An attorney at the Legal Aid Society was aghast recently when the New York City Housing Authority filed a case against a woman to evict her because she did not have window guards installed in her apartment. The guards prevent small children from falling out of windows. The attorney was aghast because the guards had been installed almost a year earlier.
Still, even when housing authority attorneys were shown pictures proving that the window guards were in place, they still pressed for the tenant to accept probation as punishment.
"I don't get it," said Judith Goldiner of the Legal Aid Society, the attorney who had helped the woman. "They are bringing really frivolous cases."
More than 550,000 people live in public housing in New York City, making the housing authority the city's largest landlord. In 2003, the most recent year's statistics available, the housing authority filed 116,761 cases against tenants, according to the deputy chief clerk of the Civil Court. The agency has about 100 attorneys in its legal department, although not all of them are engaged in landlord-tenant issues.
At the same time that it is the city's largest, many advocates believe the housing authority is also the city's worst landlord.
The housing authority's "mandate to assist poor people and do all that they can to help them with their housing are very low on their list of priorities," said Sandy Russo of Legal Services for New York. "They don't do any of it. It's gotten a lot worse. They are much more aggressive in getting people out."
"Their policies and practices run from cruel to benign neglect and don't take into consideration the needs of their population," she said.
In an email discussion group recently, attorneys who practice in Housing Court have been sharing similar stories of the housing authority's penchant for filing cases that seem to stand reason on its head. The cases range from the absurd to the hostile to the unethical.
Cases the housing authority files seem aimed at harassing tenants more than anything else. Yet, because people's homes are being put at risk, any case filed is very serious..
In one, for example, an argument between two former friends that involved little more than raised voices in the hallway led to a proceeding to terminate a tenancy. In another, a tenant's failure to pay for delivered Chinese food led to a proceeding.
In some cases, the allegations the housing authority bases its cases on are demonstrably false and should never have led to a case in the first place, attorneys said. David Bryan, director of the Comprehensive Rights Unit at Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation "A," said the housing authority's attorneys are not fulfilling their professional obligation to review and verify the grounds for cases before actually filing them.
A special part in each of the city's housing courts handles housing authority cases and on any given day, Bryan said, dozens of the cases the agency brings are quietly discontinued when the authority's attorneys discover that the allegations being made are false.
"As attorneys, (professional rules) require that an attorney do a reasonable investigation before actually bringing a case," he said. "My contention is that the housing authority does not do that."
Attorneys said they were unsure why the housing authority files cases they consider frivolous. Some suggested the agency has a quota, but a spokesperson for the housing authority flatly denied that.
The main reason for the frivolous cases is contempt for the poor, Bryan said, a view echoed by advocates who assist public housing tenants.
"It's just a job to them," said Maria Muentes, a housing advocate at University Settlement Society of New York. "They think they're cleaning up (housing authority complexes)?€?. Even as they are trying to evict some senior, disabled woman, they think they're doing a good thing."
Howard Marder, a spokesperson for the housing authority, defended the agency's legal department against the allegations. He said he would not comment on specific cases and that attorneys in the agency's legal department were unavailable to discuss its work.
"Everyone is afforded the full protection of the law," Marder said. "There is a long process to give residents as much of an advantage and due process as possible. Way before they get to court, they are asked if they need an attorney, informed of their rights and given a list of attorneys."
As for complaints about attorneys, Marder said advocates or attorneys should file formal complaints, which "we would investigate fully." He said he was unsure how many such complaints have been filed against the agency's attorneys and that administrators' reviews of the legal department's performance were not available.
"They resist anything reasonable at all," said Bryan from Brooklyn Legal Services. "They bluff and scare the tenants. They'll tell the tenants, 'I'll give you six months to move.' The scope of what goes on is outlandish."
Joe Lamport is the assistant director of the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court, a coalition of community housing organizations.
We hear the words "family values" a lot from politicians, particularly during election season. Conservatives often use this term to define a nuclear family consisting of a mother, father and kids, living in a home suitable for raising children. The truth is that a growing number of working families, including many that fit this model, need help from the government to pay for decent, affordable housing. But the Bush administration is not holding up its end of the bargain to promote its definition of "family values," and low-income families are paying the price.
A change recently made by the administration -- if not addressed -- will force New York City to face a shortfall of at least $55.5 million in federal housing subsidies this year. But beyond the numbers, there is a human face to the administration's catastrophic decision -- the low-income families who need and depend on Section 8 Housing vouchers to help them pay for their homes. This program is supposed to help low-income families find and pay for housing. The family pays no more than 30 percent of its income for rent, and the government makes up the difference between that amount and what the landlord charges.
