HUD, Alphonso Jackson Nightmare & Section 8 Disaster

LOCAL HOUSING LEADERS RESIST BUSH'S RENTAL VOUCHER REFORMS
Andrew Mollison
Cox News Service
March 17, 2004


WASHINGTON

A Bush administration plan to save money by giving local housing authorities more flexibility in assisting low-income renters is running into resistance from those who charge it is underfunded.

About 2 million low-income families rent private housing with the assistance of federal vouchers that are used to pay part of the rent. Under the Bush plan, local housing authorities, which distribute the vouchers, would lose $1 billion nationwide for the program.

The administration has proposed freeing local housing authorities from most federal rules, such as requirements that 75 percent of the vouchers go to the poorest of the poor, those whose incomes are below 30 percent of the median in their community.

With that extra flexibility, the local agencies could become more efficient, and do just as much next year with lower administrative fees and $13.2 billion in cash as they are doing this year with $14.2 billion in vouchers, the administration said.

That argument has been attacked by the national associations of real estate agents and housing and redevelopment officials, as well as the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Budget Committee. Even housing agency leaders who would gain new flexibility dislike the plan.

"Inevitably, fewer families would be served," Renee Glover, president and CEO of the Atlanta Housing Authority, said Wednesday.

One alternative would be to put families into cheaper housing in distressed neighborhoods, so that smaller rental subsidies can be spread over the same number of low-income families. But that wouldn't work in Atlanta, Glover said in a conference call sponsored by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"We will not place families in communities that themselves are very distressed and don't have great schools, job opportunities and commercial resources," she said.

The Washington-based center predicted that, at the extremes, low-income renters who use vouchers would have to cough up an average of $850 per family per year to make up for the funding cutbacks, or one-eighth of the nation's 2 million vouchers would disappear.

But the impact would vary by locality, because rents vary even more than incomes within the United States. A report issued by the center detailed how various localities would be affected.

INSERTS FOR COX PAPERS BEGIN

COLORADO

The Grand Junction Housing Authority, authorized to issue 880 federally funded vouchers, would lose $2,170,642. The center said HUD's proposal would require the housing authority to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $696 annually or serve 107 fewer families next year. By 2009, the choice would be between rent increases of $1,540 or serving 256 fewer families.

FLORIDA

The Palm Beach County Housing Authority, authorized to issue 2,595 vouchers, would lose $2,417,685. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $912 annually, or serve 315 fewer families next year. By 2009, the choice would be between rent hikes of $2,373 or serving 755 fewer families.

The West Palm Beach Housing Authority, authorized to issue 1,914 vouchers, would lose $1,732,211. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $886 annually, or serve 232 fewer families next year. By 2009, the choice would be between a rent increase of $2,305 or serving 557 fewer families.

GEORGIA

The report said 22 housing authorities in Georgia would together lose $41 million in subsidies next year, rising to $109 million in 2009.

Georgia's three largest housing voucher programs are operated by the state, Atlanta and DeKalb County.

The center reported that:

_ The Georgia Department of Community Affairs, authorized to issue 15,906 vouchers, would lose $11,898,301 next year. It would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $732 annually or serve 1,928 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between $1,905 rent increases or serving 4,627 fewer families.

_ The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, authorized to issue 12,007 vouchers, would lose $12,803,199. It would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $1,044 annually or serve 1,455 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $2,716 or serving 3,493 fewer families.

_ The Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb, authorized to issue 3,367 vouchers, would lose $3,093,121. It would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $899 annually or serve 408 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent hikes of $2,340 or serving 979 fewer families.

NORTH CAROLINA

The Greenville Housing Authority, authorized to issue 652 vouchers, would lose $288,733. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $434 annually or serve 79 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,128 or serving 190 fewer families.

Nash-Edgecombe Economic Development Inc., authorized to issue 585 vouchers, would lose $300,403. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $503 annually, or serve 71 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,308 or serving 170 fewer families.

The Rocky Mount Housing Authority, authorized to issue 265 vouchers, would lose $161,862. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $598 or serve 32 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between $1,556 rent increases or serving 77 fewer families.

OHIO

The Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, authorized to issue 3,504 vouchers, would lose $2,153,574. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $602 annually or serve 4,255 fewer families. In 2009, it would have a choice between $1,565 rent increases or serving 1,019 fewer families.

The Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority, authorized to issue 960 vouchers, would lose $857,175. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $874 annually or serve 116 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between $2,274 rent increases or serving 279 fewer families.

The Middletown Public Housing Authority, authorized to issue 1,554 vouchers, would lose $1,043,717. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $657 annually or serve 188 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between $1,710 rent increases or serving 452 fewer families.

The Springfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, authorized to issue 1,210 vouchers, would lose $612,773. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $496 annually or serve 147 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,290 or serving 352 fewer families.

TEXAS

The Austin Housing Authority, authorized to issue 5,023 vouchers, would lose $5,812,309. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $1,133 annually or serve 633 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $2,947 or serving 1,461 fewer families.

The Longview Housing Authority, authorized to issue 649 vouchers, would lose $410,669. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $619 annually or serve 79 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,611 or serving 189 fewer families.

The Housing Authority of Marshall, authorized to issue 602 vouchers, would lose $331,947. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $540 annually or serve 73 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,404 or serving 175 fewer families.

The Nacogdoches Housing Authority, authorized to issue 961 vouchers, would lose $648,710. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $661 annually or serve 116 fewer families next year. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,719 or serving 280 fewer families.

The Waco Housing Authority, authorized to issue 1,815 vouchers, would lose $1,111,604. The center said the agency would have to raise the typical family's share of the rent by $600 annually, or serve 220 fewer families. In 2009, it would have a choice between rent increases of $1,560 or serving 528 fewer families.

(Inserts for Cox newspapers end)

"Nationally, there's the $1 billion direct cut in funding, compared to this year, but that's only part of it," said Timothy Kaiser, executive director of the 1,900-member Public Housing Authorities Directors Association. "If you estimate what's needed next year (to keep up with inflation), it's really a $1.6 billion shortfall."

"Moving toward community control and away from a 'one size fits all' program directed from Washington is attractive," he said. "But you can't expect housing authorities to want to begin implementing a brand new program at funding levels that require them to choose between discontinuing some housing vouchers or raising rent payments by low-income families."

Unfortunately, hard choices are required in order to reverse the rise in the federal deficit, which was fueled partly by a 29 percent jump in the cost of the voucher program over the last three years, said Michael Liu, assistant secretary for housing in the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

"There are going to be changes that freeze or cut the budget" for vouchers, Liu predicted. "The choice is whether (local) managers want to face those changes with new tools or without them."

On the Web:

Center's Voucher Report: http://www.cbpp.org

Bush's Voucher Plan: http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr04-013.cfm

Andrew Mollison's e-mail address is amollison(at)coxnews.com

********
Bush's proposed cuts hit close to home; Plan to trim housing vouchers worries those who depend on them
Kevin Graman, Staff writer
Spokesman Review (Spokane, WA)
March 22, 2004


Theresa Anderson has lived on the street, and she wants never to go back.

If you haven't been homeless, it is difficult to imagine how frightening
the Bush administration's proposed cuts in the nation's principal housing
assistance program are to people like Anderson who depend on housing vouchers.

''Without housing help, I wouldn't have been able to get back on my feet,"
Anderson said. ''There would have been no way to get a roof over my head."

President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget calls for cutting the voucher program
by more than $1.6billion next year and $4.6billion by 2009. That's 30 percent of the entire program, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research organization.

