Modifying compulsory housing for hotels and motels
Summary
HB2030 would prohibit counties, cities or towns, and housing authorities in West Virginia from requiring hotels and motels to participate in programs that use housing vouchers to place homeless individuals or families in unoccupied guest rooms. The bill applies to any program that would house homeless people in hotel or motel rooms through a voucher arrangement, and it defines both “homeless individuals or families” and “hotel” or “motel” for purposes of the new restrictions.
The measure adds new provisions to three parts of the West Virginia Code: county government law, municipal corporation law, and the state housing law. In practical terms, it limits local government and housing authority power to compel private lodging businesses to accept voucher-based placements, while leaving open the possibility that hotels and motels could still participate voluntarily.
Impact
HB2030 would create new statutory limits on the authority of counties, municipalities, and housing authorities by expressly barring them from mandating hotel or motel participation in homeless housing voucher programs. It amends the Code by adding new articles in Chapters 7 and 8 and a new section in Chapter 16, thereby affecting local government powers and state housing administration. The bill primarily impacts hotels and motels, local governments, housing authorities, and any voucher-based homeless placement program that relies on temporary lodging.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad support in the House, passing 97-0 on March 19, 2025. With no recorded committee transcript available, the voting record suggests little visible opposition at the chamber level and a generally favorable or noncontroversial reception among House members.
Contention
The central policy issue is whether local governments or housing authorities should be allowed to compel private hotels and motels to accept homeless individuals or families through voucher programs. Supporters of the bill likely view the mandate as an improper burden on private businesses and a limit on local coercive authority, while any opponents would be concerned that the bill reduces tools available to address homelessness and emergency housing needs. No specific committee objections are available in the record provided, and the unanimous House vote indicates that any contention was limited or not reflected in floor action.