Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Nonprofit housing developer jacks up rent as Trump proposes $6.2 billion in cuts to HUD
So-called nonprofit affordable housing developers see the writing on the wall and are jacking up the rents on the poor, elderly, and disabled renters in their projects as fast as they can, before the budget cuts take effect!
Nonprofit housing developer jacks up the rent as Trump proposes $6.2 billion in cuts to HUD
By Lynda Carson - May 28, 2017
Oakland - With the Trump regime pushing for a massive $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion in budget cuts for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), so-called nonprofit affordable housing developers see the writing on the wall and are jacking up the rents on the poor, elderly, and disabled renters in their projects as fast as they can, before the budget cuts take effect.
This way, when the budget cuts take effect, the poor, elderly, and disabled tenants in HUD’s subsidized rental housing units being operated by so-called affordable housing developers, the renters will already be locked into a higher rent, and will be forced to make up the difference when Trump’s budget cuts take effect. Or lose their housing.
As recent as May 23, 2017, the Trump regime released its detailed FY 18 budget cutting proposal for HUD that slashes funding for HUD’s subsidized housing programs by $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the budget cuts will result in the elimination of 250,000 housing choice vouchers (section 8 housing vouchers), which mainly helps extremely low-income seniors, persons with disabilities and working families with children.
Estimates with Affordable Housing On-Line claim that the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) will lose $21,427,980 million from the Housing Choice Voucher Program it is operating in Oakland, if Trump’s proposed budget cuts take effect. New estimates reveal that the OHA could lose approximately 1,565 out of 13,264 vouchers as a result of the loss of $21,427,980 in funding.
Additionally, the Trump regime wants to cut $24.9 million from Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities. Reportedly, Oakland has 77 Section 811 funded apartments for persons with disabilities, which face a loss of $94,737 in funding due to the proposed budget cuts.
According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, a proposed decrease of $465 million in funding from the FY 2017 funding level for project-based rental housing means that there will not be enough funding to cover existing contracts for all the poor, elderly and disabled renters in those apartments.
The Trump regime’s proposed $6.2 billion in budget cuts to HUD, threatens the Section 8 voucher holders, and project-based section 8 units filled with the poor, disabled and elderly renters in around 153 so-called low-income affordable housing projects in Oakland with higher rents, or eviction from their housing.
Not all affordable housing developers across the nation are speaking out against the proposed budget cuts to HUD’s subsidized housing programs. Some of the so-called affordable housing developers are already are jacking up the rents on the poor, elderly and disabled locally, and all across the nation before the budget cuts take effect in HUD’s subsidized housing programs. This way, the renters will already be locked into much higher rents and will be forced to pay the difference when the budget cuts take effect.
This is an inhumane practice and is a catastrophe in the making because most of the elderly and disabled renters are on a fixed income. They can not afford to make up the difference in rent when the budget cuts kick in. The executives in the so-called affordable housing industry that are jacking up the rents on the poor, elderly and disabled before the budget cuts take effect, should immediately consider reducing their salaries and wage compensation, instead of ripping off the poor with excessive rent increases that will harm the elderly and disabled.
Nonprofit Housing Developers Jack Up The Rent As Trump Proposes $6.2 Billion In Cuts To HUD
As recent as May 23, 2017, the Trump regime released its detailed FY 18 budget cutting proposal for HUD that slashes funding for HUD’s subsidized housing programs by $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion in budget cuts.
In an immediate response to the massive proposed budget cuts to the Section 8 voucher program (Housing Choice Voucher Program), including cuts to the Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities, and proposed budget cuts of $465 million to the project-based voucher program, the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC) sent out a “NOTICE OF TOTAL CONTRACT RENT ADJUSTMENT,” dated May 24th, 2017. The notice was sent to the Oakland Housing Authority, and a renter at Effie’s House in Oakland.
EBALDC is one of Oaklands largest so-called affordable housing developers, and is raising the rents on the poor, elderly and disabled in response to the $6.2 billion in proposed cuts to HUD’s subsidized housing programs.
The notice demands an $830 rent increase from the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA), for a Section 8 tenant (housing choice voucher holder) who resides at Effie’s House. The Section 8 renter is elderly in their 60s, on disability and a fixed income. The Section 8 tenant will be forced to pay a higher rent, or lose their section 8 voucher, if the $830 rent increase is granted, and if the budget cuts to HUD, and the OHA take effect in the near future.