Such a cut would confront the Spokane Housing Authority with the choice of eliminating 540 families from the program next year or raising their annual rent an average of $569. Five years from now, the choice would be starker: 1,296 families cut off or a $1,480 annual rent increase.

The Spokane Housing Authority administers vouchers for 4,485 families now, and there is a waiting list of 4,080 families. These are the very poor, the elderly and the disabled.

Anderson, 35, pays $145 a month in rent. Housing vouchers make up the difference for her $475-a-month Browne's Addition apartment.

Her only income is a $422-a-month Supplemental Security Income check that has to pay her share of the rent, her other bills and the $100 a month she is paying in child support.

Like many in her situation, her place in society is the result of a
combination of circumstances out of her control and bad choices that she readily admits.

''I had a family once and used drugs and lost them," said Anderson, who
has been diagnosed with bipolar and post-traumatic stress disorders.

But when her name came up on the waiting list for vouchers two years ago, things started to fall into place for her. She has kicked drugs and received treatment for her mental health problems.

The vouchers are vital, Anderson said.

''There's no way I could have a career or go back to college if I didn't
have a roof over my head."

But even with housing vouchers, she still had to convince her landlord she was a good risk.

Joe Blumel owns and operates 17 apartment buildings in Spokane with 150 living units. As many as 15 percent of his tenants are on vouchers.

''They are trying to re-establish their lives," Blumel said.´''You can't
forever hold them responsible for their bad choices."

He said whether Spokane knows it or not, the voucher program - Section 8 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 - ''is the best thing we've got going" for poor people, and he has seen his share.

''I've had a lot of these folks that started out on Section 8, and they got
off it and got their lives together," Blumel said. ''As they start making
money, they get themselves in order and go to school, get some training and get in the job market. Some of them get to the point they can make their own rent."

His regard for the program is backed up by the final report of the
Millennial Housing Commission, a bipartisan committee created by Congress in 2000:

''Because the program is flexible, cost-effective and successful in its
mission, the MHC believes housing vouchers should continue to be the linchpin of national policy providing very low-income renters access to the privately owned housing stock."

Jaynele Kenney pays $163 a months for a two-bedroom apartment on the South Hill. Vouchers make up the difference of her $575-a-month rent. A single mother, she works part-time and goes to Eastern Washington University full-time to earn a degree in social work.

She wants to help people like herself, she said.

''If I lost the vouchers, I would probably have to start working full-time
in addition to going to school," Kenney said.

She said she might have to consider not going to school for a while so she could work more. That would thwart her climb out of poverty.

She waited 2-1/2 years for the vouchers, living with friends, doing what
she had to do to keep herself and her little girl out of homeless shelters.

''I don't think that people are aware of the magnitude of the cutbacks we
are experiencing in this area," Kenney said of recent cuts in child-care
assistance and Medicaid.´''Spokane's low-income population is in serious trouble. The effects of this cutback would be devastating."

It also would dash the hopes of those waiting for vouchers - people like
Lisa Swofford, a single mother whose been on the waiting list for five months.

A recovering drug addict, Swofford came in from the cold when she lost her front teeth to the ravages of methamphetamine. Now she is in a transitional home for people like her. She has one test left to get her general equivalency diploma.

Before that, she lived in a home with no floor, no running water, no hope.

The voucher program ''means I'll finally have some stability for me and my
son," she said. ''There's no way I can pay rent for a decent two-bedroom
apartment."

She wants to enter a single-parent program at Spokane Falls Community
College, maybe save some money. But if housing doesn't come through, she doesn't know what she will do.

With more than 24,000 people in Spokane unable to afford a two-bedroom apartment, said Megan Farley of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, ''now is not the time to cut" the Section 8 program.

''When you cut assistance without raising earning power, it's a recipe for
failure."

Blumel, who said he has subsidized several tenants on his own with mixed success, put it another way.

''We have a segment of the population that needs help," he said. ''No
matter how they got there ..., it's one of those things we have to face as a responsible society.

''Improving the human condition is the basic responsibility of every person
in the world," Blumel said.

The housing voucher program ''is one place that we really get our money's worth."

*****
HUD Tweaks Rent-Subsidy Formula to Save Local Vouchers
Larry Carson
The Baltimore Sun
May 19, 2004


Federal housing officials tweaked a contested rent-subsidy funding formula yesterday, easing fears among some Maryland officials who worried they would be forced to take housing vouchers away from more than 500 low-income families in Howard, Baltimore and Montgomery counties.

The change, announced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development late yesterday afternoon in an e-mail to local agencies, would provide enough money to enable Howard County to squeeze through the year without yanking vouchers, officials said. The effect on other agencies could not be immediately determined.

"They have acceded to the pressure in cutting back on families, but they cut administrative fees," Leonard S. Vaughan, Howard County housing administrator, told the county's Housing Commission during a meeting last night. "It's a major relief in that it won't affect the current fiscal year. Our concern is the future."

Baltimore County officials said last week that they feared that up to 309 families could lose their federal rent subsidies under a funding change announced April 22, but retro- active to January. Howard County worried that 29 families might lose their rent vouchers, and Montgomery officials said 200 families were at risk there.

Officials at HUD, which funds the federal Section 8 voucher program, are trying to cap its costs, which are growing at 10 percent a year, according to Michael Liu, assistant secretary for public and Indian housing.

To do that, HUD told local housing agencies last month that they will get the same amount of money as in August 2003. Yesterday's e-mail revealed an inflation factor that is to be added to the formula that will ease the burden on local agencies, but not increase the total $14.5 billion voucher program.

HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who is to testify before a House committee tomorrow, released a statement saying, "We are trying to apply the cap in a fair and equitable fashion, and we believe this plan of action achieves just that."
Cuts criticized

Housing advocates and some members of Congress have accused the Bush administration of trying to curb the program's expenses at the risk of leaving poor people without rent money. Maryland Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, a Democrat, said last week that Congress appropriated an extra $1 billion to ensure that didn't happen, but that HUD has inaccurately interpreted congressional language to implement the cap.

For Howard, yesterday's announcement means the vouchers will be worth $739 per unit each month instead of $676 - a difference of $529,000 for the year. But the e-mail also told Howard officials that the administrative fee of $70 a month per unit that the county gets will be cut by $10, costing the local government $84,000.

Vaughan told the commission that Howard has nearly no cash reserves, meaning severe belt-tightening may be required, though he and commission Chairman Kevin J. Kelehan vowed they would not ease the program's standards.
Making it work

"We've got to find some way of making it work," Vaughan said. "This program provides too much benefit to the community for us not to administer it properly," he added, to Kelehan's agreement.

Liu has said that a handful of the nation's 2,500 housing agencies would not have enough money to pay for some housing vouchers under the April 22 formula.
Turmoil and worry

But with local housing agencies all over the nation in turmoil and worrying that they may have to reclaim existing vouchers for the first time in the program's 30-year history, housing advocates and elected officials - including both of Maryland's senators - are pressuring HUD to relent.

Section 8 is a federal rent-subsidy program serving 1.9 million people nationwide that allows poor families to pay no more than 30 percent of their income for shelter, with the government paying the rest. Some elderly and disabled people pay nothing.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

*********
Rep. Oxley Holds Hearing on HUD Oversight
FDCH Political Transcripts
May 20, 2004

(CORRECTED COPY; CORRECTS WOW
?HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES HOLDS A HEARING ON
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
?May 20, 2004

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/27166.html

SANDERS: I have heard that speech 100 times.

