Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Campaign For Renters Rights Has Major Housing Victory
Fighting to win, section 8 tenants halt federal government and local politician's efforts to cut their housing subsidies.
Campaign For Renters Rights Has Major Housing Victory
Direct Action Saves 238 section 8 vouchers
by Jeremy Prickett
Campaign for Renters’ Rights and Labor’s Militant Voice
“The Housing Authority dropped a bomb on us. They told us our housing was to be ‘terminated’. They issued us vouchers for selected areas that were supposedly absorbing us. We found out that they were not. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was either fight to stay here, or be ass out- kicked out, evicted, homeless. The only logical answer for me was to fight, so that’s what I did.” Sheila, a single mother, who works full time in an office by day and as a student by night.
On June 5, 2004 the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda sent termination notices to 238 Section 8 Housing Assistance Program recipients. This would mean eviction when July rents came due. The federal funds for the program had been cut. For the nation’s poor, the escalating cost of “War on Terrorism” would mean the terrorism of homelessness. Alphonso Jackson, the new H.U.D. Secretary, stated in a May congressional hearing, “Being poor is a state of mind, not a condition.” Alameda was the first local Housing Authority to enforce this cut.
Alameda is a quiet community on an island, just across from Oakland, CA. Malika moved to Alameda for the sake of her two young children. Malika had joined the Campaign for Renters’ Rights when she was eighteen years old. She had stopped several unfair eviction attempts by her Oakland slumlord with the help of the CRR and its Direct Action tactics.
When Malika received her termination letter, she, called the CRR. An emergency meeting of tenants and CRR activists was held in their apartment complex on June 12th. The struggle to stop the 238 voucher cuts by July 1st began that day. Hundreds of flyers were distributed door to door in the working class housing complexes concentrated in Alameda west end. On Monday, we managed to flyer the inside of a special Housing Authority meeting where transfer vouchers were being issued. Our original flyer called on tenants to rally in front of City Hall on Tuesday June 15th and confront the City Council meeting.
About forty tenants responded to the flyer and met outside of the city council meeting. The tenant and CRR activists had decided on a general strategy of pressuring the local politicians. Feds are not accessible. At this first rally, we announced that the city council and mayor would be held directly accountable. No cuts to Section 8 would be accepted. We will make our homes in City Hall if necessary, but not the streets. We will not accept their excuses or their polite rules of engagement. Our goal for the night was to make this clear.
This was first meeting of the City Council since the termination notices were sent. The Section 8 issue was not even on the formal agenda. Hundreds of local poor families were facing the streets in a matter of weeks, and these liberal officials were hoping they would go away quietly. The City Council emerged from their private chambers visibly horrified by the angry faces in the audience. The meeting was delayed for over an hour. The City Council went back to hide in their chambers and called in the Fire Marshall to assess “safety issues.” We finally heckled them enough to start the meeting.
A proclamation and a parking lot were discussed for over ninety minutes. When the mayor called for a recess, we had all had enough. We stood up and demanded the housing issue be addressed. The disruption forced the mayor to eventually concede and we agreed to all meet with the Housing Authority director and City Attorney in the recess.
The tenants tore into these officials. Michael Pucci, the HA director, stuck with his position: “There is nothing we can do. Nothing can be done.” The CRR sent a member into a meeting between Pucci and the local Section 8 landlords earlier that night. High vacancy rates meant that many landlords would consider rent reductions to keep subsidized tenants. Pucci had dismissed this possibility and was completely unprepared when we called him out. It would have been much easier for him to do nothing.
Anthony, a single father, was at the first City Council meeting action with his 17 year old son. He recalled that night, and why they became part of the core activist group:
“Mr. Pucci, the City Council, and the mayor, just wouldn’t address us until we shook them up. As far as writing to Diane Feinstein and all them up on Capitol Hill, I knew that wasn’t going to work. What it was going to take was us staying in Pucci’s face and the mayor’s face. I knew if we stay on them something was going to come out of this. That’s why I was with these protests, to save myself and my son. It worked and I raise my hands up to the CRR and the rest of the people that helped us.”
June 17th, a small rally was organized at the Housing Authority office. Kenija and Malika, and about 50 others, were scheduled to receive their transfer vouchers. Inside, the Housing Authority staff mocked resistance against the voucher cuts by telling the affected tenants inside to “shake your arms, jump around, and act like you’re all really mad.” Kenija came out infuriated. She set off the small crowd outside, chanting “No Justice, No Peace!” She ended a passionate speech against the cuts by vowing to stay and fight. She tore her transfer voucher to shreds.
June 18th was the next action. Our second flyer had called on tenants to meet at City Hall in the afternoon in order to confront the mayor. Over thirty tenants marched into City Hall, chanting loudly. Two police officers tried to allow only a few representatives into the mayor’s office, but were powerless to stop the entire angry crowd from jamming inside. We demanded a meeting the mayor or another official. The City Attorney’s office was quickly locked when we entered City Hall, and the mayor and other ranking officials had left earlier. We kept up the stubborn ruckus on general principle for about a half hour, and then proceeded with Plan B. As we left, the police sergeant told us it was the first time anyone had ever occupied the mayor of Alameda’s office.
The majority of the crowd caravanned to the back-up action. We had anticipated the city officials would be conviently away after seeing flyers announcing a confrontation at City Hall. Our caravan, plus four units of Alameda PD, arrived at the home of Michael Pucci. We felt the Housing Authority director needed some special attention. The crisis at hand was too serious for us to accept that “nothing can be done.” We drove this point home by picketing his house and marching and leafleting in his quiet neighborhood.
The next morning a handful of tenant and CRR activists picketed the Ron Goode Toyota dealership. This was to expose the City Council’s current $2 million offer to expand the business in order to keep it in Alameda.
On June 21st, a delegation of Section 8 tenants and the CRR met with Pucci and his senior staff at the Housing Authority. His attitude had changed. After our house call, he was suddenly more cooperative. Pucci presented us a draft letter to all Section 8 landlords in Alameda. The rent reduction requests went out that day.
On June 25th, we gathered for a midday march through downtown Alameda. As we prepared to begin, Pucci drove up with a stack of press releases. Enough landlords had lowered Section 8 rents to restore 105 of the 238 terminated vouchers. This was a major morale boost and obvious confirmation that our struggle was working. We had no time to celebrate. Rent was due in six days for the 133 families at the bottom of the list.
Seventy tenants and CRR activists loudly took the streets of the main business district (against police orders) and marched to City Hall. The march raised the profile of the struggle. Immediately afterwards, half of us caravanned to the mayor’s exclusive Bay Farm neighborhood. We picketed her home and marched and leafleted through her wealthy neighborhood. The mayor needed to be reminded that she was accountable for actions of the local housing authority. With the actions, and inaction, of city officials still threatening to disrupt the lives of 133 poor families, we could not hesitate to disrupt the peace and quiet of the mayor’s life.
We received more good news on July 1st. The City Council and Housing Commission suddenly decided to hold a special joint meeting on the Section 8 crisis. The mayor started off by accusing “activists” of misleading tenants and the community to believe this crisis was the Alameda’s problem instead of a federal one. Tenant after tenant approached the podium to speak out against the cuts. Brenda put it best. She stopped the mayor from interrupting her by asking “how do you tell a homeless child this a federal problem?”
The council allocated city money to pay the July rent for all families whose vouchers were not yet restored. By this time, we had put out thousands of various flyers. Most of them had a box with the mayor’s phone number, urging the public to ask her why the city had $2 million for a car dealer and nothing for poor families. The result of the meeting was, in the City Council’s own words, “unprecedented”. The council claimed no city had ever made up for a shortfall in the federal Section 8 budget. This temporary “unprecedented” relief was another important victory. Our struggle got a needed morale boost and 133 families kept their housing for another month.
We started distributing a flyer announcing the good news and our next move. “The Mayor’s Fourth of July Parade” is a major event in Alameda. We would use the event to expose the city officials. Concessions had been made, but a month of uncertainty was still wreaking havoc on the emotions of threatened families. Tenants were losing sleep and losing patience. The Alameda police contacted us after seeing our flyer about the parade. Our previous tactics caused them to worry we would disrupt the parade. We accepted their offer to waive the deadline and became an official contingent.
This was no ordinary holiday parade contingent. We chanted “No Justice, No Peace: Keep Our Families Off the Streets!” Our float was a pickup truck with “SAVE OUR HOMES” painted on 4’x8’ sheetrock mounted on both sides. Children facing eviction rode in the bed of the truck, taking turns on a bullhorn with an adult making short speeches. A formation of mothers with strollers marched in front of the float. In front of the strollers, Malika and Patricia carried a large banner, which read: “Welcome to Alameda, Where the Poor and Disabled are Made Homeless.”
Groups of tenant and CRR activists marched along both sides, handing out over 3,000 flyers. The crowd along the route was overwhelmingly supportive, except for in a few wealthy areas. The loudest support came from the working class crowd at the end of Webster Street, when the infuriated mayor was pointed out and criticized on her official grandstand. The bullhorn urged the crowd to “call her up and ask how to explain to a child made homeless that it’s a federal problem.”
The July 6th City Council had the Section 8 issue at the top of the agenda again. There was a noticeable lack of “federal problem” excuses from the mayor. A division was opening up on the City Council, with several members proposing a three-month city-funded rent relief to be voted on at the next meeting. Our position was this should be voted on immediately. A lot of people would lose a lot of sleep before July 20th. Another 17 vouchers had been saved, bringing the current total to 122. Partial and temporary solutions were not enough. We announced a July 20th Rally for the Children and repeated our demand that every voucher be restored.