Already housing authorities are with-holding section 8 vouchers because of the threat of budget cuts, and reportedly in Houston the local housing authority took back 900 section 8 vouchers from tenants.
Knowing full well that HUD is facing $6.2 billion in budget cuts, and the OHA is facing a massive budget cut of $21,427,980 to its section 8 voucher program, EBALDC still wants an extra $830 per month rent increase from the OHA by August 1, 2017, for a section 8 renter in one of its properties.
Currently in Oakland, the annual CPI rate for rent increases effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, is 2.0%, and on July 1, 2017 the annual CPI rate for rent increases in Oakland will be 2.3%, but EBALDC wants a rent increase of $830 per month, for an apartment that currently rents at $864 per month.
The demand for higher rent increases from housing authorities locally and across the nation for tenants in HUD’s subsidized housing units is happening because the so-called affordable housing developers are in a state of panic. They want to lock as many poor, elderly and disabled renters into higher rents before the budget cuts to HUD’s subsidized housing programs take effect. This way, when the budget cuts take effect, the renters will be forced to make up the difference, and the executives in the affordable housing industry can maintain their high salaries, and wage contributions.
According to the last 990 tax filing made by EBALDC for 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015, after deducting their liabilities from their assets, EBALDC had net assets or a fund balance of $23,266,360. Its clear that EBALDC does not need to jack up the rent by an extra $830 per month on the poor Section 8 tenant, or the OHA, which is currently facing massive budget cuts to its section 8 program, and public housing program.
Despite the massive budget cuts occurring in recent years to HUD’s subsidized housing programs, according to public records, on 12/31/2013 the salary of EBALDC’s executive director Joshua Simon was $115,385. By 12/31/2015, his salary was increased substantially to $161,471, plus $26,544 in other contributions. In 2013, Charice Fong of EBALDC made $92,769. In 2015, Charis Fong was paid a whopping $148,874, plus $4,466 in other compensation, despite the fact that budget cuts have been occurring in HUD’s subsidized housing programs.
Compensation For Other Local So-Called Nonprofit Affordable Housing Executives
Despite the massive sequestration budget cuts that occurred in recent years to HUD’s subsidized housing programs, and the current proposed $6.2 billion in budget cuts to HUD’s subsidized housing programs, the salaries and wage compensation of the executives in the local so-called affordable housing industry continue to skyrocket to obscene heights. This keeps happening at the very same time they keep demanding higher rent increases or income levels, for renters and the HUD subsidized housing units they are exploiting.
Eden Housing, Inc. - From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, Executive Director Linda Mandolini was paid $162,393 in salary plus $14,368 in other compensation and worked only 28 hours per week. Chief Operating Officer Jan E. Peters was paid $136,500 plus $13,177. CFO Terese McNamee was paid $133,743 plus $6,167. Director of Development Andrea Papanastassiou was paid $131,455 plus $6,618 in other compensation.
According to public records for Eden Housing for 7/1/2014 through 6/30/2015, executive director Linda Manolini pulled in a whopping $252,000, plus 19,962 in other compensation. Jan Peters was paid $210,000, plus $17,862 in other compensation. Anthony Ma was paid $178,412, plus $16,233 in other compensation. Andre Madeira was paid $166,154, plus $555 in other compensation. Three other executives were paid over $123,000 in compensation.
Satellite Housing: From Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009, Executive Director Ryan Chao was paid $163,893 plus $6,377 in other compensation. The previous year, Executive Director Arion Chao had been paid $167,000, Director of Finance Joyce Boyd was paid $81,760, Miriam Benavides was paid $85,000, Director of Property Management Analisa Anthony was paid $87,550, Director of Housing Development Dori Kojima was paid $92,000 and Director of Residential Services Patricia Osage was paid $80,000.
According to public records for Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Property Management, during 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015, Susan Friesland was paid $185,694, plus $17,494 in other compensation. Zachary Lopez was paid $170,500, plus $12,885 in other compensation. Angela Cavanaugh was paid $102,184, plus $17,918 in other compensation.