JACKSON: Whether you want to hear it or not, I am just telling you.

SANDERS: I have heard it. We have all heard it.

Thank you. My time, sir.

Now, if you want to build affordable housing, you could support the legislation that I have introduced which has 212 bipartisan cosponsors; which would build 150,000 units of housing every year, that is the national affordable housing trust fund.

Let me go to another area, which has, by the way, support of 5,000 organizations throughout this country. Yesterday, Mr. Secretary, public housing authorities throughout my state of Vermont contacted my office to express their outrage by a HUD notice announcing the following cuts in Section 8 administrative expenses retroactive to January 1 of this year. We are a small state, not California; this is Vermont; a $262,000 cut representing 14.4 percent of the Section 8 administrative budget for the Vermont state housing authority; $180,000 cut for the Burlington housing authority, 19 percent of their budget; 17 percent for Winooski, 13 percent for Montpelier; et cetera.

How are agencies supposed to administer programs when they are experiencing draconic administrative cuts?

JACKSON: I would say this, congressman. We are administering the pro-rata share of the money based on what Congress has told us to do. I think that clearly your housing authority will benefit in Vermont like all of the others. I think I said that in the beginning of this hearing.

SANDERS: You said about the voucher program.

JACKSON: Right.

SANDERS: I understand that. You did not say about the administrative. What I am telling you is that the housing authorities in Vermont have told us there are going to be cuts by between 15 and 20 percent.

JACKSON: OK.

SANDERS: This is not what Congress mandated.

JACKSON: We are distributing the money on a pro-rata basis that Congress mandated.

SANDERS: That is not my understanding.

JACKSON: Well, that is a fact.

SANDERS: Can you justify to this commission how people are supposed to do their jobs when they are getting up to a 19 percent cut in administrative allowances?

JACKSON: I can tell you that that is the money that we have been allocated to pro-rata and that is what we are doing, Congressman.

FRANK: Would the gentleman yield?

SANDERS: Yes, I would.

FRANK: The gentleman is correct. What the secretary talked about was the voucher funding and the reserves, but not administrative funding. So what the secretary said earlier does not respond to the gentleman's question.

SANDERS: You did not answer my question, sir. Are you telling us you are concerned about affordable housing and you are cutting housing authority administrative capabilities by up to 19 percent? I assume this is national. I am sure it is not just Vermont.

JACKSON: What I am saying to you is that we are pro-rata-ing the money on the basis for the administrative fees that have been allocated by Congress, and your housing authority will receive their monies, too.

SANDERS: Can you give the members of this committee any assurances that you are going to look at that issue and you are going to try to rectify what is potentially a disastrous situation?

JACKSON: Congressman, you have my word. I will be happy to look at it. We are going to make every effort.

OXLEY: The gentleman's time has expired.

***********
Tenants, agencies fear for future of housing vouchers Federal Section 8 program is hit by funding cuts, may face more
MARIANNA RILEY Of the Post-Dispatch
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri)
June 14, 2004


Tia Flowers has spent a good part of the past two months reading classified ads, doing computer searches, making phone calls and buttonholing landlords in her hunt for a bigger house.

Her house in University City was fine four years ago for herself, her husband and four children: Aja, Tamia, India and Kyia, now 11, 9, 7 and 4 respectively. But that was before Kamryn, 3, Elijah, 2, and Isaiah, 4 months, came along. Now Flowers is desperate to find something larger.

A few miles away in Overland, Todd Jessen spends a good part of his time on a dialysis machine. He works most evenings at a pizza restaurant. "I am doing everything I can to take care of myself," said Jessen, who is single.

Jessen, 43, and Flowers, 31, have at least one thing in common: They depend on government-subsidized vouchers to help pay their rent. Jessen rents an 800-square-foot apartment in Overland; Flowers has a three-bedroom house in University City.

Both know that major changes proposed for funding the voucher program could change their way of life.

Section 8, as it's popularly known, is a public-private partnership that helps poor people pay rent to private landlords. In this area, a family of four's income can be no more than about $19,750, but housing authority directors say most of their tenants have incomes considerably lower.

Voucher holders pay about 30 percent of their income, and the government pays the balance of their monthly rent. Nationally, about 2 million families are in this program. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development funds it; local housing authorities usually administer it.

Recently announced funding cuts and a federal budget proposal that critics say slights the voucher program are worrying housing advocates. They say Congress underfunded this year's voucher program by an estimated $1.1 billion.

Plus, in late April, HUD issued a new way to calculate how much housing authorities will pay landlords. It includes a cap on the amount the authorities can pay landlords. Housing authorities also will see a cut in how much they are paid to run the voucher program.

Neil Molloy, executive director of the Housing Authority of St. Louis County, called the proposed changes "just terrible. I'm afraid that right now, housing programs are not a priority."

To compensate, he said, he has doubled the rent for some people. That means the very lowest-income people will spend $50 a month rather than $25. And he is paying landlords less.

In addition, the new funding formula keeps payments at the August 2003 level, with a 0.6 percent adjustment for inflation.

Molloy is spending the $2.7 million the authority had in reserve. He said it would be gone by the end of summer.

Last month, HUD took steps to help housing authorities, said HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. It came up with an extra $150 million to be shared by more than 500 housing authorities, said Jackson -- who ran the St. Louis Housing Authority from 1981 to 1983.

The money is not enough. "I got $90,000 and I need almost $800,000," Molloy said.

Jackson says no one would lose vouchers; the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials suggests otherwise.

The association is a trade organization for people in the business of giving housing assistance to low-income people. It says the proposed budget's funding for what HUD calls "the flexible voucher program" would translate to a loss of vouchers for more than 1,300 families in St. Louis city and county. In the Metro East area, the association estimates about 350 families would lose their vouchers.

Housing authorities would have to cut families or the number of vouchers they make available to families. Molloy said that in the county, he and his staff have decided they would reduce subsidies across the board.

Cheryll Lovell, director of the St. Louis Housing Authority, calls the budget proposal "devastating."

Of the 5,463 families in the city's voucher program, 27 percent have at least one member who works. Another 18 percent include someone who is disabled, and of the 15,636 people in the program, 62 percent are under age 21.

"So who you're hurting are the working poor, the disabled and children," she said.

In Illinois, the St. Clair County Housing Authority administers about 1,900 vouchers. Executive Director Dave Wagner estimates it would lose more than 200 vouchers under the budget proposal. Nearly half that number go to elderly people.

"We're holding on and hoping that the legislators are successful in reversing this trend," he said.

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., has pledged to work against the budget proposal. While he said he shares the administration's frustration that the Section 8 program is too costly, he said restructuring it should be done cautiously.

"We should use a scalpel instead of a meat cleaver," he said.

Rep. William Lacy Clay Jr., D-St. Louis, agrees. "This is not the way to reform the program," said Clay, who serves on the subcommittee on housing and community development with jurisdiction over HUD and housing programs.

But Jackson said the current structure offers people little incentive to leave the program. He said the new program will give housing authorities more flexibility. That's because they can choose to rent to people who can afford to make a higher contribution to the rent, which would mean the housing authority could pay smaller subsidies.

"The bulk of the people can pay more rent," he said. "I think only a small portion will be hurt."

Because Flowers and Jessen live in St. Louis County, their vouchers are funded through the Housing Authority there.

Flowers is part of a self-sufficiency program that aims to get people off housing subsidies. She is studying nursing and education at St. Louis Community College at Forest Park, although she took one semester off to care for her baby.

