An investigation by nonprofit watchdog Housing Rights Initiative found over 100 instances where properties managed by Greystar in Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey, Michigan, California and Washington D.C. appear to have violated state or local housing laws.
Housing vouchers support low-income families or people with disabilities who otherwise would struggle to afford rent.
Though federal law allows acceptance of vouchers to be optional, many states set acceptance requirements. Virginia law, for instance, generally requires landlords accept vouchers unless a landlord owns fewer than four properties.
Housing Rights Initiative executive director Aaron Carr said his organization “trained an army of undercover investigators” to conduct cold calls to Greystar properties and pose as housing voucher users inquiring about renting apartments.
They asked typical questions prospective renters pose: “How much are utilities?” and “What’s included in the rent?”
But towards the end of conversations, Carr said “they would ask the million-dollar question, which is, ‘do you accept rental assistance?’ And over and over again the answer was ‘no.’”
As part of the investigation, the group created a spreadsheet with recordings of the calls. A staff member at a Greystar property in McLean in Northern Virginia told multiple callers that the company was “not set up” for receiving vouchers.
“Greystar markets itself as a provider of higher end rental housing, and my theory is that they may view voucher holders as a threat to that brand,” Carr explained.
But Thomas Okuda Fitzpatrick, director of Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, previously noted that voucher holders can represent stability for landlords, because those tenants are guaranteed to be able to pay some or all of their rent each month.
HOME of Virginia has represented Virginians in housing discrimination cases, like a Richmond couple who settled out of court after struggling to find a home due to rejected housing applications.
The organization also settled cases against Sylvan Homes LLC and College Square Apartments last year for refusing to rent to voucher users. In a joint statement announcing the settlement, College Square Apartments noted that its employees have since undergone training to ensure they understand state housing laws and prevent discrimination.
“Source of funds bias is deeply harmful,” said HOME deputy director of advocacy Brenda Castañeda. “The vast majority of voucher holders in Virginia are women, frequently mothers, and voucher households often include individuals with disabilities — vulnerable neighbors facing major obstacles.”
While the calls made in the Housing Rights Initiative investigation were feigned, Carr emphasizes they represent what would happen as actual voucher holders seek a place to live.
Cohen Milstein teamed up with the Housing Rights Initiative to bring the cases to each state’s key housing enforcement agency or attorney general.
“We look forward to this process where we will be providing any and all information that these states may request of us,” Cohen Milstein lawyer Brian Corman said.
Greystar has come under fire in the past.
Last December, the company settled a $24 million lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission and the state of Colorado for deceptive pricing on tenants’ rents.
Last November, it reached a $7 million settlement with nine states over participation in a scheme to drive up rental prices using shared rent-setting algorithms in a property management software.
The Mercury reached out to Greystar for comment but did not receive a response by the time of this publication.
Carr said that landlords who reject voucher holders harm not only those who use that type of housing assistance but also all taxpayers, eventually.
“Homelessness is extraordinarily expensive,” he said. “It increases law enforcement costs, hospital costs, shelter costs. Housing discrimination doesn’t just screw over low-income families, but ultimately screws over everyone. We all have a stake in this.”