We met again with Michael Pucci on July 14th. He had flown to Washington D.C. to meet with officials from H.U.D. and Congress. The feds had discovered a $650,000 “accounting error” in Alameda’s favor. He informed us this would be used to reinstate the rest of the terminated vouchers. We asked for this in writing. We were going ahead with Tuesday’s rally, but concrete information would obviously affect our message.
We were still waiting for the official statement on Sunday. We were going door to door through some of the west end public housing, and decided to flyer Pucci’s house and a few of the surrounding blocks for good measure. We had organized donated food, press releases, etc… We were prepared for a protest rally, but hoped for a victory rally. At 4:00, the afternoon of the rally, the formal press release arrived. We were able to tell the media the full story of the intense and emotional struggle, which shocked local and federal officials into “unconditional surrender” on this round of cuts.
Next year’s budget is still a serious concern. Severe cuts are expected across the country, including in Alameda. During the Alameda struggle, calls were already coming in from Section 8 tenants as far away as San Diego and Fort Lauderdale.
On July 22rd, the entire 615-unit Harbor Island Apartments complex received eviction notices. This complex on the Alameda west end is home to overwhelmingly low-income, working class families. $900,000 condos are going up across the street and the Florida slumlord owners want to gentrify. The CRR got another call and we’re back in action.
Alameda Section 8 Activist Testimonials
Interviews by Jeremy Prickett, Campaign for Renters’ Rights and Labor’s Militant Voice.
May be reproduced without permission.
Malika
I first met Campaign for Renters Rights and Labors Militant Voice members back in 1998. They helped me fight my eviction over there in Oakland, and I kinda got familiar with the tactics of how to get to landlords, how to get to politicians, not exactly using the liberal approach. Getting directly into their face.
There were a lot of lessons that were taught to me during those times. We successfully won 2 or 3 evictions against my landlord alone. From that time I was living comfortably on in Alameda.
My credit was not so good but I finally found a place on Section 8. Then in July we heard about the so-called Section 8 crisis. They talked about terminating a couple a hundred families. Well, that didn’t sit well with me, so I called on the CRR and members from Labors Militant Voice and asked if they would get on the case.
I rallied up with neighbors in my building, made flyers, went to different neighborhoods where we thought people were on Section 8 and out come this terrific union of smart, strong people willing to fight for what they believe in. At that first (council) meeting when they were telling us, “hey there’s nothing we can do for you.” A lot of the key people in this fight were there when you stood up and demanded that they talk to us. You showed a lot of people what we can do. From that day on it made a lot of people willing to fight.
With our hard work and efforts we obtained restoration of Section 8 vouchers for all the families. That was a good victory for me.
It was an emotional rollercoaster, but it has changed me. I saw what numbers can do, a group of people when they put their mind to it and they stick with it, and look forward to fighting in what they believe in… it can be done.
I would like to give a special thanks out to the CRR and Labors Militant Voice and the newly formed Section 8 union people, my newfound family.
Kenija
“I got my section 8 in July of 2003. I was on the waiting list for about six years. It was very hard finding a place that would rent to section 8 then. I finally found a spot. Then, less then a year later, they sent a letter saying my voucher being terminated.
At that point, my neighbor Malika told me about the Campaign for Renters’ Rights. She said ‘I know some people who can help us fight.’ We began our crusade.
I was really feeling hopeful because of the support of my friend and neighbor who had worked with the CRR before. She told me you guys had been successful in helping her get some decisions rescinded in the past. I still wasn’t 100% sure it would work.
I didn’t want to write any letters to congress because I felt like it wouldn’t do anything. I lobbied on Capital Hill before. I met with Nancy Pelosi and other legislators in regards to other issues. I didn’t find that tactic to be effective.
The highlights were the marching and actually going to Michael Pucci’s house and the mayor’s house. This makes me feel like I can take action myself. Twenty or thirty people basically took on the government and won in about month. It showed me that I’m not powerless. I have a voice. If you fight hard enough and you’re right, you can do it.”
Anthony Jr. (17 years old)
“Last month everything started to go bad. I just got out of juvenile hall. I come home and me my dad were trying to start a new life together. I come home, and they are trying to put everyone out of their houses.
It’s kind of hard trying to start a new life when you come home to nothing. You come home to people being put out.
We received a letter telling us to go down to the Housing Authority. They were telling us about the budget. They didn’t have enough money to support the Alameda families in the section 8 program. People were at the Housing authority passing out flyers. We just decided to go to one (action). It was a good thing. I’m glad we did.
For me, fighting was a new experience. I got something out of it. I learned things.
Me and my dad, we never got a chance in a father-son relationship. We’re trying to build one now. We couldn’t really do that because this right here happened. It was hard, but we managed to pull through. That’s it really. It’s just hard.
I believe now I am going to fight to the fullest. I never thought we would win. I thought some people might get it back, and the rest would just have to leave, but we did it. We did it.
If something else ever happens like this, even though it might not be to me, I’ll be willing to fight for them. This is a lesson learned.”
Anthony Sr.
“I was one of the 238 people getting terminated. When I went to the (Housing Authority) meeting, Jeremy came inside passing out flyers. I got one of the flyers. From then on, I was with the protest.
Mr. Pucci, the City Council, and the mayor, just wouldn’t address us until we shook them up. As far as writing to Diane Feinstein and all them up on Capitol Hill, I knew that wasn’t going to work. What it was going to take was us staying in Pucci’s face and the mayor’s face. I knew if we stay on them something was going to come out of this. That’s why I was with these protests, to save myself and my son. It worked and I raise my hands up to the CRR and the rest of the people that helped us.
For a minute I didn’t think it would win. As I kept going, I saw there was a chance that we would win. They had some real inspirational cats such as J, and the others, and also Malika and the other girls. I realized that I needed to stick with it.
This was my first protesting, rallying, or any kind of really standing for something. This time I see that it really works. I’d like to be involved with a few more. This world’s got a lot offer. We’re in a rich economy, a rich world. You just got to get out and get it. Just like I got off my butt to win my housing, I should be able to win a whole lot more. It’s little more sufficient when you fight together. Know what I mean, united we stand, divided we fall.”
Sheila
“The Housing Authority dropped a bomb on us. They told us our housing was to be ‘terminated’. They issued us vouchers for selected areas that were supposedly absorbing us. We found out that they were not. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was either fight to stay here, or be ass out- kicked out, evicted, homeless. The only logical answer for me was to fight, so that’s what I did.
Prior to hooking up with the CRR, I came from my meeting (at the Housing Authority) with a list of people who were willing to fight the issue. I had took down names and numbers at that meeting. One of the section 8 staff members said something about being proactive. I stood up and said ‘How’s this for being proactive? Hey, whoever’s down for having a protest, write your name and number and I’ll contact you.’
I decided we would have protest rally in front of City Hall a week from that day. I was making calls informing all the people when and where. When I made a particular call, someone said, ‘I heard about the rally, but I thought it was at another location.’ She said, ‘A gentleman named Rob called me.’ I said this must be another group. Sure enough, it ended up being the CRR and some other people on the section 8 program.
She gave me the number and I called Rob. He told me what they were doing. I told him what I was doing, and we went ahead with the rallies as planned. I was there with a few people that showed up, with the picket signs. I see Rob’s group marching down the street with their picket signs and bullhorns, and their pots and pans, kids- the whole entourage. We hooked up that day and we never quit after that.
I’ve become so much more aware of what’s going on in the world today. I’m looking at things from another perspective. I look at things that I never really saw before. Sometimes it takes for you to be under struggle to actually identify with other struggles. Now I can identify with people from around the world. I see things on the news; I read things in the paper. I think, ‘Wow, they’re under the same type of struggle that we were.
After going through this whole experience and actually winning, I know that people can make a difference. One person can motivate another person, who motivates another person. There’s strength in numbers. When you get together that’s all it takes. A small group of people can make a decision that they’re not going to stand for something and take action.
The fact that was we actually took action. Not just sitting home typing up letters, that wasn’t enough. I see that it can be done.
More at http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
Direct Action Saves 238 section 8 vouchers
by Jeremy Prickett
Campaign for Renters’ Rights and Labor’s Militant Voice
“The Housing Authority dropped a bomb on us. They told us our housing was to be ‘terminated’. They issued us vouchers for selected areas that were supposedly absorbing us. We found out that they were not. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was either fight to stay here, or be ass out- kicked out, evicted, homeless. The only logical answer for me was to fight, so that’s what I did.” Sheila, a single mother, who works full time in an office by day and as a student by night.
On June 5, 2004 the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda sent termination notices to 238 Section 8 Housing Assistance Program recipients. This would mean eviction when July rents came due. The federal funds for the program had been cut. For the nation’s poor, the escalating cost of “War on Terrorism” would mean the terrorism of homelessness. Alphonso Jackson, the new H.U.D. Secretary, stated in a May congressional hearing, “Being poor is a state of mind, not a condition.” Alameda was the first local Housing Authority to enforce this cut.
Alameda is a quiet community on an island, just across from Oakland, CA. Malika moved to Alameda for the sake of her two young children. Malika had joined the Campaign for Renters’ Rights when she was eighteen years old. She had stopped several unfair eviction attempts by her Oakland slumlord with the help of the CRR and its Direct Action tactics.
When Malika received her termination letter, she, called the CRR. An emergency meeting of tenants and CRR activists was held in their apartment complex on June 12th. The struggle to stop the 238 voucher cuts by July 1st began that day. Hundreds of flyers were distributed door to door in the working class housing complexes concentrated in Alameda west end. On Monday, we managed to flyer the inside of a special Housing Authority meeting where transfer vouchers were being issued. Our original flyer called on tenants to rally in front of City Hall on Tuesday June 15th and confront the City Council meeting.