Resources for Community Development (RCD): From July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009, Executive Director Dan Sawsilak was paid $112,900 in salary plus $9,814 in other compensation, and Finance Director Peter Poon was paid $69,505 plus $1,362. The previous year, Senior Project Manager Deni Adaniya was paid $90,000, Asset Manager Eric Knect was paid $73,438, Controller Kate McKean was paid $70,825, Director of Fund Development Elizabeth Eckstein was paid $68,542 and Finance Director Peter Poon was paid $65,840.
According to public records for Resources For Community Development, during 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015, Dan Sawislak was paid $119,466, plus $38,040. Peter Poon was paid $79,957, plus $33,517. Carolyn Bookhart was paid $101,156, plus $5,103. Eric Knecht was paid $102,680, plus $9,422. Katherine McKean was paid $106,440, plus $8,846.
Affordable Housing Associates (AHA): From July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, Executive Director Susan Friedland was paid $116,660, Finance Manager Leland Chin was paid $76,514, Construction Manager Teresa Clarke was paid $84,413, Director of Development Kevin Zwick was paid $84,460, Project Manager Eve Stewart was paid $67,000 and Director of Property Management Angela Cavanaugh was paid $68,000.
According to public records, for Affordable Housing Associates which is now known as Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, from 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015, Susan Friesland was paid $185,694, plus $17,494. Miriam Benavides was paid $125,419, plus $17,494 in other compensation. Eve Stewart was paid $130,761 in other compensation. Thomas Early was paid $163,291, plus $33,421 in other compensation. Jeff Hodos was paid $154,275, plus $7,240 in other compensation.
EAH Inc. (EAH Housing), Marin County: From July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, Stephen Lucas was paid $182,197 in salary plus $6,951 in other compensation, Peggy Franklin was paid $331,371 plus $12,460, Matt Steinle was paid $162,410 plus $9,453, Mary Murtagh was paid $254,030 plus $10,733, Laura Hall was paid $186,136 plus $6,951, Kevin Carney was paid $135,667 plus $6,951, Cathy Macy was paid $132,931 plus $6,951 and Alvin Bonnet was paid $122,471 plus $8,669 in other compensation.
According to public records for EAH Inc, from 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015, Mary Murtagh pulled in a whopping $316,655, plus $23,840 in other compensation. Laura Hall was paid $255,972, plus $24,306. Cathy Macy was paid $224,382, plus $17,087. Diana Ingle was paid $203, 294, plus $17,532. Matthew Steinle was paid $199,728, plus $18,294. Kevin Carney was paid $167,924, plus $13,051.
Bridge Housing, San Francisco: From Jan. 1, 2008 through Dec. 31, 2009, Carol Galante was paid $203,860, Lydia Tan was paid $316,611, Susan Johnson was paid $255,001, D. Valentine was paid $231,615, Ann Silverberg was paid $173,319, Rebecca Hiebasko was paid $271,683, Brad Wiblin was paid $212,823, Tom Earley was paid $224,432, Corinne Morrison was paid $178,312, Thomas Casey was paid $163,939, James Valva, husband of Susan Johnson, was paid $165,097, Kim Nash-Patchen was paid $157,054, and Elizabeth Nahas-Wilson, daughter of director Ron Nahas, was paid $127,979 plus $29,075 in other compensation.
According to public records for Bridge Housing, San Francisco. From 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015, Cynthia Parker was paid $660,454, plus $87,909 in other compensation. Kimberly McKay was paid $292,611, plus $80,881 in other compensation. Susan Johnson was paid $289,244, plus $51,508. Rebecca Hlebasko was paid $$287,188, plus $93,545. D Valentine was paid $269,946, plus $87,507. Ann Silverberg was paid $262,210, plus $27,412 in other compensation. Brad Wilbin was paid $283,293, plus $96,148. Elizabeth Van Benschoten was paid $230,579, plus $28,371. Corrine Morrison was paid $220, plus $54,620. James Valva was paid $192,121, plus $37,622. Sarah Jelley was paid $161,238, plus $49,539. Susan Neufeld was paid $154,039, plus $35,532.