"We've been very blessed to be here," she said, looking at the clean but crowded house that was new when her family moved in four years ago.

She considers her need for the voucher as temporary while she finishes school. But for now, her efforts are directed at finding a larger place to live.

Jessen, 43, knows that he can never be fully self-sufficient. He has suffered from kidney failure since he was 35 and working more than 50 hours a week toward his dream of becoming a chef. Now, he makes pizzas in a steamy kitchen.

"It's humbling," he said.

He said he is trying to remain as independent as possible, but he depends on his housing assistance.

"I guess if I didn't have the voucher, I'd be living in a box," he said.

***********
Federal freeze on rent vouchers taxes VHA; HUD cuts $214,000 in agency funds
SCOTT HEWITT, Columbian staff writer
The Columbian (Vancouver, Washington)
June 14, 2004

A freeze on federal spending on housing vouchers has the Vancouver Housing Authority digging into reserves and wondering about the future.

The agency administers nearly 2,000 Section 8 rent vouchers for low-income Clark County households. Renters pay 30 percent of their income to private landlords, and the vouchers make up the difference. Approximately 800 local landlords participate in the program, which pumps an estimated $10 million into the local economy.

But the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has long complained about volatility in rental market rates and skyrocketing program costs, and in April it announced a new way of doing business.

HUD will no longer pay the whole cost of housing vouchers in local communities; instead it has frozen costs at August 2003 levels, adjusted for inflation. The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2004.

The resulting payments won't keep up with program costs, according to public housing advocates who are raising alarms across the nation.

"The cost is driven by rental-market realities," said VHA executive director Kurt Creager. "Lo and behold, even in a recession, we've seen buoyant real estate values. They unilaterally reset the base payment back to August 2003, and we have to eat the difference."

HUD spokeswoman Donna White responded that the cuts were prompted by Congress and designed to control costs driven by poorly managed housing authorities doing business with landlords who charge too much rent.

The Section 8 program "has grown so rapidly, it's becoming unsustainable," she said. "Where landlords are getting higher rents than the market is bearing in the local community, HUD is asking housing authorities to look at rent reasonableness. Continue to serve the families you serve, but consider how you're managing this program."

Creager said that scenario doesn't apply to VHA and hundreds of other housing authorities across the country. VHA's average voucher payment was $504 in March, the last month figures were available. That's below HUD's regional fair-market standard.

"We are not inflating costs as a matter of policy or practice," Creager wrote in an e-mail.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., have introduced bills requiring HUD to fund vouchers based on actual costs. Washington Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray have both cosponsored the Schumer bill; Rep. Brian Baird, D-Vancouver, has cosponsored the Frank bill.

"Section 8 housing vouchers provide the principle means of housing assistance to nearly 2 million people in the United States," Cantwell wrote to Creager. "In Washington state, up to 8,000 families may be adversely affected this year, with 150 in Walla Walla and 682 in Tacoma losing vouchers, alone."

The Tacoma News Tribute reported Wednesday that the Tacoma Housing Authority has stopped issuing new vouchers and put a freeze on approximately 180 unused vouchers.

Protect or dismantle?

VHA officials said they had expected to be exempt from the payment freeze because of their participation in Moving To Work, a HUD program that streamlines federal regulations and grants significant local independence.

But it didn't turn out that way. Chief operations officer Diane Stites said VHA took a phone call from HUD earlier this month saying its expected monthly payment of $1,018,163, would be cut down to $803,684. That's a cut of $214,479.

"We got word that they're shorting us $214,000," Stites said. "That call came from a technical shop in Iowa. We never heard anything in advance about the reduction, we just heard that we were being shorted."

She said VHA has no idea whether the cut was a one-time occurrence or permanent.

"We have been attempting to get answers from HUD. It's hard to find the right person. HUD's communication system is pretty nonexistent. It's an interesting way to run a business," she said.

Creager said the buzz among housing authorities and low-income housing advocates is that the Bush administration is trying to dismantle the voucher program without saying so. The Bush administration has proposed cutting $1.6 billion from Section 8 in 2005 and as much as $4.6 billion by 2009.

"If they want to rethink the whole calculus of the program, they should go to Congress and ask for hearings on restructuring," Creager said. "They're not doing that. They're just locking people down in their electronic transfer of funds."

HUD assistant secretary Michael Liu responded that, far from trying to do away with the voucher program, HUD is trying to save it.

"We are concerned about the long-term integrity of this program," he said. "We want to keep this program, but it's difficult to look at our competitors on the domestic front and be able to justify 10 percent annual growth when there are no economic factors we can point to that support it."

VHA isn't assuming that its funding cut will be permanent, Stites said.

"We will evaluate the situation on a month-to-month basis and not overreact to the recent shortfall. We need to learn the reason for the shortfall first, and then deal with the situation accordingly," she wrote in an e-mail.

But if the monthly shortfall becomes permanent, she added, VHA's options would be to cut the number of vouchers it sponsors, resulting in growth of its waiting list; lower its payment-per-voucher amount, shifting a greater rent burden onto its tenants; or prioritize vouchers for those who have higher income and can afford higher rent payments.

There are 4,595 households on the VHA waiting list right now, Stites said.







VHA
?

Helter Shelter

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0234/gray.php

********
Tacoma should help housing agency plug its budget gap; Many Tacoma residents face specter of homelessness
The News Tribune (Tacoma, Washington)
June 15, 2004

The bad news for hundreds of low-income tenants in Tacoma is that it doesn't look like Congress will soon be coming to their rescue. It's now up to the City of Tacoma to do what it can do to help the Tacoma Housing Authority keep more people from becoming homeless.

Earlier this month, there was at least some hope that Congress would restore full funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 housing voucher program. But that's not likely to happen. THA director Peter Ansara says a measure to fully fund the voucher program has made no progress in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

But something must be done quickly to limit the damage caused by HUD's decision to freeze funding for housing vouchers at 2003 levels despite rising annual costs. Doing nothing could force the agency to cancel almost 400 vouchers and push hundreds of low-income tenants onto the street and into homeless shelters starting next month.

That's not acceptable. And it shouldn't be acceptable to the City Council, which is in a position to help. THA has stopped issuing new vouchers; it is also planning to exhaust its reserves and implement emergency cost-cutting policies to balance its budget. But these steps won't be enough to immediately make up a $ 2.6 million difference.

The City Council is considering a one-time $ 650,000 funding request by the agency to help it through the summer and keep hundreds of people in the voucher program. Admittedly, the request comes at a difficult time for the city, which has its own budget problems.

Although higher-than-expected revenues could leave a $ 3 million to $ 5 million surplus in the gener-al fund at the end of the year, the city could still be treading water in an ocean of red ink during the 2005-06 biennium. Earlier estimates predicted that the city could face a staggering $ 25 million to $ 30 million shortfall during the next budget cycle.

Some members of the City Council are reluctant to grant THA's request. That's under-standable. But the sheer scope and potential impact of this crisis make it unique. Under the circumstances, the city has no choice but to help out to the extent it can. It should search for ways to responsibly reduce costs in other areas in order to meet as much as possible of the housing agency's request for funds.

All of the tenants facing possible homelessness are also residents of Tacoma. That's something the City Council should keep in mind as it decides how much it can afford to keep more Tacomans from becoming homeless.