About forty tenants responded to the flyer and met outside of the city council meeting. The tenant and CRR activists had decided on a general strategy of pressuring the local politicians. Feds are not accessible. At this first rally, we announced that the city council and mayor would be held directly accountable. No cuts to Section 8 would be accepted. We will make our homes in City Hall if necessary, but not the streets. We will not accept their excuses or their polite rules of engagement. Our goal for the night was to make this clear.
This was first meeting of the City Council since the termination notices were sent. The Section 8 issue was not even on the formal agenda. Hundreds of local poor families were facing the streets in a matter of weeks, and these liberal officials were hoping they would go away quietly. The City Council emerged from their private chambers visibly horrified by the angry faces in the audience. The meeting was delayed for over an hour. The City Council went back to hide in their chambers and called in the Fire Marshall to assess “safety issues.” We finally heckled them enough to start the meeting.
A proclamation and a parking lot were discussed for over ninety minutes. When the mayor called for a recess, we had all had enough. We stood up and demanded the housing issue be addressed. The disruption forced the mayor to eventually concede and we agreed to all meet with the Housing Authority director and City Attorney in the recess.
The tenants tore into these officials. Michael Pucci, the HA director, stuck with his position: “There is nothing we can do. Nothing can be done.” The CRR sent a member into a meeting between Pucci and the local Section 8 landlords earlier that night. High vacancy rates meant that many landlords would consider rent reductions to keep subsidized tenants. Pucci had dismissed this possibility and was completely unprepared when we called him out. It would have been much easier for him to do nothing.
Anthony, a single father, was at the first City Council meeting action with his 17 year old son. He recalled that night, and why they became part of the core activist group:
“Mr. Pucci, the City Council, and the mayor, just wouldn’t address us until we shook them up. As far as writing to Diane Feinstein and all them up on Capitol Hill, I knew that wasn’t going to work. What it was going to take was us staying in Pucci’s face and the mayor’s face. I knew if we stay on them something was going to come out of this. That’s why I was with these protests, to save myself and my son. It worked and I raise my hands up to the CRR and the rest of the people that helped us.”
June 17th, a small rally was organized at the Housing Authority office. Kenija and Malika, and about 50 others, were scheduled to receive their transfer vouchers. Inside, the Housing Authority staff mocked resistance against the voucher cuts by telling the affected tenants inside to “shake your arms, jump around, and act like you’re all really mad.” Kenija came out infuriated. She set off the small crowd outside, chanting “No Justice, No Peace!” She ended a passionate speech against the cuts by vowing to stay and fight. She tore her transfer voucher to shreds.
June 18th was the next action. Our second flyer had called on tenants to meet at City Hall in the afternoon in order to confront the mayor. Over thirty tenants marched into City Hall, chanting loudly. Two police officers tried to allow only a few representatives into the mayor’s office, but were powerless to stop the entire angry crowd from jamming inside. We demanded a meeting the mayor or another official. The City Attorney’s office was quickly locked when we entered City Hall, and the mayor and other ranking officials had left earlier. We kept up the stubborn ruckus on general principle for about a half hour, and then proceeded with Plan B. As we left, the police sergeant told us it was the first time anyone had ever occupied the mayor of Alameda’s office.
The majority of the crowd caravanned to the back-up action. We had anticipated the city officials would be conviently away after seeing flyers announcing a confrontation at City Hall. Our caravan, plus four units of Alameda PD, arrived at the home of Michael Pucci. We felt the Housing Authority director needed some special attention. The crisis at hand was too serious for us to accept that “nothing can be done.” We drove this point home by picketing his house and marching and leafleting in his quiet neighborhood.
The next morning a handful of tenant and CRR activists picketed the Ron Goode Toyota dealership. This was to expose the City Council’s current $2 million offer to expand the business in order to keep it in Alameda.
On June 21st, a delegation of Section 8 tenants and the CRR met with Pucci and his senior staff at the Housing Authority. His attitude had changed. After our house call, he was suddenly more cooperative. Pucci presented us a draft letter to all Section 8 landlords in Alameda. The rent reduction requests went out that day.
On June 25th, we gathered for a midday march through downtown Alameda. As we prepared to begin, Pucci drove up with a stack of press releases. Enough landlords had lowered Section 8 rents to restore 105 of the 238 terminated vouchers. This was a major morale boost and obvious confirmation that our struggle was working. We had no time to celebrate. Rent was due in six days for the 133 families at the bottom of the list.
Seventy tenants and CRR activists loudly took the streets of the main business district (against police orders) and marched to City Hall. The march raised the profile of the struggle. Immediately afterwards, half of us caravanned to the mayor’s exclusive Bay Farm neighborhood. We picketed her home and marched and leafleted through her wealthy neighborhood. The mayor needed to be reminded that she was accountable for actions of the local housing authority. With the actions, and inaction, of city officials still threatening to disrupt the lives of 133 poor families, we could not hesitate to disrupt the peace and quiet of the mayor’s life.
We received more good news on July 1st. The City Council and Housing Commission suddenly decided to hold a special joint meeting on the Section 8 crisis. The mayor started off by accusing “activists” of misleading tenants and the community to believe this crisis was the Alameda’s problem instead of a federal one. Tenant after tenant approached the podium to speak out against the cuts. Brenda put it best. She stopped the mayor from interrupting her by asking “how do you tell a homeless child this a federal problem?”
The council allocated city money to pay the July rent for all families whose vouchers were not yet restored. By this time, we had put out thousands of various flyers. Most of them had a box with the mayor’s phone number, urging the public to ask her why the city had $2 million for a car dealer and nothing for poor families. The result of the meeting was, in the City Council’s own words, “unprecedented”. The council claimed no city had ever made up for a shortfall in the federal Section 8 budget. This temporary “unprecedented” relief was another important victory. Our struggle got a needed morale boost and 133 families kept their housing for another month.
We started distributing a flyer announcing the good news and our next move. “The Mayor’s Fourth of July Parade” is a major event in Alameda. We would use the event to expose the city officials. Concessions had been made, but a month of uncertainty was still wreaking havoc on the emotions of threatened families. Tenants were losing sleep and losing patience. The Alameda police contacted us after seeing our flyer about the parade. Our previous tactics caused them to worry we would disrupt the parade. We accepted their offer to waive the deadline and became an official contingent.
This was no ordinary holiday parade contingent. We chanted “No Justice, No Peace: Keep Our Families Off the Streets!” Our float was a pickup truck with “SAVE OUR HOMES” painted on 4’x8’ sheetrock mounted on both sides. Children facing eviction rode in the bed of the truck, taking turns on a bullhorn with an adult making short speeches. A formation of mothers with strollers marched in front of the float. In front of the strollers, Malika and Patricia carried a large banner, which read: “Welcome to Alameda, Where the Poor and Disabled are Made Homeless.”
Groups of tenant and CRR activists marched along both sides, handing out over 3,000 flyers. The crowd along the route was overwhelmingly supportive, except for in a few wealthy areas. The loudest support came from the working class crowd at the end of Webster Street, when the infuriated mayor was pointed out and criticized on her official grandstand. The bullhorn urged the crowd to “call her up and ask how to explain to a child made homeless that it’s a federal problem.”
The July 6th City Council had the Section 8 issue at the top of the agenda again. There was a noticeable lack of “federal problem” excuses from the mayor. A division was opening up on the City Council, with several members proposing a three-month city-funded rent relief to be voted on at the next meeting. Our position was this should be voted on immediately. A lot of people would lose a lot of sleep before July 20th. Another 17 vouchers had been saved, bringing the current total to 122. Partial and temporary solutions were not enough. We announced a July 20th Rally for the Children and repeated our demand that every voucher be restored.
We met again with Michael Pucci on July 14th. He had flown to Washington D.C. to meet with officials from H.U.D. and Congress. The feds had discovered a $650,000 “accounting error” in Alameda’s favor. He informed us this would be used to reinstate the rest of the terminated vouchers. We asked for this in writing. We were going ahead with Tuesday’s rally, but concrete information would obviously affect our message.
We were still waiting for the official statement on Sunday. We were going door to door through some of the west end public housing, and decided to flyer Pucci’s house and a few of the surrounding blocks for good measure. We had organized donated food, press releases, etc… We were prepared for a protest rally, but hoped for a victory rally. At 4:00, the afternoon of the rally, the formal press release arrived. We were able to tell the media the full story of the intense and emotional struggle, which shocked local and federal officials into “unconditional surrender” on this round of cuts.
Next year’s budget is still a serious concern. Severe cuts are expected across the country, including in Alameda. During the Alameda struggle, calls were already coming in from Section 8 tenants as far away as San Diego and Fort Lauderdale.
On July 22rd, the entire 615-unit Harbor Island Apartments complex received eviction notices. This complex on the Alameda west end is home to overwhelmingly low-income, working class families. $900,000 condos are going up across the street and the Florida slumlord owners want to gentrify. The CRR got another call and we’re back in action.
Alameda Section 8 Activist Testimonials
Interviews by Jeremy Prickett, Campaign for Renters’ Rights and Labor’s Militant Voice.
May be reproduced without permission.
Malika
I first met Campaign for Renters Rights and Labors Militant Voice members back in 1998. They helped me fight my eviction over there in Oakland, and I kinda got familiar with the tactics of how to get to landlords, how to get to politicians, not exactly using the liberal approach. Getting directly into their face.
There were a lot of lessons that were taught to me during those times. We successfully won 2 or 3 evictions against my landlord alone. From that time I was living comfortably on in Alameda.