Meanwhile EBALDC which has a whopping fund balance of $23,266,360 during 2015, is demanding an $830 per month rent increase from the Oakland Housing Authority, for a poor, elderly, disabled section 8 tenant at Effie’s House, by August 1, 2017. This occurred just as the Trump regime is proposing a $6.2 billion budget cut to HUD, and massive budget cuts to the Oakland Housing Authority.
Estimates with Affordable Housing On-Line claim that the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) will lose $21,427,980 million from the Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8 voucher program) it is operating in Oakland, if Trump’s proposed $6.2 billion in budget cuts take effect. Estimates reveal that the OHA could lose approximately 1,565 out of 13,264 vouchers as a result of the loss of $21,427,980 in funding if the budget cuts take effect.
Indeed, despite the budget cuts occurring, its business as usual for the so-called affordable housing industry. Nothing short of a complete and total rebellion by the tenants in HUD’s subsidized housing programs can stop the so-called affordable housing industry from exploiting the tenants, and HUD’s subsidized housing programs.
As for HUD Secretary Ben Carson, he supports the massive $6.2 billion in budget cuts to HUD being proposed by the Trump regime, and has been heard from Cloud 9 recently claiming that poverty is a state of mind.
Lynda Carson may be reached at tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
>>>>>>
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This article is very misleading.
The rent increase does not increase the tenant rent - section 8 tenant rent is 30% of gross income adjusted downward for medical and other expenses. It doesn't matter what the landlord charged, the tenant always pays the same amount determined by their income.
The Oakland Housing Authority cannot find landlords to accept its vouchers and THAT is what puts the voucher program at risk.
Instead of beating up on affordable housing developers who charge below-market rents (even with the proposed rent increase that voucher rent is well below the Oakland market rents), and who willingly accept tenant vouchers from the OHA, you should be spotlighting the thousands of landlords who discriminate against voucher holders who won't even accept a section 8 applicant to their properties.
My sister who is disabled and on a fixed income almost LOST the voucher she had waited 4 years to get because she could not find a landlord who would accept her voucher. The OHA told her she had to find a place to take her voucher or they would take it back. Thank GOD one of the organizations you've dragged through the mud in this post was able to help her out and provide housing.
The rent increase does not increase the tenant rent - section 8 tenant rent is 30% of gross income adjusted downward for medical and other expenses. It doesn't matter what the landlord charged, the tenant always pays the same amount determined by their income.
The Oakland Housing Authority cannot find landlords to accept its vouchers and THAT is what puts the voucher program at risk.
Instead of beating up on affordable housing developers who charge below-market rents (even with the proposed rent increase that voucher rent is well below the Oakland market rents), and who willingly accept tenant vouchers from the OHA, you should be spotlighting the thousands of landlords who discriminate against voucher holders who won't even accept a section 8 applicant to their properties.
My sister who is disabled and on a fixed income almost LOST the voucher she had waited 4 years to get because she could not find a landlord who would accept her voucher. The OHA told her she had to find a place to take her voucher or they would take it back. Thank GOD one of the organizations you've dragged through the mud in this post was able to help her out and provide housing.
Sara Jordan is misinformed - budget cuts are real...
Sorry to say, but with all due respect, it is Sara Jordan who is misinformed.
Unfortunately, in the face of budget cuts, whether it is a for profit landlord raising the rents, or a nonprofit landlord raising the rents, during a time of budget cuts to HUD's subsidized housing programs, the renters are forced to pay extra rent to cover the cost of the budget cuts, or they have to move to a cheaper location, or they lose their housing vouchers.
During 2004, in Alameda, many section 8 tenants refused to pay higher rents, and they refused to move from their apartments in the face of massive budget cuts, and being told that they had to move by the Alameda Housing Authority.
Because of their resistance, this forced the powers that be to find the money needed to pay the landlords involved in the section 8 contracts that the Alameda Housing Authority no longer wanted to pay.
As a result, many tenants in Alameda saved their housing and their section 8 vouchers by refusing to pay higher rents, and by refusing to move from their section 8 housing apartments when told to do so.
The tenants who followed orders and moved from their section 8 housing apartments when the Alameda Housing Authority told them to move, could not move back to their section 8 apartments, and many of them lost their section 8 vouchers.
(LC)
During July 2004
In Alameda, during July 2004, hundreds of section 8 tenants faced massive rent increases due to budget cuts in the section 8 program, and over 100 section 8 tenants faced the loss of their section 8 vouchers and eviction.
