In light of the nondiscriminatory purpose for which statute was enacted, a landlord may not rely solely on section 8 eligibility as basis for turning potential tenants away nor may it apply more stringent income requirements to section 8 rental applicants than to other rental applicants; federal law does not preempt statute; federal statute has no express preemption clause, does not occupy the field so comprehensively as to prohibit states from acting in the arena of low income housing assistance, and state program advances remedial purpose of the federal law; allowing an exception to antidiscrimination provisions for those landlords who refuse to use required section 8 lease would eviscerate the basic protection envisioned by statute. 250 C. 763. A violation of Subsec. (a)(3) does not require discriminatory animus, nor does it require a rejection of or disfavoring a lawful source of income, it bars statements that a reasonable listener would understand to convey an intention to make any such “preference, limitation, or discrimination”. 343 C. 31.
Cited. 45 CA 1.
Subsec. (b):
Exception provided in Subdiv. (5) for insufficient income affords a landlord opportunity to determine whether, for reasons extrinsic to the section 8 housing assistance, a potential tenant lacks income sufficient to assure that rent will be paid promptly and other obligations of tenancy will be met. 250 C. 763.
Subsec. (f):