In April, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a notice that it would alter the Section 8 Housing voucher funding formula by basing it on August 2003 housing costs instead of relying on the actual current costs of housing. Failing to fund the vouchers to keep up with current costs is disastrous for cities like New York, where housing and utility prices have increased and tenant incomes have not kept up with inflation.
Unless the administration's decision is reversed, it will create a dramatic funding shortfall that will force the New York City Housing Authority to either increase the percentage of their incomes that families must spend on rent or to reduce the number of families assisted by Section 8 vouchers. Either choice could force some families out of their homes. Since the government already does not provide vouchers to all the families that need them, the administration's change will only make an already difficult situation worse.
This change in policy is being implemented despite the success of the Section 8 Housing voucher program, which was created to ensure that a continuous supply of affordable housing would be available to low-income families. Only 15 percent of people receiving Section 8 vouchers live in high poverty areas, as compared to approximately 54 percent of public housing residents. Indeed, Section 8 vouchers have effectively addressed one of the most serious shortcomings of traditional, project-based housing -- the concentration of low-income housing in poor neighborhoods.
Despite the fact that the Section 8 Housing voucher program has a proven track record of helping low-income families, federal funding of the vouchers has been in sharp decline. In fiscal year 2001, 79,000 new vouchers were funded. In fiscal year 2002, the number dropped to 18,000, and Fiscal Year 2003 no new vouchers at all were funded.
New York City voucher recipients have been the primary victims of this rampant disregard of the voucher program. When the Bush administration changed the Section 8 voucher funding formula, more than 130,000 families were on the city housing authority's Section 8 waiting list -- an eight-year wait. Of these families, more than 24,000 are 62 years of age or older.
Tired of seeing families who rely on these vouchers suffer, I successfully added $150 million last year to the Section 8 program for fiscal year 2004, which translates into approximately 22,000 new vouchers based on current costs. My legislation to increase the number of housing vouchers was approved by a majority of Congress, and it seemed that efforts to derail the program were temporarily defeated. Yet the Bush administration forged ahead with its decision to change the funding formula.
To urge the administration to reverse its harmful change in Section 8 funding, I wrote to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson. In my letter, I reminded him that it is HUD's responsibility to honor the commitment made to the people who receive Section 8 vouchers and who rely on them in order to remain in their homes. It is imperative that we preserve the stability of families in the Section 8 program and safeguard the integrity of the governmental promise made to them.
The Bush administration continues to implement policies that hurt working families. By failing to fund fully the Section 8 housing voucher program, low-income families may be forced out of their homes. It is time for the president and the Republicans in Congress to realize that family values go well beyond Republican ideals of church and marriage, and that creating policies that harm low-income families is mean-spirited. Low-income housing options are essential for families that want and deserve to provide a safe environment for their children to live and grow.
Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, is the U.S. representative from Eighth Congressional District in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Â
In 2003, Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act that will help 40,000 families a year with down payments and closing costs on new homes. In addition to helping low-income families with funding, the program puts pressure on mortgage companies and the real estate industry to provide opportunities for minorities to purchase affordable housing. Bush set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million by the end of the decade. The White House claims there have been over 1.53 million new minority-housing owners since 2002.
(Learn more)
However, the Bush administration is increasing requirements in order to qualify for federal housing subsidies. Beginning January 2004, a new regulation requires 8 hours of community service for approximately 60,000 people who live in public housing in New York City. If they do not abide by the regulations, they can be evicted. At the same time in recent years, federal subsidies for low-income housing in New York City have decreased. Between 1999 and 2003, the federal subsidy for the housing authority decreased by $58 million, or 6 percent.
Kerry would support measures to create more affordable housing, similar to initiatives he has sponsored in the past. As a member of the Senate, Kerry proposed the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, that would create 1.5 million rental apartments over ten years and support long term affordable housing. He also proposed the Community Development Tax Credit Act that would encourage the construction and rehabilitation of 500,000 homes over ten years for low and middle-income families. Neither of the bills passed.
Kerry opposes Bush’s cuts in programs that support affordable housing, and will work to ensure the survival of those programs. (Learn more)
• • • • • • •
Back to Urban Issues Main Page
• • • • • • •
GOTHAM GAZETTE’S RELATED ARTICLES
Urban Agenda: Housing
• Federal Housing Policy and New York City
• Public Housing
• Section 8 Housing