Click below...
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/07/14/alameda-housing-exec-testifies-at-d-c-panel/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
During June 2004
In June 2004, the Alameda Housing Authority told 238 households that they would be dropped from the section 8 voucher program due to budget cuts.
Click below...
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/07/07/section-8-alamedans-get-a-break/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
During February, 2013
In Los Angeles, because of sequestration budget cuts, 15,000 families faced budget cuts of approximately $200 per month, meaning that the section 8 tenants would have to pay an extra $200 more per month to remain in their housing, or they would have to relocate to a different housing unit.
Click below...
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2013/13-0235-S1_pc_03-06-13.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
(Berkeley tenants lost their section 8 vouchers due to budget cuts)
Monday, June 10, 2013
Berkeley Housing Authority cuts vouchers due to sequester
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/06/10/berkeley-housing-authority-cuts-vouchers-due-to-sequester/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Court rules L.A. Housing Authority illegally cut Section 8 housing subsidies
By Lynda Carson - December 1, 2015
Click below for full story...
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/12/01/18780583.php
By Lynda Carson - December 1, 2015
Oakland - In a court ruling that affects thousands of poor Section 8 tenants in Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, Alameda County, Marin County, Contra Costa County, and millions across the nation, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles illegally cut subsidies to thousands of Section 8 renters.
During 2004, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) cut Section 8 housing subsidies for around 20,000 low-income residents without giving proper notice in advance, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared on Monday, November 30.
The “Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program” provides rental assistance to the most vulnerable members of our nation, including woman with children, the elderly, and disabled. Section 8 renters generally pay 30% - 40% of the rent to the landlord, and sometimes more, and the housing program pays the rest.
For households who are living in poverty on a fixed income, and households living paycheck to paycheck, any unexpected decrease in their housing subsidies can result in homelessness. This is why the program contains procedural protections designed to ensure that beneficiaries have at least a full year to plan for cut-backs to their rental subsidies.
The cut-backs generally result in rental increases that Section 8 tenants cannot afford, and even with an advance notice of one year, poor families often become homeless because of funding cuts to their Section 8 vouchers.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs in this case that the housing authority reduced the amount of Section 8 beneficiaries’ subsidies without providing a proper adequate notice, in violation of federal and state law. Additionally, the court reversed the grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendants, and directed that summary judgement be entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
According to court documents, the Housing Authority failed to provide comprehensible information to Section 8 beneficiaries about the payment standard change and its effect one year in advance of the change’s implementation.
Click below for the court document…
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/11/30/13-56223.pdf
It was Section 8 tenants’ Michael Nozzi, and Nidia Pelaez, along with the Los Angeles Coalition To End Hunger And Homelessness, that sued the housing authority for illegally cutting the subsidies for around 20,000 section 8 households.
The illegal cut-backs to the rental subsidies for the poor Section 8 tenants resulted in many elderly and disabled residents, including families with young children, paying much higher rents that averaged around $104 more per month, the court said.
Because the court ruled in favor of the Section 8 tenants in the class action brought by the Los Angeles Coalition To End Hunger And Homelessness, in a report in the LA Times, Barrett Litt, an attorney for the recipients, said damages would run in the millions.
“This decision should not only lead to compensation for the tens of thousands of Los Angeles Section 8 recipients that were hurt by the illegal reduction in benefits going back in 2004-2006, but also protects all Section 8 recipients going forward, wherever they may be,” Litt said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Sorry to say, but with all due respect, it is Sara Jordan who is misinformed.
Unfortunately, in the face of budget cuts, whether it is a for profit landlord raising the rents, or a nonprofit landlord raising the rents, during a time of budget cuts to HUD's subsidized housing programs, the renters are forced to pay extra rent to cover the cost of the budget cuts, or they have to move to a cheaper location, or they lose their housing vouchers.
During 2004, in Alameda, many section 8 tenants refused to pay higher rents, and they refused to move from their apartments in the face of massive budget cuts, and being told that they had to move by the Alameda Housing Authority.
Because of their resistance, this forced the powers that be to find the money needed to pay the landlords involved in the section 8 contracts that the Alameda Housing Authority no longer wanted to pay.