**********
Some Section 8 tenants may get reprieve
The Alameda Housing Authority may be able to get about 75 of the 240 Section 8 tenants cut last week back on the program in the next few months. And, if the feds are willing to use amended baseline figures, there will be about 100 more families getting help.
( By Susan Fuller, STAFF WRITER, 06/15/2004 03:01 AM PDT)

Posted on Tue, Jun. 15, 2004

Some Section 8 tenants may get reprieve

By Susan Fuller
STAFF WRITER


The Alameda Housing Authority may be able to get about 75 of the 240 Section 8 tenants cut last week back on the program in the next few months. And, if the feds are willing to use amended baseline figures, there will be about 100 more families getting help.

The Housing Authority was forced to cut the vouchers after the federal government slashed payments for the rent subsidy program. US Housing and Urban Development switched from a per-voucher payment to a block grant and used incorrect data provided by Alameda to calculate that payment, retroactive to January.

The Housing Authority was notified of the changes in May, and came close to having to terminate all vouchers for the month of June.

"Every day we're crunching the numbers to see if we can increase that number (of vouchers," said Michael Pucci, executive director of the Housing Authority. "We think we can get to 1,500 (vouchers)." The authority was authorized to issue 1,625 vouchers but, at the encouragement of HUD, had 1,659 in use. With the cutback, there are 1,425.

"We will go through each file and reformulate contracts with landlords," Pucci said. He has sent letters to all 600 Section 8 landlords, notifying them of a meeting tonight to discuss the possibility of reducing rents in order to serve more people.

The Housing Authority has been in contact with Alameda's Congressional delegation and the state office of Housing and Community Development to try to get relief from the changes.

In light of the possibility of so many families losing their homes, Vice Mayor Tony Daysog asked city staff to see if it would be possible to establish a temporary shelter -- perhaps at the Alameda Point gym. Both the former bachelor officers quarters and bachelor enlisted men's quarters are uninhabitable, council members said.

"We need to direct our energy and effort to the three people (Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and Congressman Pete Stark) who can do something," said Councilwoman Barbara Kerr. "Stark didn't seem that interested, (when he met with council in May.) It's politics; we need political pressure from our representatives in Washington."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Susan Fuller at 748-1659 or sfuller [at] cctimes.com.

***********
Some agencies face cut in housing vouchers; Funds frozen for Section 8 rental program for poor
By ERIK ORTIZ, SPECIAL TO THE RECORD, North Jersey Media Group
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
May 5, 2004


Passaic County's housing program may have to cut the number of Section 8 rental vouchers providing aid to the poor after Congress allowed what is effectively a freeze on funding at August's level.

"It's not a pretty picture," Angel Roman, the Passaic County Public Housing Agency's executive director said Tuesday. "I hope that some sense is thrown into the mix and additional funding is provided for the program."

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) previously paid for the cost of the 1.9 million vouchers nationwide under Section 8. The program offers funding to housing authorities, which in turn give rental vouchers to qualifying poor families, the disabled, and the elderly.

The program, worth $16.4 billion, makes up more than half of HUD's total budget.

But an act passed by Congress in January now allows the government to fund housing agencies' vouchers based on rental unit costs they reported in August 2003. HUD has said rental costs also will include an inflation factor.

The new procedure, retroactive to January, is not a direct slash to voucher funding, but "an adjustment," said HUD spokesman Adam Glantz.

"The changes were made to represent actual funding needs," he said. "Whether or not a housing authority is going to be affected is hard to say."

With a more than $1 billion Section 8 budget cut proposed by the Bush administration for fiscal year 2005, and the change in how the vouchers are funded, Roman is bracing for the worst.

"We stand to lose 101 slots due to government cutbacks," Roman said. "Rental units are constantly going up in price and we're going to be underfunded."

He added that cutting the number of vouchers issued to qualifying families, asking tenants to pay more in rent, or even asking landlords not to raise rents, would be alternatives the agency will be considering within the next few weeks.

But not all housing authorities expect to be in the trenches.

"Based on the budget we have in place, we have enough money to cover the units we have now, and even more units, " said Eric Kolbe, executive director of the city of Passaic Housing Authority.

The city provides 1,540 vouchers under Section 8, although it has about 250 slots available, with 1,793 on the waiting list.

"A number of housing authorities have over-committed in the number of vouchers they can give out, but we're not one of them," said Kolbe, adding that the problem in Passaic isn't necessarily lack of funding, but a shortage in suitable apartments.

Officials from the Paterson Housing Authority said its $9.5 million budget for Section 8 vouchers is expected to cover any possible shortfall.

"We just don't want to lease out units and then have to evict people," said Dale Jones, the authority's assistant executive director. "We're still being cautious in how many vouchers we give out."

Some agencies, such as the Woodbridge Housing Authority in Middlesex County, are not so lucky. Last week, the agency cut vouchers for 72 families as a result ofHUD's funding change.

"This is an outrage," Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., said in a statement Tuesday. "At a time when hundreds of thousands of families in New Jersey cannot afford decent housing, we should be expanding the number of vouchers, not shrinking the number."

According to HUD, less than half of the 2,500 public housing authorities that participate in the voucher program would experience "any change under the Congressionally imposed mandate."

Without these changes, HUD would be subject to a $191 million deficit, Glantz said.

Housing authorities that anticipate shortfalls have until July 15 to petition HUD for more funding.

"We're talking about reducing or cutting back funding that is essential to any family that is trying to provide a stable situation and is looking to improve their current financial situation," Roman said. "If you don't even have a roof over your head, how can you improve anything else?"

***********
Housing aid concerns growing across Texas HUD boss Jackson says fears of voucher cuts are overstated
TODD J. GILLMAN, Washington Bureau
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
May 5, 2004

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON - Complaints grew louder Tuesday that thousands of low-income Texans will lose rental aid under new federal rules on housing vouchers. But Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson called such warnings overly dire.

"We're not cutting the subsidies. We're doing what the Congress asked us to do," Mr. Jackson said.

Two weeks ago, HUD told local housing authorities that it would reimburse them for vouchers based on their costs as of last Aug. 1, plus an inflation adjustment. But critics say that formula - retroactive to January - won't cover rising costs. Nationwide, more than 60,000 low-income tenants could lose rent assistance under the policy, according to the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.

At the Dallas Housing Authority, which Mr. Jackson used to run, officials say it's too soon to tell whether the formula will force them to cut any of the 17,000 vouchers they issue.

"We don't feel the crunch now," vice president Michelle Raglon said. "We're reading and seeing what's going on everyplace else. ... We haven't been able to determine how much if any would be cut."

But other Texas cities are planning for dire problems.

David Zappasodi, deputy director of the Houston Housing Authority, said the new funding formula means his agency will lose $5 million this year, forcing it to cut off aid to 724 households, out of 14,000 voucher recipients - one out of 20.

"This is absolutely affecting everyone," he said, adding that the problem will worsen next year, when proposed cuts to HUD's voucher budget would force elimination of an additional 1,700 vouchers in Houston.

"It's a huge impact on our community. Even more problematic is, this is hitting at a time where we're seeing a greater need," Mr. Zappasodi said.

For next year, the Bush administration has proposed cutting the voucher budget by $1.6 billion. As costs continue to rise, housing advocates say that would mean 250,000 fewer vouchers nationwide - including cuts of 2,000 in Dallas and 17,000 statewide. Democrats say the administration is trying to finance tax breaks for the rich on the backs of the poor.

"The Bush administration is breaking a 30-year promise to help low-income families, the elderly and the disabled to afford decent, safe housing," U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters Tuesday.