My credit was not so good but I finally found a place on Section 8. Then in July we heard about the so-called Section 8 crisis. They talked about terminating a couple a hundred families. Well, that didn’t sit well with me, so I called on the CRR and members from Labors Militant Voice and asked if they would get on the case.
I rallied up with neighbors in my building, made flyers, went to different neighborhoods where we thought people were on Section 8 and out come this terrific union of smart, strong people willing to fight for what they believe in. At that first (council) meeting when they were telling us, “hey there’s nothing we can do for you.” A lot of the key people in this fight were there when you stood up and demanded that they talk to us. You showed a lot of people what we can do. From that day on it made a lot of people willing to fight.
With our hard work and efforts we obtained restoration of Section 8 vouchers for all the families. That was a good victory for me.
It was an emotional rollercoaster, but it has changed me. I saw what numbers can do, a group of people when they put their mind to it and they stick with it, and look forward to fighting in what they believe in… it can be done.
I would like to give a special thanks out to the CRR and Labors Militant Voice and the newly formed Section 8 union people, my newfound family.
Kenija
“I got my section 8 in July of 2003. I was on the waiting list for about six years. It was very hard finding a place that would rent to section 8 then. I finally found a spot. Then, less then a year later, they sent a letter saying my voucher being terminated.
At that point, my neighbor Malika told me about the Campaign for Renters’ Rights. She said ‘I know some people who can help us fight.’ We began our crusade.
I was really feeling hopeful because of the support of my friend and neighbor who had worked with the CRR before. She told me you guys had been successful in helping her get some decisions rescinded in the past. I still wasn’t 100% sure it would work.
I didn’t want to write any letters to congress because I felt like it wouldn’t do anything. I lobbied on Capital Hill before. I met with Nancy Pelosi and other legislators in regards to other issues. I didn’t find that tactic to be effective.
The highlights were the marching and actually going to Michael Pucci’s house and the mayor’s house. This makes me feel like I can take action myself. Twenty or thirty people basically took on the government and won in about month. It showed me that I’m not powerless. I have a voice. If you fight hard enough and you’re right, you can do it.”
Anthony Jr. (17 years old)
“Last month everything started to go bad. I just got out of juvenile hall. I come home and me my dad were trying to start a new life together. I come home, and they are trying to put everyone out of their houses.
It’s kind of hard trying to start a new life when you come home to nothing. You come home to people being put out.
We received a letter telling us to go down to the Housing Authority. They were telling us about the budget. They didn’t have enough money to support the Alameda families in the section 8 program. People were at the Housing authority passing out flyers. We just decided to go to one (action). It was a good thing. I’m glad we did.
For me, fighting was a new experience. I got something out of it. I learned things.
Me and my dad, we never got a chance in a father-son relationship. We’re trying to build one now. We couldn’t really do that because this right here happened. It was hard, but we managed to pull through. That’s it really. It’s just hard.
I believe now I am going to fight to the fullest. I never thought we would win. I thought some people might get it back, and the rest would just have to leave, but we did it. We did it.
If something else ever happens like this, even though it might not be to me, I’ll be willing to fight for them. This is a lesson learned.”
Anthony Sr.
“I was one of the 238 people getting terminated. When I went to the (Housing Authority) meeting, Jeremy came inside passing out flyers. I got one of the flyers. From then on, I was with the protest.
Mr. Pucci, the City Council, and the mayor, just wouldn’t address us until we shook them up. As far as writing to Diane Feinstein and all them up on Capitol Hill, I knew that wasn’t going to work. What it was going to take was us staying in Pucci’s face and the mayor’s face. I knew if we stay on them something was going to come out of this. That’s why I was with these protests, to save myself and my son. It worked and I raise my hands up to the CRR and the rest of the people that helped us.
For a minute I didn’t think it would win. As I kept going, I saw there was a chance that we would win. They had some real inspirational cats such as J, and the others, and also Malika and the other girls. I realized that I needed to stick with it.
This was my first protesting, rallying, or any kind of really standing for something. This time I see that it really works. I’d like to be involved with a few more. This world’s got a lot offer. We’re in a rich economy, a rich world. You just got to get out and get it. Just like I got off my butt to win my housing, I should be able to win a whole lot more. It’s little more sufficient when you fight together. Know what I mean, united we stand, divided we fall.”
Sheila
“The Housing Authority dropped a bomb on us. They told us our housing was to be ‘terminated’. They issued us vouchers for selected areas that were supposedly absorbing us. We found out that they were not. We were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It was either fight to stay here, or be ass out- kicked out, evicted, homeless. The only logical answer for me was to fight, so that’s what I did.
Prior to hooking up with the CRR, I came from my meeting (at the Housing Authority) with a list of people who were willing to fight the issue. I had took down names and numbers at that meeting. One of the section 8 staff members said something about being proactive. I stood up and said ‘How’s this for being proactive? Hey, whoever’s down for having a protest, write your name and number and I’ll contact you.’
I decided we would have protest rally in front of City Hall a week from that day. I was making calls informing all the people when and where. When I made a particular call, someone said, ‘I heard about the rally, but I thought it was at another location.’ She said, ‘A gentleman named Rob called me.’ I said this must be another group. Sure enough, it ended up being the CRR and some other people on the section 8 program.
She gave me the number and I called Rob. He told me what they were doing. I told him what I was doing, and we went ahead with the rallies as planned. I was there with a few people that showed up, with the picket signs. I see Rob’s group marching down the street with their picket signs and bullhorns, and their pots and pans, kids- the whole entourage. We hooked up that day and we never quit after that.
I’ve become so much more aware of what’s going on in the world today. I’m looking at things from another perspective. I look at things that I never really saw before. Sometimes it takes for you to be under struggle to actually identify with other struggles. Now I can identify with people from around the world. I see things on the news; I read things in the paper. I think, ‘Wow, they’re under the same type of struggle that we were.
After going through this whole experience and actually winning, I know that people can make a difference. One person can motivate another person, who motivates another person. There’s strength in numbers. When you get together that’s all it takes. A small group of people can make a decision that they’re not going to stand for something and take action.
The fact that was we actually took action. Not just sitting home typing up letters, that wasn’t enough. I see that it can be done.
More at http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.com
For more information:
http://www.laborsmilitantvoice.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Best wishes to you all! Poor people of all races are being gentrified out of housing and power by the rich developers and landlords holding all the cards. Remember to vote, 'cause they're trying to get the poor and middle class influence out for the monied class- the ones who have health insurance and security as a second thought. Just goes to show you, Northern California isn't a gimme for people's rights unless they have the cash to pay off someone in politics. Vote accordingly.
Excuse me for just a moment...
As usual the CRR/Labors Militant Voice forgets to mention a few details as it takes credit for the hard work of others that worked behind the scenes to save the vouchers of the Alameda Section 8 renters during the recent crisis.
No one is saying that the need for protests taking place to turn up the heat is not helpful, but the CRR has failed to mention the people smart enough behind the scenes that actually figured out how to transfer money from the Home Fund Program to those in the Section 8 Program in Alameda to pay the rents for their housing while the crisis took place, which gave Michael Pucci enough time to get to Washington for the $650,000 for the vouchers.
Sometimes it actually takes a little more than protests and noise to do some problem solving, and it definitely took abit more than some protests and noise to solve the crisis involving the Section 8 renters of Alameda.
It was disingenuous of the CRR to take credit for the hard work of others or the Section 8 renters that refused to move after being told to go away...
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
510/763-1085
See below for detailed e-mails of behind the scenes activities that the CRR failed to bring to your attention...
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:51 PM
To: Luz Buitrago; 'Benjamin Gould'; 'Catherine M. Bishop'; 'Ariella
Hyman'; Raquel Kuronen; 'Mona Breed'; 'Fred Nisen'; 'Bettina
Neuefeind';
'Laura Lane (E-mail)'; 'Dara Schur'; 'Bill Simpich (E-mail)';
'Stephanie Kurteff'; 'Noah Zinner'; 'Kathleen Patricia Reilley'; 'Phillip Morgan';
'Meliah Thomas'; 'Virginia Knowlton (E-mail)'; 'Sharon Jemal (E-mail)';
'Mike Rawson2 (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Michael Froehlich'; 'Shawn Wilson (E-mail)'; 'Rachel Richman
(E-mail)'; Alice Supv BOS Dist 3 Lai-Bitker (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Section 8-up-date of Meeting with City &
Importance: High
Hi Everyone,
Things have moved very quickly. A group of us, Mike Rawson, BALA
folks, Fred Nisen,PAI, Cathy Bishop, and I met with Mike Pucci, City Manger James Flint, and Deputy City Attorney Teresa Highsmith. This is a very brief summary of the meeting so that we can start getting the word out to tenants of good news.
You all know that on Friday, the HA had rescinded about 105 vouchers.
You also know that on Friday they were looking at using HOME funds to pay one month's subsidy payment to landlords who have contracts affecting the remaining 134 vouchers. AT our meeting, we confirmed that HA will be proposing this to City Council at a special meeting that will be held July1. City Council will have to approve the plan and thus until the
actual meeting one cannot guarantee that they will adopt the plan and that the funding will be there. But the assessment is that they will.
At the meeting, we requested that HA immediately write a letter to
landlords and letter to tenants. The letter to landlords will give them
direction re what is happening and we hope indicate what they should or should not do. The letter to tenants will advice them of what is happening, and because there is no guarantee until the City Council votes on this, will probably be a little wishy washy re that tenants should not move. HA has agreed to send these letters to LCFF and BALA so that we can provide them with comments re context. We will also see if the letters can be translated into key languages spoken other than English by T. But because of the timing issues this may not happen.
