- Attorney/Advocate Resource Center
- What's New
- Assisted Housing Preservation
- Public Housing
- Section 3 Program
- Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
- Domestic Violence and Housing
- Foreclosure Crisis
- Language Access to Housing (LEP)
- Reasonable Accommodation for Persons w/ Disabilities
- Utility and Energy Issues
- Low Income Housing Tax Credit
- Re-entry
- Resident Engagement
- Choice Neighborhoods Initiative
- Publications, Trainings, and Webinars
- Housing Justice Network
- Help for Tenants, Homeowners, and Homeless
- Support NHLP
- About NHLP
- Contact NHLP
July 2009 Housing Law Bulletin Summaries
New Opportunities for Section 3 Job Creation Under the Recovery Act and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program*
This article discusses the applicability of the HUD Section 3 program to other HUD programs funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), including the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. With the unprecedented funding levels of ARRA comes significant opportunity to apply Section 3 with new vigor to create jobs for low- and very low-income individuals and businesses. For Section 3 to succeed, HUD must make Section 3 obligations and terms clear to fund recipients, and advocates will need to monitor compliance at the local level. This article provides recommendations to HUD and advice to advocates to increase compliance and assist with implementation.
Oakland Alleges that Post-Foreclosure Evictions Violated Just Cause Ordinance
In an effort to prevent displacement of tenants living in foreclosed properties, the Oakland, California, city attorney’s office has filed five lawsuits against banks, realtors and brokers that allegedly violated a city ordinance that requires just cause for eviction. According to the complaints, the banks sent the eviction notices to tenants after foreclosing on the rental properties’ underlying mortgages, apparently believing vacant properties are easier to sell. However, foreclosure is not good cause for eviction under the ordinance. The lawsuits seek to prohibit future violations of the ordinance, to restore displaced tenants to their homes, and to reimburse tenants for their moving costs and any other expenses incurred as a result of the evictions. This article provides background and an overview of the suits.
Court Will Not Close Mobile Home Park in Absence of Viable Alternative Housing
In a victory for tenants and mobile home owners, on April 30, 2009, a California district court refused to close a rural mobile home park on tribal land, which is home to thousands of migrant and indigenous farm workers. In United States v. Duro, Judge Stephen G. Larson blocked the federal government’s efforts to close the park unless and until its tenants had safe and affordable alternative housing. The decision prevented what the court feared would have become “one of the largest forced human migrations in the history of this State.” This article provides an overview of this important ruling.
Frank and Waters Renew Their Call for Moratorium on Public Housing Demolition and Disposition
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), chair of the House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, have asked the Obama administration to act to preserve public housing. The latest effort in their ongoing campaign is a letter urging Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Sean Donovan to “impose a one-year moratorium on the approval of applications for the demolition or disposition of public housing units.” The letter also emphasizes that public housing represents the federal government’s commitment to house the nation’s most vulnerable populations and that the private sector cannot make this commitment. Housing residents and advocates should consider supporting the efforts of Mr. Frank and Ms. Waters to obtain a moratorium.
Fifth Circuit Holds Public Housing Demolition Law Unenforceable
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed public housing residents a crushing defeat in Anderson v. Jackson, holding that, in the context of the demolition of housing developments, tenants’ notice and relocation rights under the United States Housing Act are not enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The decision takes an expansive view of the Supreme Court’s decision regarding § 1983 in Gonzaga University v. Doe which narrowed court access to enforce individual rights. This article provides an overview of the decision.
Section 504 Protections Apply to ARRA-funded LIHTC Projects
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is one of the federal government’s primary methods for creating and maintaining affordable housing. However, the program has escaped compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which only applies to programs receiving federal financial assistance. As the market for tax credits has declined with the economy, the federal government is now offering direct funds to developers in exchange for unused credits through an LIHTC Exchange Program, and a Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) will provide further financial assistance to help projects meet gaps in financing. Because both programs will provide direct funding, any projects receiving funds through these programs must fully comply with the requirements of Section 504. This article provides context for advocates working with housing finance agencies to ensure that Section 504 requirements are fully met by LIHTC projects receiving any ARRA funds.