As a result, many tenants in Alameda saved their housing and their section 8 vouchers by refusing to pay higher rents, and by refusing to move from their section 8 housing apartments when told to do so.
The tenants who followed orders and moved from their section 8 housing apartments when the Alameda Housing Authority told them to move, could not move back to their section 8 apartments, and many of them lost their section 8 vouchers.
(LC)
During July 2004
In Alameda, during July 2004, hundreds of section 8 tenants faced massive rent increases due to budget cuts in the section 8 program, and over 100 section 8 tenants faced the loss of their section 8 vouchers and eviction.
Click below...
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/07/14/alameda-housing-exec-testifies-at-d-c-panel/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
During June 2004
In June 2004, the Alameda Housing Authority told 238 households that they would be dropped from the section 8 voucher program due to budget cuts.
Click below...
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/07/07/section-8-alamedans-get-a-break/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
During February, 2013
In Los Angeles, because of sequestration budget cuts, 15,000 families faced budget cuts of approximately $200 per month, meaning that the section 8 tenants would have to pay an extra $200 more per month to remain in their housing, or they would have to relocate to a different housing unit.
Click below...
http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2013/13-0235-S1_pc_03-06-13.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
(Berkeley tenants lost their section 8 vouchers due to budget cuts)
Monday, June 10, 2013
Berkeley Housing Authority cuts vouchers due to sequester
http://www.dailycal.org/2013/06/10/berkeley-housing-authority-cuts-vouchers-due-to-sequester/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Court rules L.A. Housing Authority illegally cut Section 8 housing subsidies
By Lynda Carson - December 1, 2015
Click below for full story...
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/12/01/18780583.php
By Lynda Carson - December 1, 2015
Oakland - In a court ruling that affects thousands of poor Section 8 tenants in Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, Richmond, Alameda, Alameda County, Marin County, Contra Costa County, and millions across the nation, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles illegally cut subsidies to thousands of Section 8 renters.
During 2004, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) cut Section 8 housing subsidies for around 20,000 low-income residents without giving proper notice in advance, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared on Monday, November 30.
The “Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program” provides rental assistance to the most vulnerable members of our nation, including woman with children, the elderly, and disabled. Section 8 renters generally pay 30% - 40% of the rent to the landlord, and sometimes more, and the housing program pays the rest.
For households who are living in poverty on a fixed income, and households living paycheck to paycheck, any unexpected decrease in their housing subsidies can result in homelessness. This is why the program contains procedural protections designed to ensure that beneficiaries have at least a full year to plan for cut-backs to their rental subsidies.
The cut-backs generally result in rental increases that Section 8 tenants cannot afford, and even with an advance notice of one year, poor families often become homeless because of funding cuts to their Section 8 vouchers.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs in this case that the housing authority reduced the amount of Section 8 beneficiaries’ subsidies without providing a proper adequate notice, in violation of federal and state law. Additionally, the court reversed the grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendants, and directed that summary judgement be entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
According to court documents, the Housing Authority failed to provide comprehensible information to Section 8 beneficiaries about the payment standard change and its effect one year in advance of the change’s implementation.
Click below for the court document…
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/11/30/13-56223.pdf
It was Section 8 tenants’ Michael Nozzi, and Nidia Pelaez, along with the Los Angeles Coalition To End Hunger And Homelessness, that sued the housing authority for illegally cutting the subsidies for around 20,000 section 8 households.
The illegal cut-backs to the rental subsidies for the poor Section 8 tenants resulted in many elderly and disabled residents, including families with young children, paying much higher rents that averaged around $104 more per month, the court said.
Because the court ruled in favor of the Section 8 tenants in the class action brought by the Los Angeles Coalition To End Hunger And Homelessness, in a report in the LA Times, Barrett Litt, an attorney for the recipients, said damages would run in the millions.
“This decision should not only lead to compensation for the tens of thousands of Los Angeles Section 8 recipients that were hurt by the illegal reduction in benefits going back in 2004-2006, but also protects all Section 8 recipients going forward, wherever they may be,” Litt said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Let me try and summarize this rather lengthy article.
Trump is bad.
One person got a rent increase (although not really).
Affordable housing execs are overpaid.
How these things connect eludes me.