Vouchers absorb 60 percent of HUD's budget, and agency officials say they're just following orders from Congress to stop growth in the voucher program - up nearly 30 percent in three years.

But complaints have grown in the two weeks since HUD issued the policy, covering this fiscal year. Republican governors in Massachusetts and Minnesota have pressed the agency to relent; Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney pressed his case personally Tuesday at Mr. Jackson's office.

Massachusetts faces a $3.1 million shortfall, which could force it to cut 2,500 people from the Section 8 program by the end of June.

Officials in New York City, which issues 118,000 vouchers, say the change creates an immediate $55 million shortfall. They're working to avoid evictions even as they lobby for a new formula.

Mr. Jackson said that many of the housing agencies that face shortfalls have to blame themselves, mainly for issuing vouchers for which they had no funding.

"We're going to work with all of them, but I don't want the crisis to be laid at the doorstops of HUD, because it is not our crisis," he said. "The program has grown 23 percent in the last two years; it cannot continue to do that."

He and other HUD officials say local housing authorities can serve at least as many people by taking advantage of newly flexible rules that let them serve people with higher incomes and pay less to each recipient.

One small agency in northwest Oregon cut 110 families this week - 10 percent of its recipients.

In Fort Worth, officials aren't sure whether any voucher recipients will be cut.

The same is true in Austin.

"I know there's a lot of saber rattling going on. It's an election year," said James Hargrove, executive director of Austin's housing authority, which provides 5,000 vouchers.

Sandy Rollins, executive director of the Dallas-based Texas Tenants' Union, questioned why HUD would cut rental assistance at a time when it is encouraging Dallas and other cities to draft plans for ending homelessness in 10 years. The Dallas City Council will discuss its plan today.

"They're not moving in the right direction," she said.

Staff writer Kim Horner in Dallas contributed to this report.

E-mail mailto:tgillman [at] dallasnews.com

*********
Restore housing; Bush cuts hurt working poor
Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN)
May 11, 2004

Preventing additional human hardship, including the possible eviction of thousands from their homes, should be reason enough for the Bush administration to reconsider its unwarranted cutback on low-income housing vouchers.

´ By announcing on April 22 a rule change that will reduce federal payments to 900 of the nation's 2,500 public housing agencies, the administration has distorted the intent of Congress, betrayed a valuable partnership with private lenders and landlords, and shown itself as an ideological hypocrite.

Let's review a little history. By the early 1970s it was clear that large, government-run public housing projects were failing. The televised implosion of St. Louis' massive Pruitt-Igoe complex became symbolic. Even liberals concluded that concentrations of poverty were destructive and that government wasn't the best landlord. President Richard Nixon launched the Section 8 voucher program in 1974, shifting more housing responsibility to the private market. Poor renters would get government vouchers to pay the difference between their own 30-percent-of-income contribution to rent and the actual market rate.

´ to renege on that bargain. So much for the market.

´local housing authorities. It shorted St. Paul's Public Housing Agency by $300,000 in April, for example. "We've never seen a crisis like this," said director Jon Gutzmann.

´´?urely there are better ways to fix inefficiencies in some local agencies than to penalize everyone. Gov. Tim Pawlenty was right to file a stern complaint with HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. Reps. Jim Ramstad, Betty McCollum and Martin Sabo were right to urge full funding for the vouchers. Reps. Mark Kennedy and John Kline, the metro area's other members of Congress, should join them.

´´?he hard truth is that today's wages aren't sufficient to allow millions of hard-working Americans decent housing without some form of government subsidy. Nixon was right when he shifted primary responsibility to the private market. But the arrangement doesn't work without a reliable government partner. Now, as thousands of poor Americans face substantially higher rents, longer waits for apartments and, in some cases, actual evictions, it's up to the Bush administration to keep its end of the bargain.

**************
Housing Plan Stirs Concern on Vouchers
Joanna Massey
The Boston Globe
April 18, 2004


As many as 225 low-income, elderly or disabled families in the region could face homelessness if proposed changes to the federal housing voucher program are implemented, say officials at the Kingston-based South Shore Housing Development Corporation. The corporation administers housing subsidies to Bristol and Plymouth county residents.

Households from Mansfield to Marshfield that receive federal Section 8 housing vouchers could see their contracts terminated at the end of next month due to a proposed $3.1 million cut in federal funding to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, said Stephen Dubuque, executive director of South Shore Housing.

With an average annual income of about $13,500, Section 8 voucher recipients who lose the subsidy likely will be evicted due to high rental costs, he said.

"It is unconscionable that the federal government walk away from a commitment it has made to these families," Dubuque said.

While it is unclear how many of the approximately 2,000 families in the region who receive vouchers would be affected by the budget cuts, officials say they expect it to be a minimum of at least 150. Statewide, about 67,000 households receive Section 8 vouchers.

"We've been inundated with phone calls from frantic tenants, many of them elderly and disabled," said Roger Goguen, director of rental management for South Shore Housing. "These families are terrified that come June 1, they will lose the roofs over their heads."

Richard Nelson of Wareham, a single parent, said it took him more than a year to secure the Section 8 voucher that covers most of the $1,200 rent for the small, two-bedroom apartment he shares with his 6-year-old daughter.

He said he has struggled to find a job in sales since many pay an hourly wage that is less than the hourly cost he would incur in child-care. Like others who rely on a federal housing subsidy, the voucher has allowed him to stay out of a shelter, he said.

"With this cut, it's like they're going to pull names out of a hat and say, 'You're homeless,' " Nelson said. "And that's exactly where we'll be living in the back of my truck. I've been out on the street; I don't know if I can do it again."

State housing officials planned to hold a hearing Friday to determine who will lose their subsidies. Governor Mitt Romney has pledged to lobby the state's congressional delegation for increased funding from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Although they have a waiting list of 5,500 families seeking Section 8 vouchers, South Shore Housing Development officials said they already had plans not to issue new vouchers until early next year due to over-issuing by the state. Now, even those vouchers are in question, said Dubuque, the executive director.

"Unless HUD reverses this decision, the state will need to terminate up to 2,000 vouchers and will lower the current payment standards," he said. "This is not a simple case of just a few people here and a few people there."

While a housing voucher costs about $800 a month, housing a family in a shelter costs about $3,000, Dubuque said.

Julie Kehoe, executive director of the Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership, which serves inner-ring southern suburbs such as Milton and Quincy, said the proposed voucher cuts are the first time in the 30-year history of the Section 8 program that subsidies will be terminated.

She called the plan "a giant step backward in Governor Romney and the president's plan to end homelessness."
?Joanna Massey can be reached at massey [at] globe.com
?SIDEBAR:
HELP WITH HOUSING
PLEASE REFER TO MICROFILM FOR CHART DATA.

**************
Suspension of Rent Vouchers Frustrates Los Angeles Landlords
Jocelyn Y. Stewart
Los Angeles Times
March 14, 2004


With all the conviction of an army recruiter, housing officials in Los Angeles have spent years searching out property owners and persuading them to enlist in a program that subsidizes low-income tenants.

Now, some of those owners may find themselves rethinking their decision.

Last month, for the first time in its history, the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles suspended 1,500 rental vouchers, citing a lack of funds. Would-be tenants, who were on the verge of moving into apartments, discovered that their vouchers, once viewed as a guarantee of assistance, were useless.

But the suspension has affected property owners as well. In Los Angeles 17,000 owners participate in the so-called Section 8 program, renting their apartments and houses to low-income tenants in exchange for monthly checks from the federal government.