We also got them to agree to list BALA on the tenant letter so that
tenants know where to go to get help explaining the complicated mess...which in essence is that the HAP contracts will still be terminated because HOME canno apparently cannot be used in conjunction with Section 8 Voucher.
However, because landlords will get money they should not be able to
evict tenants for non-payment or HAP termination. Landlords will have to
regulatory agreements with HA. If and when HUD releases funding
tenants will be placed back on Section 8.
Following Needs to Happen:
1. Short-term (immediate) action is to get the use of HOME money
approved, get notices to LL and Tenants. This will buy tenants through August. So does not resolve the problem, but gives everyone enough time to work on the next short term goal. City Council should get faxes encouraging them to take action and thanking them in advance of the JUly 1 meeting. I assume folks will be at the special meeting to show support for this effort.
2. Short-term second goal: getting HUD to release at least some of the
money from different funding sources. Getting the governor involved
and increasing congressional pressure key. Because there have been efforts focusing on the broader problem rather than on Alameda, problem, focus needs to be on help Alameda and other agencies facing crisis right now. LCFF will follow up to see if Burton was successful in getting Governor to be involved. Also, Judge Bartaloni was going to use his personal contacts with Burton to make sure that these efforts highlight Alameda problems. We also need congressional folks step up pressure. Perhaps faxes or calls in this regard will help. Pete Stark's office was going to follow on this.
3. Longer-term (still short-term) focus on getting HUD to change its
use of the formula using for Budgets. Same as above. But if get HUD to
correct miscalculations and to replenish or refund reserves, the crisis could be controlled. Strategies same as above.
4. Of course there is the litigation angle against HUD, but because of
nature of lit. the political approach is key right now. City agreed
to consider possibility if necessary. And of course, some of us are
interested in pursuing if necessary and makes sense.
Folks who were at the meeting should add anything I missed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:00 PM
To: Luz Buitrago; 'Benjamin Gould'; 'Catherine M. Bishop'; 'Ariella
Hyman'; Raquel Kuronen; 'Mona Breed'; 'Fred Nisen'; 'Bettina
Neuefeind';
'Laura Lane (E-mail)'; 'Dara Schur'; 'Bill Simpich (E-mail)';
'Stephanie
Kurteff'; 'Noah Zinner'; 'Kathleen Patricia Reilley'; 'Phillip Morgan';
'Meliah Thomas'; 'Virginia Knowlton (E-mail)'; 'Sharon Jemal (E-mail)';
Mike Rawson2 (E-mail)
Cc: 'Michael Froehlich'; 'Shawn Wilson (E-mail)'; 'Rachel Richman
(E-mail)'; Luz Buitrago
Subject: RE: Section 8-up-date of Meeting with City &
After I finshed the last E-mail, we heard from James Flynt, city
manager.This is the deal:
Flynt, City Atty, Mike Pucci can meet with us on Tuesday. He has an
assistant that will be getting dates from Carol and Pucci. Please if
you can keep Tuesday open so that you can joing the meeting. We will let you know as soon as we know Carol's and Pucci's schedule.
They have scheduled a special City council meeting for July 1 7:30.
This issue will be the first issue on the agenda.
Mayor Johson is in DC with other Mayors. Not sure whether individually
meeting with Jackson.
The below message gives you some other details that are great news.
Luz
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:43 PM
To: 'Benjamin Gould'; Catherine M. Bishop; Ariella Hyman; Raquel
Kuronen; Mona Breed; Fred Nisen; Bettina Neuefeind; Laura Lane
(E-mail);
Dara Schur; Bill Simpich (E-mail); Stephanie Kurteff; Noah Zinner;
Kathleen Patricia Reilley; Phillip Morgan; Meliah Thomas; Virginia
Knowlton (E-mail); Sharon Jemal (E-mail)
Cc: Michael Froehlich; Shawn Wilson (E-mail); Rachel Richman (E-mail)
Subject: Some important Up-dates.
Hi Everyone,
It seems that some of our efforts are starting to pay off. We will be
sending via separate E-mail the letters and memos that went to the City
and Congressional folks.
I spoke to Judge Bartalini, Chair of the HA, and to Mike Puccii
(separate calls). They are beginning to find the funding to rescind notices and as off today have started to rescind 15 notices. They have found $ by brokering a deal with Martinez HA regarding Section 8 vouchers that Alameda was paying for. In addition, they did seek HOME funding--about $130--think that they weill get it. This will cover more vouchers. If HA gets, Pucci thinks will be able to rescind all other terminations (not clear includes overleased since Pucci was running out of the office when we spoke). The HOME funds will cover one months payment, but because HOME cannot be used in conjunction with Section 8, the terminations themselves will not be rescinded, but the LL's would be paid, if thinks worked out by August, those voucher holders would be reinstated. Details re how this will work not clear.
The Deputy City Atty is doing a research memo on potential use of
Redev. funds. Problem is that $$ had already been set aside for certain
projects.
I told Pucci that all of this was great, but that they should still
consider rescinding all vouchers even if they do not find funding. One Ra. being that some tenants at risk due to miscalculations. He did not say I was crazy, and did not say out of the question, but of course this would be tough for th em to do.
They will have a better sense next week about all of this.
He talked to the new HCD Director--Lucetta Dunn (sp.) they said
governor aware of problem HUD is creating. Apparently, Gov. has DC office and they have been working on this...of course not focusing on Alameda.
We still need to push for recission of all vouchers, even if short of
funds. And of course if all of this happens strategize re going against HUD.
BALA...you may want to check in with HA to see if your clients are
among those folks who will receive rescission notices. Pucci said he would
be glad to look at this next week.
*********
June 24, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE
AT (510) 523-1952
Judge Bartaloni
Re: Meeting with Alameda City Officials
Dear Judge Bartaloni:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with advocates from the Law Center for Families (“LCFF”) and Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) on June 21, 2004 regarding the Section 8 funding crisis in Alameda. LCFF and BayLegal have been working closely with other housing advocates from the National Housing Law Project and the Public Interest Law Project on developing strategies to address this dire problem. As we discussed, we would like to meet with the city officials to discuss action that they can take and how we can work collaboratively to remedy this crisis (advocates have already communicated with congressional, state and local representatives). Therefore, we greatly appreciate your offer to facilitate such a meeting. Our Director, Luz Buitrago, received your message indicating that the City Manager, James Flint, would put a meeting on the city’s calendar as soon as he receives the proposed Agenda. The proposed Agenda for the meeting is attached and we will be sending a copy of this letter and the Agenda to Mr. Flint as well. As the Section 8 terminations are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2004, we would like to meet as soon as possible.
In order that the meeting be as productive as possible, we would like to request that Mayor Johnson, the members of the City Council (or at least some members), Michael Pucci or James Flint, and City Attorney, Carol Korade be present. We also recommend that the Mayor and other officials consider taking some of the suggested action mentioned in the Agenda even before we meet, as some suggestions require coordination. For example, if possible, Mayor Johnson should take steps to schedule a personal meeting with Secretary Jackson as soon as possible.
Thank you so much for your assistance and we look forward to meeting with everyone.
Sincerely,
Raquel M. Kuronen
Encl.
cc: City Manager, James Flint
*********
June 25, 2004
URGENT
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congresspersons Pelosi, Lee and Stark:
Delivered by Facsimile: 202-228-3954; 415-956-6701; 510-763-6538; 202-225-9817; 510-494-5852; 202-226-3805; 202-225-8259, 415.861.1670
The undersigned are writing on behalf of the 2391 Section 8 voucher tenants— many of whom are people with disabilities, and seniors, and all of whom are very low-income---in the City of Alameda who are facing the imminent loss of their homes due to the improper termination of their vouchers. The terminations are scheduled for July 1, 2004---barely one week from now. They are the direct result of HUD's misinterpretation of HUD appropriations acts. The Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) is one the numerous housing authorities throughout the country that has or will be affected by HUD’s illegal and insupportable interpretation and application of the laws.
The Law Center For Families, The Public Interest Law Project provide legal assistance to low-income residents of Alameda County and are working with effected tenants who will experience tremendous hardships--even homelessness--should this dire problem not be immediately corrected. The National Housing Law Project assists and supports the efforts of these organizations. Sentinel Fair Housing provides assistance with fair housing issues. Bill Simpich is a civil rights attorney, also working with effected tenants. Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (PAI) provides legal assistance to and advocates with and on behalf of people with disabilities. PAI is representing tenants with disabilities who face imminent homelessness.
There are numerous efforts that have been mounted nationally to address this voucher funding crisis. In Massachusetts concerted advocacy efforts placed pressure on HUD to release funds to address the short term funding issues. In that case, the federal representatives, local advocates and Governor Romney aggressively advocated on behalf of the voucher holders and successfully obtained HUD action.
We are aware that you have taken steps to address this problem that is having an impact on Section 8 recipients and applicants throughout California. We thank each one of you for taking these steps, but seek your additional assistance on behalf of the affected City of Alameda families. While the Alameda Housing Authority is a small housing authority, 14% of their voucher families are facing eviction. Variations of these funding problems will no doubt confront other housing authorities throughout the state. Thus, it is extremely important that you act now on behalf of the Alameda City Section 8 families so as to prevent the spread of this or similar problems.
The following is a summary of the relevant facts affecting the City of Alameda Housing Authority that we hope is helpful to you. These are the facts as we currently understand them (the picture changes on a day-to-day basis depending on events that occur due to efforts that the housing authority has taken—e.g., requesting that landlords voluntarily agree to reductions):
The Housing Authority sent out termination notices to 239 Section 8 voucher recipients that are to take effect on July 1, 2004. The Housing Authority is authorized for 1625 vouchers. As of July 1, due to the terminations, it will have 1430 vouchers in the program, far less than the authorized level. The apparent breakdown of terminated vouchers is as follows: 95 due to HUD’s use of its new allocation formula, 100 due to erroneous submission of information that the housing authority provided for May/June/and July 2003 figures, and 44 due to overleasing.
