Campaign for Renters Rights Takes Credit From Others

Setting the record straight...

Excuse me for just a moment...The Campaign for Renters Rights (CRR) claims what? Whats wrong with this picture?

Campaign For Renters Rights Has Major Housing Victory
by Jeremy Prickett Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004 at 7:34 PM
jeremyprickett [at] hotmail.com

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

Click below for full CRR disingenuous description of recent events...

http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/08/1692458.php

For the record...

As usual the CRR/Labors Militant Voice forgot to mention a few details as it takes credit for the hard work of others that worked many long hours behind the scenes to save the vouchers of the Alameda Section 8 renters during the recent crisis.

Furthermore, no documentation was offered by the CRR to explain how Home Funds were used to cover the rents of the Section 8 renters in Alameda during the crisis. Why? Because it was someone else that figured out how the system works and were the ones that did the actual work to save the renters, not the CRR.

The CRR failed to mention the hard work of the legal representation for the renters that spent many hours behind the scenes to see that the renters were not displaced from their homes.

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...

As Jeremy Prickett/CRR/Labors Militant Voice takes credit where it's not entirely due, the following documention may help to offer just a little bit of credit to all of the hard working people that figured out how to keep a roof over the heads of the Section 8 renters in Alameda.

This is not an attack on the CRR.

It's just a simple reminder that when people take the credit of the work being done by others that they should be held accountable for their actions...

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]