Some who had chosen to rent to voucher holders must now find new, unsubsidized tenants. Others are searching for ways to assist the Section 8 tenants, in the hopes that money to fund the vouchers will be found.

Although the suspension does not affect the majority of owners, it may serve to undo the goodwill the Housing Authority has worked hard to create.

"Mainly, it's frustrating," said Germaine Hill, who recently decided to list her property with Section 8. "I feel they should have notified us in advance that this was a possibility, and I probably could have signed this lease sooner. Now they're telling us it's too late. I think that's unfair."

Under Section 8, tenants pay about a third of their income to rent each month; the federal government pays the rest.

Last year Section 8 pumped about $370 million into the city's economy through rent payments to property owners. Program officials estimate that figure will reach $393 million in 2004.

Owners play a crucial role in the program, particularly in cities with tight housing markets like Los Angeles.

In 2001 the program's success rate -- the percentage of participants who were able to find an owner willing to rent to them by a specified deadline -- was only 50%, said Steve Renahan, director of the Section 8 program for the L.A. Housing Authority. Those who missed the deadline lost the housing subsidy.

Some owners have been unwilling to participate because they could reap higher rent on the open market. Others complained that the program's procedures created added layers of bureaucracy and delays.

In response, the city dedicated more staff and funds to reaching landlords. At trade shows and apartment owner meetings, staffers touted the merits of the program: rents paid by the government, listings through the Housing Authority, an added level of tenant screening.

"The 50% success rate told us, more than anything else, that we needed to do more of this" outreach work, Renahan said. "It's a tragedy for a family to be on the Section 8 waiting list for many years, get a voucher and not be able to use it."

The success rate of voucher holders is now about 80%, Renahan said. The number of landlords participating in the program increased from about 16,000 in 2001 to about 17,000.

Officials are aware that the voucher suspensions may chip away at some of that success. In particular, owners who had planned to rent to a tenant with a now-suspended voucher "may be disinclined to participate again," Renahan said.

Even with the difficulties the suspensions have caused, no one speculates that units will go unrented or that owners will flee the program en masse.

Still, for owners like Hill, the suspension of the 1,500 vouchers has complicated the already difficult task of finding a tenant.

"This is my first time going through the process," she said. "So far, I'm not happy."

Renting out her house through Section 8 sounded like a good idea, better than having applicants walk in off the street.

"Plus, Section 8 guarantees a certain portion of the rent," she said. "I thought that would be better than having to hassle to get the rent payment from someone else."

Hill listed her property with Section 8, fielded phone calls from potential tenants and sent out 20 applications. She settled on Diana Machado, a mother of three daughters, who is disabled and living in a homeless shelter while attending college.

Then Hill learned from Machado that the voucher that would have allowed her to pay about $1,600 in rent had been suspended. Eventually the owner received a letter from the Housing Authority stating that the vouchers might be reactivated in 2005.

She can't wait until then, but she doesn't want to rent to anyone else just yet.

"I'm going to have to go through the [tenant selection] process all over," said Hill, who works a full-time job in addition to managing rental property. "That's why I really want to wait and find out what's going on. I really want Diana to move into my property. She's so nice, and her children are so adorable."

Hill even offered to lower the rent, but Machado still could not afford it.

In some cases, the tenants themselves are the recruiters for the program.

Deborah McFarland needed a home that was big enough for the three foster children she is raising and found a vacant five-bedroom house in Los Angeles.

The owner, who asked that his name not be used, had never rented to a Section 8 tenant before, but agreed and even allowed the family to move in before the inspection and the signing of the contract, so they could spend Christmas 2003 in their new home.

"I just wanted to help her out," he said.

But the house did not pass the first inspection by a Section 8 official. The inspector left the owner with a list of repairs and changes that cost about $7,000.

"After I did it, I called them for inspection," the owner said. "They said the voucher is suspended. That's money I would have saved."

For now the owner has few options: He can continue paying the mortgage (about $1,500) without the help he expected from the federal government, accept a reduced rent or evict McFarland.

The voucher, which would have allowed McFarland to pay about $1,600 a month, was suspended before her share of the rent had been determined. So far she has not paid any portion of the rent and has no means to do so.

She also worries about the owner, whose kindness is costing him.

"He had faith in the system," McFarland said. "He's put so much money into the house to fix it for me. I'm so outdone and embarrassed."

The voucher suspensions may also have given credence to owners who advise against participating in the program.

Although the most recent issue of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Southern California's magazine includes an article on the benefits of Section 8, "we don't recommend that our members use Section 8 anyway," said Dan Faller, who heads the association. "With all the government regulations and restrictions and things like this that come along, we recommend, if possible, that they build their clientele outside of Section 8."

Ruth Hayles, executive director of the Minority Apartment Owners Assn. in Los Angeles, said the suspension of vouchers had caused hardship for tenants and was "devastating for landlords as well." But she does not dissuade owners from participating -- nor does she believe that the current problems will push owners away.

Positive changes in the program, allowing owners to receive rents close to or at market rate, have made it more appealing, she said. The current problems she attributed to financial troubles afflicting city, state and federal governments.

"We know what funding is like," Hayles said. "It's tight all over."

*****************
TENANTS TOLD: PAY UP OR MOVE ON
By BILL EGBERT DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Daily News (New York)
April 8, 2004


Hundreds of low-income Bronx families caught in the middle of a contract dispute between their landlord and the city are facing huge rent hikes - or the prospect of having to move out of their long-time homes.

Residents of the two large buildings in Bronx Park South, just below the Bronx Zoo, got letters at the end of March informing them that if they fail to pay the hefty new rents starting in May, they'll be evicted.

The tenants in the two buildings, at 2103-2115 Mohegan Ave. and 915 E. 179th St., have been receiving Section 8 rent subsidies under a federal contract that will expire at the end of this month.

The contract required below-market rents in exchange for tax breaks, but with the contract ending, the city will have to step in to provide vouchers for individual tenants who qualify.

The vouchers cover all the tenants' rent above a certain percentage of their incomes, and the dispute is over just what a fair market rent would be for the buildings, managed by the Penson Corporation.

Penson Corp. is asking for rents ranging from $994 for a one-bedroom to $1,594 for a four-bedroom apartment. The management company contends the numbers mirror the payment standard set by the city Housing Authority for landlords in that neighborhood. The Housing Authority disputes those numbers, however, and balked at Penson's requested rents.

Though all qualified low-income tenants will get vouchers from the city, the question is whether they will be able to remain where they've lived for years.

Tenants got a temporary reprieve on Tuesday when the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development extended the existing contract for one month, giving the Housing Authority and Penson until June 1 to hammer out a solution.

HUD also has stepped in to do yet another market survey - the fourth so far - which the Housing Authority has pledged to accept.

"If HUD comes back and says give them more money, we'll give them more money," said Housing Authority spokesman Howard Marder. "If they say not to offer any more money, then we won't."

****************
Federal Subsidies for Low-Income Families Threatened
Lori Weisberg
The San Diego Union-Tribune
May 2, 2004


http://www.knowledgeplex.org/news/23423.html

A change in regulations for handing out federal housing funds could jeopardize rental subsidies for thousands of low-income households across the country, affordable housing advocates fear.

Federal housing officials, who say they are simply implementing a recently enacted housing appropriations bill, acknowledged in a news conference last week that less than half of the housing authorities nationwide will experience a significant change in funding.

While it is still unclear how widespread the impacts will be, housing authorities have been advised that they may have to take steps to trim costs to avoid removing families from the rental assistance program.