There is a potential achievable solution to each of these problems. But the housing authority has little flexibility as HUD has failed since December 2002 to fund the housing authority’s reserves.
What is needed immediately is that HUD:
1. Fund the housing authority’s reserves and approve requests to allow full use of the reserves to address the issues related to the 195 families threatened with termination due to funding formula determinations.
2. Immediately approve the housing authority’s request for a higher inflation factor; and
3. Immediately act on the housing authority’s request for correction of the May/June/July 2003 figures.
We request that you schedule a California congressional delegation meeting with Secretary Jackson to urge HUD to take these actions immediately. In addition, we urge you to raise this issue with Governor Schwarzenegger on behalf of the voucher tenants of the City of Alameda and other voucher holders and applicants in California who may also be seriously impacted by HUD’s actions with respect to the funding of housing authorities in Fiscal Year 2004.
Finally, we would like to schedule a call with your appropriate staff no later than early next week to discuss this urgent crisis in affordable housing. We have already discussed this matter with Sean McCluikie from Congress Member Stark’s office.
We look forward to working with you on this matter. Please contact me at 510.451.9261 Ext. 208 or Raquel Kuronen at the same number, extension 204 if you have questions about our recommendations. And, thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Luz Buitrago
Law Center For Families
Mike Rawson
Public Interest Law Project
Cathy Bishop
National Housing Law Project
Mona Breed
Sentinel Fair Housing
Bill Simpich
Civil Rights Attorney
Fred Nisen
Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
1 The number of affected persons is of course much higher as some voucher holders have families that in some cases are large.
*********
AGENDA FOR MEETING WITH ALAMEDA OFFICIALS
TO SAVE SECTION 8 TENANCIES
1) DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO FUND SECTION 8 FUNDING SHORTAGES SHORT TERM PENDING RESOLUTION OF PROBLEM WITH HUD THROUGH ADVOCACY OR LITIGATION
a. Use of city funds, such as Redevelopment, CDBG or HOME funds.
Health & Safety Code 33334.2(e)(8) can be read to allow the housing portion of redevelopment funds to be used for rental housing subsidies if necessary to preserve affordable housing for persons who can't afford market rate housing. The money must be used for units within the redevelopment areas unless the redevelopment agency makes the finding that the subsidy of units outside a redevelopment area would benefit a redevelopment project. An agency could also use its non-housing redevelopment funds (the "80%" funds) for this purpose.
Another option is the use of Rental Rehabilitation funds, if there are any. Long Beach used these to address the same Section 8 funding problem.
Long Beach also may have used tax credit increment funds to fund the vouchers.
b. Obtain loans. Perhaps from HUD, instead of grant.
c. Results of efforts to reduce rent for Section 8 units based on rent reasonableness or landlords voluntarily willing to reduce rent. Possibility of implementing an across the board rent reduction for all landlords.
d. Reduce AHA subsidy paid on behalf of tenants. Must obtain HUD waiver of Second Regular Reexamination Rule.
e) Extra funds if HUD approves appeal of AAF. What is status of appeal?
f) Look for other potential County or State funding sources. Supervisor Lai-
Bitker’s office is contacting Linda Gainer to see if there are any
possibilities.
2) ADVOCACY TO OBTAIN HUD FUNDS
a. HACA should join California PHA joint efforts to get Governor Schwarzenegger involved in pressuring HUD for funds. The contact person is the Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority, Peter Mezza. HACA should directly lobby with all legislative representatives Stark, Lee, Feinstein and Boxer. Advocates are willing to collaborate with HACA on this and have started efforts.
b. Mayor Johnson should consider making a personal appeal to Secretary Jackson for funds. This worked previously when a prior Alameda mayor went to Washington to prevent funding shortage. Also, Mayor Bloomberg has gone and met personally with Secretary Jackson and is likely to obtain funds to cover a Section 8 funding shortage in his city.
c. Call attention to the issue with media coverage, not just on local or state level. This is a national crisis that needs attention. Get the media to focus on what HUD has done that is wrong and help the media to connect the dots that HUD has created this problem throughout the country. Advocates are willing to collaborate with HACA on this.
3) LEGAL GROUNDS FOR LITIGATION AGAINST HUD
a. HUD’s interpretation of the FY 2004 Appropriations Act is an abuse of discretion and contrary to Congressional intent:
1. HUD’s interpretation of average annual cost is based on costs as of
August 1, 2003 plus an adjustment for inflation, while the Act
only requires HUD to calculate renewals based on the actual per unit cost;
2. HUD’s interpretation creates under-funding for the Section 8 program, whereas Congress intended to assure sufficient funding for 2004 by allotting an extra $1.8 billion in funding for Section 8 for FY 2004 than it did in FY 2003;
3. HUD applied its cost formula retroactive to January 1, 2004. The effect was to reduce payments to many PHAs and require them to payback any overpayments despite: a) the PHAs had received funds through March, 2004 based on HUD’s prior cost formula; b) the PHAs relied on receiving the same level of funding for the remainder of the year to enter into their 2004 HAP contracts; c). Congress intended to fully fund the PHAs for section 8 for 2004; and, d) HUD has funds to apply the formula prospectively. Compounding the retroactivity problem, HUD unnecessarily and callously required PHAs to absorb the overpayments caused by the retroactivity within the PHAs fiscal year (June 30th for HACA).
4. HUD abused its discretion by failing to correct AHA’s miscalculation in a timely manner despite knowledge that its failure to do so would cause Section 8 terminations.
b. HUD’s interpretation of the cost formula violates the Fair Housing Act because a disproportionate amount of those on Section 8 who will be affected by the funding cuts are minorities, elderly or persons with disabilities.
c. HUD violated the Appropriations Act for FY 2002 by failing to replenish HACA reserves for the reserves HACA used during its FY 2002. By continuing to ignore HACA’s December, 2002 request for replenishment of its reserves, HUD violated the FY 2003 Act and PIH Notice 2003-23, which requires HUD to replenish a PHA’s reserves for FY 2003 within 30 days of the request if the PHA was not overleased during the PHA’s most recently closed fiscal year. As AHA was not overleased in 2002, it should have received its replenishment of reserve funds for FY 2003. For FY 2004, HUD refused to replenish HACA reserves claiming it was overleased during the 2003 calendar year. It did replenish the reserves of other PHAs. This is a violation of PIH Notice 2003-23.
d. Possible cause of action under the Impoundment Control Act to challenge HUD for deferring or holding on to about $200 million dollars in funds appropriated for Section 8 funding to further a policy of the executive branch that is contrary to Congressional intent.
4) RESCISSION OF AHA NOTICES
HACA should rescind its termination notices to save the Section 8 tenancies. This is so especially in light of the fact that HACA should receive a response from HUD regarding HACA’s accounting mistake by July 10, 2004. Given this short time period between the current termination date of June 30, 2004 and July 10, 2004, HACA should try to preserve as many tenancies as possible. By rescinding the notices, the HACA also reduces its risk of litigation from tenants and prevents the tenants from being penalized for something for which they were not at fault. Most importantly, a rescission would buy sufficient time to allow HUD to correct the AAF, provide the funds based on HACA’s miscalculations, and allow continued advocacy or litigation to resolve the cost formula issue.
**********
Subject: 24 CFR 982.454
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:38:29 -0700
From: "Benjamin Gould" <BGould [at] baylegal.org> Add to Address Book
To: tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER IX--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 982_SECTION 8 TENANT BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER
PROGRAM--Table of Contents
Subpart J_Housing Assistance Payments Contract and Owner Responsibility
Sec. 982.454 Termination of HAP contract: Insufficient funding.
The PHA may terminate the HAP contract if the PHA determines, in
accordance with HUD requirements, that funding under the consolidated
ACC is insufficient to support continued assistance for families in the
program.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999]
As usual the CRR/Labors Militant Voice forgets to mention a few details as it takes credit for the hard work of others that worked behind the scenes to save the vouchers of the Alameda Section 8 renters during the recent crisis.
No one is saying that the need for protests taking place to turn up the heat is not helpful, but the CRR has failed to mention the people smart enough behind the scenes that actually figured out how to transfer money from the Home Fund Program to those in the Section 8 Program in Alameda to pay the rents for their housing while the crisis took place, which gave Michael Pucci enough time to get to Washington for the $650,000 for the vouchers.
Sometimes it actually takes a little more than protests and noise to do some problem solving, and it definitely took abit more than some protests and noise to solve the crisis involving the Section 8 renters of Alameda.
It was disingenuous of the CRR to take credit for the hard work of others or the Section 8 renters that refused to move after being told to go away...
Sincerely,
Lynda Carson
510/763-1085
See below for detailed e-mails of behind the scenes activities that the CRR failed to bring to your attention...
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:51 PM
To: Luz Buitrago; 'Benjamin Gould'; 'Catherine M. Bishop'; 'Ariella
Hyman'; Raquel Kuronen; 'Mona Breed'; 'Fred Nisen'; 'Bettina
Neuefeind';
'Laura Lane (E-mail)'; 'Dara Schur'; 'Bill Simpich (E-mail)';
'Stephanie Kurteff'; 'Noah Zinner'; 'Kathleen Patricia Reilley'; 'Phillip Morgan';
'Meliah Thomas'; 'Virginia Knowlton (E-mail)'; 'Sharon Jemal (E-mail)';
'Mike Rawson2 (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Michael Froehlich'; 'Shawn Wilson (E-mail)'; 'Rachel Richman
(E-mail)'; Alice Supv BOS Dist 3 Lai-Bitker (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Section 8-up-date of Meeting with City &
Importance: High
Hi Everyone,
Things have moved very quickly. A group of us, Mike Rawson, BALA
folks, Fred Nisen,PAI, Cathy Bishop, and I met with Mike Pucci, City Manger James Flint, and Deputy City Attorney Teresa Highsmith. This is a very brief summary of the meeting so that we can start getting the word out to tenants of good news.