Not sure why the author chose to make a one sided attack on the very organizations providing the lions share of affordable housing in the Bay Area. The outrage at their CEO's compensation is laughable. Compare those salaries to private developers and one could easily make the point these people are vastly underpaid.
And, how about a quote or two from these folks? Did they refuse to speak with you or did you not even try?
Trump is bad.
One person got a rent increase (although not really).
Affordable housing execs are overpaid.
How these things connect eludes me.
Not sure why the author chose to make a one sided attack on the very organizations providing the lions share of affordable housing in the Bay Area. The outrage at their CEO's compensation is laughable. Compare those salaries to private developers and one could easily make the point these people are vastly underpaid.
And, how about a quote or two from these folks? Did they refuse to speak with you or did you not even try?
The 2 sides to any issue are The Right Side and The Wrong Side. The Tenant Side is ALWAYS the RIGHT SIDE and that is all we want to hear on this website. The Landlord Side is ALWAYS the WRONG SIDE and that is all we ever hear in the capitalist press, which is everywhere, in print, on the radio and on TV.
As to pay of the filthy rich parasites running publicly funded housing, comparing them to private profit developers is utterly despicable and out of order. People on the public payroll should never be paid lucrative salaries, certainly no more than $100,000 a year to run large housing projects, plus full medical coverage and pension.
It is of course long overdue that the PRIVATE SECTOR BE ABOLISHED as it is the profit motive that is the cause of all our grief. With these horrific attacks on the workingclass, we just might see national organizing to get rid of the bankrupt social order in which we live, capitalism, sooner rather than later.
The landlord apologist has poor English. Instead of "Let me try and summarize this rather lengthy article," it should be Let me try TO summarize this rather lengthy article. It is also not long at all. We need all the information we can get and are lucky Lynda is willing and able to do the research and publish to this website.
As to pay of the filthy rich parasites running publicly funded housing, comparing them to private profit developers is utterly despicable and out of order. People on the public payroll should never be paid lucrative salaries, certainly no more than $100,000 a year to run large housing projects, plus full medical coverage and pension.
It is of course long overdue that the PRIVATE SECTOR BE ABOLISHED as it is the profit motive that is the cause of all our grief. With these horrific attacks on the workingclass, we just might see national organizing to get rid of the bankrupt social order in which we live, capitalism, sooner rather than later.
The landlord apologist has poor English. Instead of "Let me try and summarize this rather lengthy article," it should be Let me try TO summarize this rather lengthy article. It is also not long at all. We need all the information we can get and are lucky Lynda is willing and able to do the research and publish to this website.
Budget cuts are happening. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last. Attacking the organizations that provide thousands of affordable units in the Bay Area seems ironic. The people who you listed their salarys could easily work at for profit developers for 2, 3 and even 4 times as much as their current salaries. We all now know that living in the Bay Area and making under 100,000 per year for a family of 4 is considered low income. Attracting qualified people to these positions is difficult and I commend all the men and women working at all of the non profit agenecies for their dedication to the cause.
I'd also like to point out that a very small percentage of the section 811 voucher budget was cut as compared to the regular vouchers. For those of you that are not familiar, the 811 vouchers are for the disabled. Every person pays a different amount based on income.
Properties managed by HUD are some of the worst run I've ever seen. Everything gets caught up in the red tape of the government. Look at Golden Gate Village in Marin City if you want to see a prime example of government housing. Then go look at a property run by any one of the non profits listed and tell me that HUD can do it better.
With these budget cuts many employees will be laid off. Nobody wins in these situations. Let's just hope that properties won't be sold to for profit developers that will charge $4,000 a month for rent.
I'd also like to point out that a very small percentage of the section 811 voucher budget was cut as compared to the regular vouchers. For those of you that are not familiar, the 811 vouchers are for the disabled. Every person pays a different amount based on income.
Properties managed by HUD are some of the worst run I've ever seen. Everything gets caught up in the red tape of the government. Look at Golden Gate Village in Marin City if you want to see a prime example of government housing. Then go look at a property run by any one of the non profits listed and tell me that HUD can do it better.
With these budget cuts many employees will be laid off. Nobody wins in these situations. Let's just hope that properties won't be sold to for profit developers that will charge $4,000 a month for rent.
