Roy brought up an interesting concept on another thread. I didn't want to hijack that thread, so bringing it here. Has anyone else ever been charged a higher premium for accepting Section 8 tenants? This really struck me odd seeing as how many places are now banning source of income as a qualifying factor. I believe it will also be this way everywhere before too long. So now, you cannot bar a Section 8 tenant, but you get to pay a higher insurance premium because you accept them (by force).

It has been my experience that Section 8 tenants do cause a higher risk. I have had a few over the years. I have one now (inherited). I don't do Section 8 anymore because my costs of repairs have always been higher for these tenants. I know not all here have had this experience. I'm happy it works for you guys, but it definitely doesn't for me.

It seems to me this won't ever back off either. If insurance companies continue going this route and government continues going this route, you'll be stuck. Complain to the politicians and they'll pass a law that insurance cannot discriminate based on this. No problem, the insurance companies will just raise rates for everyone. What a great deal!!!

When someone gets something for free, it has little value to them. Thus Section 8 tenants that get a $1,000 dollar rental for $100-$200 a month, think the value of the rental is only a couple hundred bucks, not worth investing time and energy to keep it clean, safe and in good repair. Instead they will trash the place.

With years dealing with Section 8 tenants in West Hollywood, North Hollywood, Koreatown, Los Angeles, Boyle Heights and other niches in the great L.A. area, it was no picnic dealing with Section 8. While the rent was ALMOST guaranteed each month, all a tenant had to do is call Section 8 and make a demand and if I (owner/manager) wouldn't comply, the rent would stop for 30 to 60 days until I did what the Tenant Requested. Like painting only after a 9 month tenancy. Removing carpet on a second floor and refinishing the hardwood.

Doogie,

5 years ago when I was searching for a new rental property insurance company is when I ran across this one company that was asking me if I had Section 8 tenants. I did not choose that particular company.

Most insurance companies will never admit it but I do believe they all charge higher premiums for LL's who have properties in low income neighborhoods.

10 years ago, I walked into a local State Farm office and said I have 8 rental houses that I need insurance on. The agent got real excited and he treated me like a king. Once we got all of the details worked out and agreed on a premium, he asked me for a $500.00 deposit check which would consummate my new insurance policies for 8 houses.

I left his office thinking I had a new insurance company.

3 hours later, that insurance agent called me and said "I visited your properties this afternoon and I have now changed my mind about insuring your properties. I will be mailing your uncashed deposit check back to you". I asked several times for a reason but he would not give me one.

You can draw your own conclusions here.

They day I am forced to accept Section 8 is the day I will sell all my residential rentals and focus exclusively on commercial. Right now, the residential units are still humming along nicely, in spite of the Rona. Why? Very diligent screening that absolutely takes source of income into consideration.

Politicians who pass those laws show their ignorance and/or corruption in vote buying from the poor. The reason is obvious to anyone who actually has rentals: there is more than just paying the rent. The tenant must also have a chance to be sued for damages that exceed the deposit. No job/no income = judgment proof. That is a significant risk that any sane investor will consider but politicians will ignore so they can pander to their voting base.

Now if Section 8 were to offer to pay 100% of damage repairs, we could talk about why it would be unlawful to discriminate. But until then, they can pound sand.

I have Shelter for my properties. They have not asked about who I rent to nor for copies of my leases.

While a few of the municipalities do require property managers to accept S8 or at least not consider source of income, there is not a statewide requirement in Missouri.

Even if there is a statewide mandate, however, it is easy to avoid accepting it.

1) what is the fair market value of the rent under S8? What do you charge? In my county, the FMV is well below what I charge. I had one person contact me yesterday asking if I accepted HUD, and I responded that we are open to it, however the last I checked the amount that HUD would allow for rent and utilities was below the amount we were getting for rent and we could not lower the amount we were asking nor could we violate the requirements and accept the difference off book.

2) If you do the 5-minute in home visit, you can often dis-qualify some S8 tenants. Do they keep their current home in clean and expected condition? If their kids wrote on the walls in their current home, they will in yours as well. If their current home stinks of cat urine, yours will soon as well.

3) Can they provide a reference from a prior LL? If not, and that is one of your requirements, you can eliminte them.

4) Can they turn on utilities in their own name by the time they get keys? If not, you can eliminte them.

5) Do you have an applicant who has all required funds available and is ready to move in on your first available date to move in? While the S8 applicant needs to arrange for a S8 inspector to come, then does a bunch of other paperwork, and it will take a month before you actually have a contract in place? yeah, nope! I'm going to rent to the first qualified applicant who can pay the rent and deposit, not someone who MIGHT be able to in a month. We do NOT need to hold a place empty and not getting rent so that S8 can get around to inspecting and eventually approving.

I'm sure the insurance companies do, but it would be against their own best interests to tell you that they do that.

I know for certain that my insurance costs more for rentals than it does for my own house and my homeowners insurance gives me a lot more coverage than my commercial coverage gives me for the rentals.