You all know that on Friday, the HA had rescinded about 105 vouchers.
You also know that on Friday they were looking at using HOME funds to pay one month's subsidy payment to landlords who have contracts affecting the remaining 134 vouchers. AT our meeting, we confirmed that HA will be proposing this to City Council at a special meeting that will be held July1. City Council will have to approve the plan and thus until the
actual meeting one cannot guarantee that they will adopt the plan and that the funding will be there. But the assessment is that they will.
At the meeting, we requested that HA immediately write a letter to
landlords and letter to tenants. The letter to landlords will give them
direction re what is happening and we hope indicate what they should or should not do. The letter to tenants will advice them of what is happening, and because there is no guarantee until the City Council votes on this, will probably be a little wishy washy re that tenants should not move. HA has agreed to send these letters to LCFF and BALA so that we can provide them with comments re context. We will also see if the letters can be translated into key languages spoken other than English by T. But because of the timing issues this may not happen.
We also got them to agree to list BALA on the tenant letter so that
tenants know where to go to get help explaining the complicated mess...which in essence is that the HAP contracts will still be terminated because HOME canno apparently cannot be used in conjunction with Section 8 Voucher.
However, because landlords will get money they should not be able to
evict tenants for non-payment or HAP termination. Landlords will have to
regulatory agreements with HA. If and when HUD releases funding
tenants will be placed back on Section 8.
Following Needs to Happen:
1. Short-term (immediate) action is to get the use of HOME money
approved, get notices to LL and Tenants. This will buy tenants through August. So does not resolve the problem, but gives everyone enough time to work on the next short term goal. City Council should get faxes encouraging them to take action and thanking them in advance of the JUly 1 meeting. I assume folks will be at the special meeting to show support for this effort.
2. Short-term second goal: getting HUD to release at least some of the
money from different funding sources. Getting the governor involved
and increasing congressional pressure key. Because there have been efforts focusing on the broader problem rather than on Alameda, problem, focus needs to be on help Alameda and other agencies facing crisis right now. LCFF will follow up to see if Burton was successful in getting Governor to be involved. Also, Judge Bartaloni was going to use his personal contacts with Burton to make sure that these efforts highlight Alameda problems. We also need congressional folks step up pressure. Perhaps faxes or calls in this regard will help. Pete Stark's office was going to follow on this.
3. Longer-term (still short-term) focus on getting HUD to change its
use of the formula using for Budgets. Same as above. But if get HUD to
correct miscalculations and to replenish or refund reserves, the crisis could be controlled. Strategies same as above.
4. Of course there is the litigation angle against HUD, but because of
nature of lit. the political approach is key right now. City agreed
to consider possibility if necessary. And of course, some of us are
interested in pursuing if necessary and makes sense.
Folks who were at the meeting should add anything I missed.
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 2:00 PM
To: Luz Buitrago; 'Benjamin Gould'; 'Catherine M. Bishop'; 'Ariella
Hyman'; Raquel Kuronen; 'Mona Breed'; 'Fred Nisen'; 'Bettina
Neuefeind';
'Laura Lane (E-mail)'; 'Dara Schur'; 'Bill Simpich (E-mail)';
'Stephanie
Kurteff'; 'Noah Zinner'; 'Kathleen Patricia Reilley'; 'Phillip Morgan';
'Meliah Thomas'; 'Virginia Knowlton (E-mail)'; 'Sharon Jemal (E-mail)';
Mike Rawson2 (E-mail)
Cc: 'Michael Froehlich'; 'Shawn Wilson (E-mail)'; 'Rachel Richman
(E-mail)'; Luz Buitrago
Subject: RE: Section 8-up-date of Meeting with City &
After I finshed the last E-mail, we heard from James Flynt, city
manager.This is the deal:
Flynt, City Atty, Mike Pucci can meet with us on Tuesday. He has an
assistant that will be getting dates from Carol and Pucci. Please if
you can keep Tuesday open so that you can joing the meeting. We will let you know as soon as we know Carol's and Pucci's schedule.
They have scheduled a special City council meeting for July 1 7:30.
This issue will be the first issue on the agenda.
Mayor Johson is in DC with other Mayors. Not sure whether individually
meeting with Jackson.
The below message gives you some other details that are great news.
Luz
-----Original Message-----
From: Luz Buitrago
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 1:43 PM
To: 'Benjamin Gould'; Catherine M. Bishop; Ariella Hyman; Raquel
Kuronen; Mona Breed; Fred Nisen; Bettina Neuefeind; Laura Lane
(E-mail);
Dara Schur; Bill Simpich (E-mail); Stephanie Kurteff; Noah Zinner;
Kathleen Patricia Reilley; Phillip Morgan; Meliah Thomas; Virginia
Knowlton (E-mail); Sharon Jemal (E-mail)
Cc: Michael Froehlich; Shawn Wilson (E-mail); Rachel Richman (E-mail)
Subject: Some important Up-dates.
Hi Everyone,
It seems that some of our efforts are starting to pay off. We will be
sending via separate E-mail the letters and memos that went to the City
and Congressional folks.
I spoke to Judge Bartalini, Chair of the HA, and to Mike Puccii
(separate calls). They are beginning to find the funding to rescind notices and as off today have started to rescind 15 notices. They have found $ by brokering a deal with Martinez HA regarding Section 8 vouchers that Alameda was paying for. In addition, they did seek HOME funding--about $130--think that they weill get it. This will cover more vouchers. If HA gets, Pucci thinks will be able to rescind all other terminations (not clear includes overleased since Pucci was running out of the office when we spoke). The HOME funds will cover one months payment, but because HOME cannot be used in conjunction with Section 8, the terminations themselves will not be rescinded, but the LL's would be paid, if thinks worked out by August, those voucher holders would be reinstated. Details re how this will work not clear.
The Deputy City Atty is doing a research memo on potential use of
Redev. funds. Problem is that $$ had already been set aside for certain
projects.
I told Pucci that all of this was great, but that they should still
consider rescinding all vouchers even if they do not find funding. One Ra. being that some tenants at risk due to miscalculations. He did not say I was crazy, and did not say out of the question, but of course this would be tough for th em to do.
They will have a better sense next week about all of this.
He talked to the new HCD Director--Lucetta Dunn (sp.) they said
governor aware of problem HUD is creating. Apparently, Gov. has DC office and they have been working on this...of course not focusing on Alameda.
We still need to push for recission of all vouchers, even if short of
funds. And of course if all of this happens strategize re going against HUD.
BALA...you may want to check in with HA to see if your clients are
among those folks who will receive rescission notices. Pucci said he would
be glad to look at this next week.
*********
June 24, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE
AT (510) 523-1952
Judge Bartaloni
Re: Meeting with Alameda City Officials
Dear Judge Bartaloni:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with advocates from the Law Center for Families (“LCFF”) and Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) on June 21, 2004 regarding the Section 8 funding crisis in Alameda. LCFF and BayLegal have been working closely with other housing advocates from the National Housing Law Project and the Public Interest Law Project on developing strategies to address this dire problem. As we discussed, we would like to meet with the city officials to discuss action that they can take and how we can work collaboratively to remedy this crisis (advocates have already communicated with congressional, state and local representatives). Therefore, we greatly appreciate your offer to facilitate such a meeting. Our Director, Luz Buitrago, received your message indicating that the City Manager, James Flint, would put a meeting on the city’s calendar as soon as he receives the proposed Agenda. The proposed Agenda for the meeting is attached and we will be sending a copy of this letter and the Agenda to Mr. Flint as well. As the Section 8 terminations are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2004, we would like to meet as soon as possible.
In order that the meeting be as productive as possible, we would like to request that Mayor Johnson, the members of the City Council (or at least some members), Michael Pucci or James Flint, and City Attorney, Carol Korade be present. We also recommend that the Mayor and other officials consider taking some of the suggested action mentioned in the Agenda even before we meet, as some suggestions require coordination. For example, if possible, Mayor Johnson should take steps to schedule a personal meeting with Secretary Jackson as soon as possible.
Thank you so much for your assistance and we look forward to meeting with everyone.
Sincerely,
Raquel M. Kuronen
Encl.
cc: City Manager, James Flint
*********
June 25, 2004
URGENT
Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congresspersons Pelosi, Lee and Stark:
Delivered by Facsimile: 202-228-3954; 415-956-6701; 510-763-6538; 202-225-9817; 510-494-5852; 202-226-3805; 202-225-8259, 415.861.1670
The undersigned are writing on behalf of the 2391 Section 8 voucher tenants— many of whom are people with disabilities, and seniors, and all of whom are very low-income---in the City of Alameda who are facing the imminent loss of their homes due to the improper termination of their vouchers. The terminations are scheduled for July 1, 2004---barely one week from now. They are the direct result of HUD's misinterpretation of HUD appropriations acts. The Alameda Housing Authority (AHA) is one the numerous housing authorities throughout the country that has or will be affected by HUD’s illegal and insupportable interpretation and application of the laws.
