCMD Staff • July 14, 2026
What Every Tenant Should Know

Community Supports Most Successful Fair Housing Bikeathon Yet

By Gabby Cannon • July 9, 2026
Fifth annual event rallies almost two hundred supporters for equal housing opportunity.

The Fair Housing Center Welcomes Lisa Franklin as a New Board Member

By Steve Tomkowiak • December 2, 2025
Lisa joined the Center after nearly 30 years of experience as a wheelchair user and close to 17 years advocating for the rights of people with disabilities. In 2008, Lisa founded Warriors on Wheels of Metropolitan Detroit (“WOW”) and currently serves as its Executive Director and CEO. Through WOW, Lisa focuses on disability rights, accessibility, and community engagement. In these efforts, Lisa not only seeks to meet the critical needs for civic access and passageways, affordable housing units, and safe, reliable transportation, but strives to transform these accessibility points into cohesive design visions that impact communities for a better tomorrow. As Lisa puts it, she “makes it a priority to impact the urban communities in the cities of Detroit, Highland Park, Hamtramck, and Dearborn on compliance with the ADA and other laws, not just technically, but addressing human spirit, morals, and values.” Lisa’s civic involvement and service are broad and varied, ranging from her service on the State of Michigan’s Barrier Free Design Board for Accessibility to her services on the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Michigan and the City of Detroit’s Human Rights Commission. In recent years, 50-60% or more of the Center’s complaints involve claims of discrimination against persons with disabilities. The Center has assisted and initiated numerous enforcement actions involving disability discrimination. The Center’s Board and Staff welcome the valuable perspective and expertise that Lisa will bring as a new Board member.

Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors, Chili, & Fair Housing

By Steve Tomkowiak • August 26, 2025
Our friends at the Grosse Pointe Board of Realtors (GPBR) have invited everyone to join them at a chili cookoff event on October 15, 2025, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., at The Rivers of Grosse Pointe, 900 Cook Rd, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 . The GPBR has asked the Center to take a few minutes to explain why fair housing remains so important today. The competition will be fierce. The chili promises to be insanely good. This should be a lot of fun. Please take a short lunch break from your busy schedule to join us.

Homelessness & Fair Housing

By Steve Tomkowiak • July 31, 2025
Our lack of understanding impacts our ability to address the problem of homelessness

How Familiar Are You With American Sign Language (ASL) Requirements in Housing?

By Steve Tomkowiak • July 14, 2025
Question No. 1: As of 2021, what percent of the U.S. population are deaf or have serious difficulty hearing? 1.6% 2.6% 3.6% 4.6% 5.6% Question No. 2: How many deaf people live in the U.S. as of 2021? 3 million 5 million 7 million 9 million 11 million Question No. 3: Which of the following statements are false? A. Deaf persons do not want to speak or cannot speak. B. Every Deaf person knows ASL. C. ASL is English translated into signs. D. ASL is universal. E. ASL interpreters merely translate words. F. ASL is inferior to spoken language. G. Lip reading is a reliable or effective form of communication. H. ASL interpreters are unnecessary if a Deaf individual may write back and forth. Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services? Are you aware of the requirement of a written ASL policy and, if so, what a compliant policy looks like? If these questions are difficult, please review our PowerPoint: American Sign Language (ASL) & Fair Housing Requirements and the Sample ASL Nondiscrimination Policies (in Word format) available out our Services & Resources page. ________________________________ Answers: Question No. 1: 3.6% Question No. 2: 11 million Question No. 3: All of the statements are false. Question No. 4: What federal and state laws require ASL services? Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as the Affordable Care Act or “ACA”); Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; and many state civil rights statutes .

Motion to Dismiss Denied in Racial Harassment Case

By Steve Tomkowiak • March 25, 2025
A prior post summarized the allegations in a federal court case that was filed after numerous incidents of alleged racial harassment that drove a Black family their Grosse Point Park home. Black Woman and Her Daughter Sue Former White Neighbor for KKK Flag Display and Other Threats . On March 21, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker, after carefully reviewing the allegations in the complaint and applicable law, entered an Opinion and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Judge Parker found that the complaint sufficiently alleged racial animus in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982. The facts are deplorable, as those who read the decision will no doubt notice, and embarrassing to our community. Congratulations to the students attorneys from the U of M Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Initiative (CRLI) handling the litigation, under the fine leadership of long-time fair housing attorney and now U of M Law School Professor Mike Steinberg . Opinion and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Dinges v. Wilde, No. 23-12885 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2025)

Detroit School Integration Timeline - History of School Integration and Segregation in Detroit

By Steve Tomkowiak • March 7, 2025
University of Michigan Law School Professor Michelle Adams ’ research interests include race discrimination, school desegregation, affirmative action, and housing law. Two of Professor Adams’ students, Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri (pictured above) from Professor Adams’ Race, Law, and History course, developed a “ Detroit School Integration Timeline ”. The timeline traces the history from Detroit’s establishment of its first “colored school”, to the Dred Scott decision, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Great Migration, racially restrictive covenants, redlining, the Birwood (Eight Mile) Wall, white flight, the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, the Milliken v. Bradley decision and efforts to desegregate Detroit schools, through the recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The timeline is informative, user-friendly and includes many helpful videos. Congratulations to Michelle and Victoria for creating this amazing resource. Detroit School Integration Timeline Legal History Project: Detroit, Michigan (Law students Michelle Landry and Victoria Pedri briefly introduce themselves and thank viewers for checking out their timeline project)