The fund balance of various nonprofit housing developers
For the record, with all due respect. I stand by my story...
See the most recent fund balance of various nonprofit housing developers that have been reported below.
(LC)
Eden Housing - In 2015, with gross receipts of $38,788,786 from HUD’s subsidized housing programs, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Eden Housing had net assets or a fund balance of $103,163,301.
With a fund balance of $103,163,301 should section 8 tenants or other poor tenants in Eden Housing projects be receiving any rent increases in the near future? Should Eden Housing be laying people off in the near future because of any proposed budget cuts? What do you think?
This is what will occur. The people who will have the SQUEEZE placed on them when the budget cuts occur, will be the poor tenants living in the HUD subsidized housing units, because the monthly rent being charged for the rental unit will be locked into place. The tenants will be forced to pay the difference when the budget cuts take place, or they will have to move to a cheaper rental unit, or they will lose their housing. This is how the system is set up...
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/231/231716750/231716750_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Property Management - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, SAHAPM had a fund balance of $2,608,491.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/943/943031375/943031375_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Resources for Community Development - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, RCD had a fund balance of $38,373,222.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942952466/942952466_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Affordable Housing Associates - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Affordable Housing Associates which is now called Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, had a fund balance of $10,498,088.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/943/943186770/943186770_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
EAH Inc. (EAH, Marin County) In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, EAH had a fund balance of $66,991,449.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/941/941699153/941699153_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Bridge Housing, San Francisco: In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Bridge Housing had a fund balance of $44,426,120.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942827909/942827909_201512_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation - EBALDC
Meanwhile EBALDC which has a whopping fund balance of $23,266,360 during 2015, is demanding an $830 per month rent increase from the Oakland Housing Authority, for a poor, elderly, disabled section 8 tenant at Effie’s House, by August 1, 2017. This occurred just as the Trump regime is proposing a $6.2 billion budget cut to HUD, and massive budget cuts to the Oakland Housing Authority.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/510/510171851/510171851_201512_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
For the record, with all due respect. I stand by my story...
See the most recent fund balance of various nonprofit housing developers that have been reported below.
(LC)
Eden Housing - In 2015, with gross receipts of $38,788,786 from HUD’s subsidized housing programs, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Eden Housing had net assets or a fund balance of $103,163,301.
With a fund balance of $103,163,301 should section 8 tenants or other poor tenants in Eden Housing projects be receiving any rent increases in the near future? Should Eden Housing be laying people off in the near future because of any proposed budget cuts? What do you think?
This is what will occur. The people who will have the SQUEEZE placed on them when the budget cuts occur, will be the poor tenants living in the HUD subsidized housing units, because the monthly rent being charged for the rental unit will be locked into place. The tenants will be forced to pay the difference when the budget cuts take place, or they will have to move to a cheaper rental unit, or they will lose their housing. This is how the system is set up...
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/231/231716750/231716750_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Satellite Affordable Housing Associates Property Management - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, SAHAPM had a fund balance of $2,608,491.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/943/943031375/943031375_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Resources for Community Development - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, RCD had a fund balance of $38,373,222.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942952466/942952466_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Affordable Housing Associates - In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Affordable Housing Associates which is now called Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, had a fund balance of $10,498,088.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/943/943186770/943186770_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
EAH Inc. (EAH, Marin County) In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, EAH had a fund balance of $66,991,449.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/941/941699153/941699153_201506_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Bridge Housing, San Francisco: In 2015, after subtracting their liabilities from their assets, Bridge Housing had a fund balance of $44,426,120.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/942/942827909/942827909_201512_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation - EBALDC
Meanwhile EBALDC which has a whopping fund balance of $23,266,360 during 2015, is demanding an $830 per month rent increase from the Oakland Housing Authority, for a poor, elderly, disabled section 8 tenant at Effie’s House, by August 1, 2017. This occurred just as the Trump regime is proposing a $6.2 billion budget cut to HUD, and massive budget cuts to the Oakland Housing Authority.
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/510/510171851/510171851_201512_990.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Not true when section 8 vouchers are lost and my subsidized unit that was once 950 a month and is now 2100 because the apartments see they can get the money from the government when they are already getting the tax breaks and credits on the property for providing the subsidy.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network