The Law Center For Families, The Public Interest Law Project provide legal assistance to low-income residents of Alameda County and are working with effected tenants who will experience tremendous hardships--even homelessness--should this dire problem not be immediately corrected. The National Housing Law Project assists and supports the efforts of these organizations. Sentinel Fair Housing provides assistance with fair housing issues. Bill Simpich is a civil rights attorney, also working with effected tenants. Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (PAI) provides legal assistance to and advocates with and on behalf of people with disabilities. PAI is representing tenants with disabilities who face imminent homelessness.
There are numerous efforts that have been mounted nationally to address this voucher funding crisis. In Massachusetts concerted advocacy efforts placed pressure on HUD to release funds to address the short term funding issues. In that case, the federal representatives, local advocates and Governor Romney aggressively advocated on behalf of the voucher holders and successfully obtained HUD action.
We are aware that you have taken steps to address this problem that is having an impact on Section 8 recipients and applicants throughout California. We thank each one of you for taking these steps, but seek your additional assistance on behalf of the affected City of Alameda families. While the Alameda Housing Authority is a small housing authority, 14% of their voucher families are facing eviction. Variations of these funding problems will no doubt confront other housing authorities throughout the state. Thus, it is extremely important that you act now on behalf of the Alameda City Section 8 families so as to prevent the spread of this or similar problems.
The following is a summary of the relevant facts affecting the City of Alameda Housing Authority that we hope is helpful to you. These are the facts as we currently understand them (the picture changes on a day-to-day basis depending on events that occur due to efforts that the housing authority has taken—e.g., requesting that landlords voluntarily agree to reductions):
The Housing Authority sent out termination notices to 239 Section 8 voucher recipients that are to take effect on July 1, 2004. The Housing Authority is authorized for 1625 vouchers. As of July 1, due to the terminations, it will have 1430 vouchers in the program, far less than the authorized level. The apparent breakdown of terminated vouchers is as follows: 95 due to HUD’s use of its new allocation formula, 100 due to erroneous submission of information that the housing authority provided for May/June/and July 2003 figures, and 44 due to overleasing.
There is a potential achievable solution to each of these problems. But the housing authority has little flexibility as HUD has failed since December 2002 to fund the housing authority’s reserves.
What is needed immediately is that HUD:
1. Fund the housing authority’s reserves and approve requests to allow full use of the reserves to address the issues related to the 195 families threatened with termination due to funding formula determinations.
2. Immediately approve the housing authority’s request for a higher inflation factor; and
3. Immediately act on the housing authority’s request for correction of the May/June/July 2003 figures.
We request that you schedule a California congressional delegation meeting with Secretary Jackson to urge HUD to take these actions immediately. In addition, we urge you to raise this issue with Governor Schwarzenegger on behalf of the voucher tenants of the City of Alameda and other voucher holders and applicants in California who may also be seriously impacted by HUD’s actions with respect to the funding of housing authorities in Fiscal Year 2004.
Finally, we would like to schedule a call with your appropriate staff no later than early next week to discuss this urgent crisis in affordable housing. We have already discussed this matter with Sean McCluikie from Congress Member Stark’s office.
We look forward to working with you on this matter. Please contact me at 510.451.9261 Ext. 208 or Raquel Kuronen at the same number, extension 204 if you have questions about our recommendations. And, thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Luz Buitrago
Law Center For Families
Mike Rawson
Public Interest Law Project
Cathy Bishop
National Housing Law Project
Mona Breed
Sentinel Fair Housing
Bill Simpich
Civil Rights Attorney
Fred Nisen
Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
1 The number of affected persons is of course much higher as some voucher holders have families that in some cases are large.
*********
AGENDA FOR MEETING WITH ALAMEDA OFFICIALS
TO SAVE SECTION 8 TENANCIES
1) DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO FUND SECTION 8 FUNDING SHORTAGES SHORT TERM PENDING RESOLUTION OF PROBLEM WITH HUD THROUGH ADVOCACY OR LITIGATION
a. Use of city funds, such as Redevelopment, CDBG or HOME funds.
Health & Safety Code 33334.2(e)(8) can be read to allow the housing portion of redevelopment funds to be used for rental housing subsidies if necessary to preserve affordable housing for persons who can't afford market rate housing. The money must be used for units within the redevelopment areas unless the redevelopment agency makes the finding that the subsidy of units outside a redevelopment area would benefit a redevelopment project. An agency could also use its non-housing redevelopment funds (the "80%" funds) for this purpose.
Another option is the use of Rental Rehabilitation funds, if there are any. Long Beach used these to address the same Section 8 funding problem.
Long Beach also may have used tax credit increment funds to fund the vouchers.
b. Obtain loans. Perhaps from HUD, instead of grant.
c. Results of efforts to reduce rent for Section 8 units based on rent reasonableness or landlords voluntarily willing to reduce rent. Possibility of implementing an across the board rent reduction for all landlords.
d. Reduce AHA subsidy paid on behalf of tenants. Must obtain HUD waiver of Second Regular Reexamination Rule.
e) Extra funds if HUD approves appeal of AAF. What is status of appeal?
f) Look for other potential County or State funding sources. Supervisor Lai-
Bitker’s office is contacting Linda Gainer to see if there are any
possibilities.
2) ADVOCACY TO OBTAIN HUD FUNDS
a. HACA should join California PHA joint efforts to get Governor Schwarzenegger involved in pressuring HUD for funds. The contact person is the Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority, Peter Mezza. HACA should directly lobby with all legislative representatives Stark, Lee, Feinstein and Boxer. Advocates are willing to collaborate with HACA on this and have started efforts.
b. Mayor Johnson should consider making a personal appeal to Secretary Jackson for funds. This worked previously when a prior Alameda mayor went to Washington to prevent funding shortage. Also, Mayor Bloomberg has gone and met personally with Secretary Jackson and is likely to obtain funds to cover a Section 8 funding shortage in his city.
c. Call attention to the issue with media coverage, not just on local or state level. This is a national crisis that needs attention. Get the media to focus on what HUD has done that is wrong and help the media to connect the dots that HUD has created this problem throughout the country. Advocates are willing to collaborate with HACA on this.
3) LEGAL GROUNDS FOR LITIGATION AGAINST HUD
a. HUD’s interpretation of the FY 2004 Appropriations Act is an abuse of discretion and contrary to Congressional intent:
1. HUD’s interpretation of average annual cost is based on costs as of
August 1, 2003 plus an adjustment for inflation, while the Act
only requires HUD to calculate renewals based on the actual per unit cost;
2. HUD’s interpretation creates under-funding for the Section 8 program, whereas Congress intended to assure sufficient funding for 2004 by allotting an extra $1.8 billion in funding for Section 8 for FY 2004 than it did in FY 2003;
3. HUD applied its cost formula retroactive to January 1, 2004. The effect was to reduce payments to many PHAs and require them to payback any overpayments despite: a) the PHAs had received funds through March, 2004 based on HUD’s prior cost formula; b) the PHAs relied on receiving the same level of funding for the remainder of the year to enter into their 2004 HAP contracts; c). Congress intended to fully fund the PHAs for section 8 for 2004; and, d) HUD has funds to apply the formula prospectively. Compounding the retroactivity problem, HUD unnecessarily and callously required PHAs to absorb the overpayments caused by the retroactivity within the PHAs fiscal year (June 30th for HACA).
4. HUD abused its discretion by failing to correct AHA’s miscalculation in a timely manner despite knowledge that its failure to do so would cause Section 8 terminations.
b. HUD’s interpretation of the cost formula violates the Fair Housing Act because a disproportionate amount of those on Section 8 who will be affected by the funding cuts are minorities, elderly or persons with disabilities.
c. HUD violated the Appropriations Act for FY 2002 by failing to replenish HACA reserves for the reserves HACA used during its FY 2002. By continuing to ignore HACA’s December, 2002 request for replenishment of its reserves, HUD violated the FY 2003 Act and PIH Notice 2003-23, which requires HUD to replenish a PHA’s reserves for FY 2003 within 30 days of the request if the PHA was not overleased during the PHA’s most recently closed fiscal year. As AHA was not overleased in 2002, it should have received its replenishment of reserve funds for FY 2003. For FY 2004, HUD refused to replenish HACA reserves claiming it was overleased during the 2003 calendar year. It did replenish the reserves of other PHAs. This is a violation of PIH Notice 2003-23.
d. Possible cause of action under the Impoundment Control Act to challenge HUD for deferring or holding on to about $200 million dollars in funds appropriated for Section 8 funding to further a policy of the executive branch that is contrary to Congressional intent.
4) RESCISSION OF AHA NOTICES
HACA should rescind its termination notices to save the Section 8 tenancies. This is so especially in light of the fact that HACA should receive a response from HUD regarding HACA’s accounting mistake by July 10, 2004. Given this short time period between the current termination date of June 30, 2004 and July 10, 2004, HACA should try to preserve as many tenancies as possible. By rescinding the notices, the HACA also reduces its risk of litigation from tenants and prevents the tenants from being penalized for something for which they were not at fault. Most importantly, a rescission would buy sufficient time to allow HUD to correct the AAF, provide the funds based on HACA’s miscalculations, and allow continued advocacy or litigation to resolve the cost formula issue.
**********
Subject: 24 CFR 982.454
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:38:29 -0700
From: "Benjamin Gould" <BGould [at] baylegal.org> Add to Address Book
To: tenantsrule [at] yahoo.com
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER IX--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 982_SECTION 8 TENANT BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER
PROGRAM--Table of Contents
Subpart J_Housing Assistance Payments Contract and Owner Responsibility
Sec. 982.454 Termination of HAP contract: Insufficient funding.
The PHA may terminate the HAP contract if the PHA determines, in
accordance with HUD requirements, that funding under the consolidated
ACC is insufficient to support continued assistance for families in the
program.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999]
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$40.00 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