Commentaries at the San Antonio Report provide space for our community to share perspectives and offer solutions to pressing local issues. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the author alone.
Read more Who really pays? The hidden cost of source of income mandates
Discriminating against military veterans who rely on housing vouchers to pay rent is categorically wrong. It is a simple matter of first principles.
But a proposal to ban such discrimination in San Antonio has languished in debate for two years. It is time for Military City USA to act.
We can protect veterans from discrimination
On May 7, San Antonio’s City Council will consider an ordinance prohibiting source of income discrimination against veterans who rely on federal VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) vouchers. The law would bar property owners from rejecting a lease application solely because the applicant is using a VA-administered housing voucher.
At its heart, the proposed anti-discrimination law is a Rorschach test — an indication of our commitment to shared sacrifice. It is a bellwether of our commitment to pursue equitable prosperity over entrenched disparity. How the city chooses to protect its military veterans on this issue and in this moment will define us.
Doing right isn’t always pain-free
It is either okay to discriminate against veterans, or it is not.
Opponents of the ordinance claim that it would shrink the rental market by burdening owners with additional inspections and delayed voucher payments. Property managers and owner advocates warn that small and single-unit owners could lose the income margins that make leasing low-cost housing financially viable, ultimately harming the very veterans the policy is supposed to help.
To be clear, administrative friction in federal programs is real, and that inefficiency can be cost-prohibitive for individual owners. But opponents are allowing exceptional cases to override first principles. Whatever their intentions, allowing source of income discrimination protects the discretion and bottom-line of large property owners at the expense of vulnerable tenants.
Single-unit owners facing actual peril should be accommodated. Targeted exemptions and direct financial relief from state and local government deserve consideration. But they do not justify broad exemptions that might render the source of income prohibition a nullity.
For example, the Planning and Community Development Committee has proposed allowing any property owner with four or fewer properties to deny accepting a veteran’s application using a VASH voucher. The language introduced by the committee into the draft ordinance makes no stipulation as to the owner’s actual hardship.
Read more San Antonio arts commission OKs mural for expanded airport terminal
However well-intended it might be, such an exemption threatens to overtake the rule. How we protect owners matters. And while an arbitrary exemption is simple, it also runs the risk of legitimating discrimination under the aegis of an anti-discrimination law. Loose protections or incentives for owners cannot be permitted to open a backdoor to discrimination.
We must be willing to shoulder the burdens of reform for our veterans
Voucher-qualified veterans should not be the ultimate bill payers for problems with VASH. But veterans have not escaped the political pathology in the US of externalizing the flaws of public programs onto beneficiaries.
Veterans have no choice but to rely on the VASH program as it exists — with its administrative requirements, payment timelines, and bureaucratic friction. San Antonio must decide whether those veterans will be left to shoulder those burdens alone or if property owners, fellow residents, and local government will step up to carry it with them.
If the administrative friction of VASH is a genuine problem, industry associations can join veterans’ advocates in pressing Congress, the Trump Administration, and state legislators as well as local government to fix programs that are not working as desired.
The ongoing debate over the proposed ordinance has rallied stakeholders on both sides, cultivating meaningful discussion around local housing policy. We can leverage that energy to fight for reform and eventually make VASH a more effective hand up for our veterans. But the voucher-qualified veterans seeking housing near a VA clinic in San Antonio or other support networks need relief now — not years from now.
We must act now
We should not abide further delay in protecting veterans from source of income discrimination. Many veterans are especially vulnerable to the consequences of housing insecurity, needing both stability and proximity to care in order to succeed and thrive. This is precisely why programs like VASH exist.
So, the question before City Council is ultimately a moral one: do the sacrifices these veterans made warrant some measure of sacrifice in return? Are we resolved to protect voucher-qualified veterans at least as much as we protect the prerogatives of property owners? The answer for Military City USA must be “yes.” If you live in San Antonio, contact your councilmember and urge them to vote in favor of banning any source of income discrimination against military veterans. You can find out who represents you and how to contact them here.
Read more A nationwide liquor distributor is selling its Texas operations, affecting 372 local workers
