- 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
Summaries of Articles from November-December 2009 Bulletin
HUD Reissues Social Security Number Rules
On October 15, 2009, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule designed to obtain Social Security Numbers (SSNs) from residents of federally assisted housing. The proposed rule would dramatically alter 24 C.F.R. Part 5, subpart B to require SSNs and other documents from assisted housing applicants and participants. This could threaten housing security for many, including eligible individuals who are homeless, elderly, victims of domestic violence, persons with disabilities and children. This article provides background and an analysis of the proposed rule.
The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act: Comparing the 2007 and 2009 Versions
The Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3045, or SEVRA 2009) passed out of the full Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives by a vote of 41-24 and was sent to the House floor on September 30, 2009, to be scheduled for a full House vote. This action is the latest of several attempts to institute the first comprehensive reforms to the system of HUD-assisted housing since 1998. In 2007, a prior version of SEVRA (H.R. 1851, or SEVRA 2007) passed by a 333-83 vote in the House, but the Senate version (S. 2684), introduced in March 2008, never made it out of committee and died with the expiration of the 110th Congress. SEVRA 2009 appears likely to pass the House, but there is no indication that the Senate has taken action to introduce a SEVRA bill this session. This article briefly describes the background and purpose of SEVRA, delineates some of the key differences between SEVRA 2007 and SEVRA 2009, describes the import of the changes, and suggests possible revisions to the bill when it goes to the House floor for a vote and makes its way to the Senate.
Ninth Circuit: HUD Voucher Regulations Do Not Preempt Local Eviction Controls
On October 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a lengthy opinion affirming the lower court’s judgment that federal voucher eviction regulations do not preempt eviction protections provided under local law. In Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC, the court found no conflict between federal regulations defining “other good cause” for eviction of voucher tenants and the good cause eviction protections of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO). The court also upheld the award of substantial attorney’s fees to the tenants as prevailing parties under their leases. This decision, along with a recent HUD policy clarification, should reassure standard Section 8 voucher holders nationwide that they will receive protections equivalent to their unassisted neighbors. This article provides an overview of the factual and procedural history, as well as the court’s analysis.
HUD Enjoined From Relocating Tenants and Emptying Building
In an unusual ruling, a federal district court in Michigan has found a likelihood that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) acted arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to have good reasons for not pursuing its statutory disposition duties. Accordingly, the court in Cheatham v. Donovan granted a preliminary injunction against relocation and failure to comply with the law. This ruling should once again encourage advocates to examine closely the rationale behind HUD’s actions, and hopefully encourage the new HUD Administration to act more carefully in managing and disposing of troubled properties. This article provides an overview of the case.
Recent Developments Show Promise for Enforcing Section 3
Several notable developments in the use, enforcement and implementation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 3 program show promise. This article summarizes three of these developments. First, HUD has begun to aggressively enforce the use of form HUD-60002, which requires public housing agencies (PHAs) and other recipients of HUD funds to report annually on their compliance with Section 3 requirements. Second, HUD recently found that Saint Paul, Minnesota, has not complied with several provisions of Section 3, including obligatory reporting via form HUD-60002. Third, in an innovative move, the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority has decided to offer Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) points to proposed projects that demonstrate that they will comply with Section 3.
Court Upholds Rent Control on Thousands of Units at Massive NYC Complex
In a stunning victory for tenants of Manhattan’s largest apartment complex, New York’s highest court held that the owners of Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town wrongfully raised rents and deregulated thousands of units. In Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., the Court of Appeals of New York held that owners who receive tax abatements under New York City’s J-51 program must extend rent stabilization protections to all tenants for as long as the owners receive the abatements. While the court’s ruling leaves many questions unanswered, including whether the tenants are entitled to repayment of millions of dollars in rent overcharges, the decision ensures that rent protections will remain intact for thousands of tenants. This article provides an overview of the decision.