"I can tell you we're very concerned based on what we have in front of us," said Carol Vaughan, chief operating officer for the San Diego Housing Commission. "What I don't want to do is create a panic among the families we're assisting. We still don't know the effective date (of the new rules) and whether this will be (made) retroactive."

Massachusetts already has had to start sending out eviction notices to hundreds of low-income tenants statewide who face losing their rental assistance by June 1 if $550,000 cannot be found to cover the cost of the subsidies.

At issue is the funding formula for what is known as Section 8, a long-standing subsidy program that allows low-income families to pay no more than 30 percent to 40 percent of their income toward rent.

The sudden change in how the Department of Housing and Urban Development allocates money to fund the program is fueled by the escalating cost of Section 8 vouchers, currently used by some 2 million households nationwide, said Michael Liu, assistant secretary for public housing and Indian affairs.

Under the new rules, public housing authorities will receive their Section 8 funding based on their costs as of last August, adjusted for inflation.

Affordable housing advocates are worried that the new allocation formula will lead to shortfalls in funding for current housing vouchers.

"This is a cataclysmic failure of the federal government to keep the public trust," National Low Income Housing Coalition President Sheila Crowley said in a statement. "The Bush administration is trying to accomplish through regulation what it could not accomplish through legislation, with reckless disregard for the well-being of countless families, seniors and people with disabilities."

Recognizing that some cities and counties will face funding shortfalls, HUD has suggested that they adopt cost-cutting strategies such as reducing the maximum amount of rent they will pay to landlords.

Some agencies in high-cost markets like San Diego will pay up to 10 percent more than the fair market rent in calculating rent subsidies. In San Diego, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom unit is $1,175 a month, but the Housing Commission will authorize subsidy payments for rents up to $1,292 a month, Vaughan said.

"We've been at 110 percent for a couple years just because families haven't been able to lease up units," said Vaughan, referring to San Diego's tight rental market.

In the city of San Diego, there are 12,500 families receiving Section 8 subsidies.

The county Department of Housing and Community Development, which oversees rental assistance for 10,380 households in the unincorporated areas and 13 cities in the county, is currently studying the potential impacts of the new regulations.

"It looks like an obvious attempt to control costs so we will have less funding in the future," said Mike Dececchi, a housing program manager with the county. "We'll do everything we can to limit its impact on our recipients."

Liu acknowledged that high-cost areas like California face challenges in managing the rental subsidy program.

"It's always been tough out there, it's not an easy program," he said.

But when asked by a reporter whether he was concerned about the possibility of families losing their rental subsidies as a result of the rule changes, Liu was unwavering.

"The law is the law," he said.

Lori Weisberg: (619) 293-2251; mailto:lori.weisberg [at] uniontrib.com

L.B. may cut housing subsidies; Shortfall in voucher program could lead to rent increases.
By Don Jergler Staff writer
Long Beach Press-Telegram (Long Beach, CA)
May 28, 2004

LONG BEACH

The city may be forced to reduce rental assistance to low-income residents to deal with a $700,000 shortfall in Housing and Urban Development funding, a move that could raise the rents of more than 6,000 Long Beach residents by as much as 15 percent.

"The amount of money allocated to us was not nearly enough to cover the cost of our program,' said Larry Triesch, manager of the Long Beach Housing Authority Bureau.

Triesch will go before the City Council and the Housing Authority Bureau Commission on Tuesday to give a briefing on the matter, request assistance and ask that all the city's Sec. 8 contracts be canceled and reissued with new terms.

Under Sec. 8, landlords charge low-income people less rent and receive federal funding to compensate. That funding is doled out by local housing bureaus. Triesch may ask that assistance payments to landlords be reduced, which would result in rent hikes of between 8 percent and 15 percent per renter. The cuts would go into effect Aug. 1.

That solution is being opposed by the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which has raised concerns that people may be evicted as a result.

"The steps are too drastic,' said Legal Aid attorney Susanne Browne. "This could result in Sec. 8 tenants losing their homes.'

Browne contends that canceling the contracts, even for a day, could allow landlords to opt out of the Sec. 8 program and evict assistance recipients. She argues that a 15 percent hike is too much for some assistance recipients, many of whom are on fixed incomes, and that more advance notice of the change is needed.

Instead, she suggests that the authority ask local representatives from Congress to put pressure on HUD to give the authority more money.

HUD this year reduced funding to local housing authorities by roughly 13 percent. While HUD gave authorities additional funding to help compensate for the shortfall, many bureaus are still in the red.

Long Beach's bureau lost $3.3million in funding, but HUD recently funded it an additional $2.6million.

Still, that leaves a $700,000 gap, which was compounded when the authority discovered it had issued too many vouchers for the Sec. 8 program.

The authority was granted 6,172 vouchers but issued roughly 6,400. Part of that problem was from a voucher shortfall in Los Angeles, which sent some Sec. 8 recipients to Long Beach, Triesch said.

"We have more housing authority participants than we have vouchers at the moment,' Triesch said.

He plans to outline suggested actions during Tuesday's meetings. Triesch is set to appear before the Housing Authority Commission at 2 p.m. and the City Council at 4:30 p.m.

***********
Rent subsidy will be paid after all, says authority
Jessica Fargen
The Patriot Ledger (Quincy, MA)
June 2, 2004

The Patriot Ledger

QUINCY - Nearly 1,000 landlords who were told over the weekend that they would not be getting a check for federally subsidized apartments can breathe a little easier today.

The Quincy Housing Authority sent out letters last week telling 945 landlords that the money for Section 8 vouchers they were expecting for June rents was not coming. But yesterday the city's acting housing director said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed to pay the June rents after recognizing a "clerical error."

Had the subsidized portion of their tenant's rent not been paid, some landlords could have been forced to start evictions this month. But at least for now that is unnecessary.

"HUD has created this crisis, and we want the landlords and tenants to know we appreciate their patience," said Jacquelyn Loud, the housing authority's acting director. "This has been a terribly stressful time for them."

Loud said federal officials yesterday acknowledged that Quincy's payments were miscalculated in part by underestimating the number of vouchers the authority administers. She said landlords should receive the June rent vouchers and a letter by Monday.

She said HUD is sending the authority an extra $1.5 million for this budget year, including $800,000 in vouchers for June rents. The budget year ends June 30.

A HUD spokesman was unavailable for comment last night.

The letters received this weekend threw some landlords into panic.

Desmond Clifford, a Quincy landlord, receives $1,300 a month from the housing authority, which covers all the rent of his tenant. He said he called legislators, HUD and the housing authority looking for more information but came up short.

"It was scary, especially with the long weekend," Clifford said. "I'm glad that worked out that way."

Clifford said although he could legally start the eviction process, that would be a last resort. Other landlords might not have been able to stave that off, he said.

"I'm sure some people (were) going to have to" evict tenants, he said.

Loud said typically a tenant pays 30 percent of the rent, and the voucher picks up the rest. She said tenants were told to keep paying their portion of the rent.

The miscalculation, along with a change in the way the federal housing agency pays for Section 8 vouchers, brought on the financial problems this year, Loud said.

The vouchers pick up most of the monthly rent bill for low-income families and other people for market-rate apartments.

Last year HUD changed the way it calculates vouchers, reducing the amount of money for the program.

Loud said it's still unclear how the new formula will affect the housing authority in July, when the new budget year starts. Jessica Fargen may be reached at jfargen [at] ledger.com.

**************
3,000 Hmong heading to Fresno
June 11, 2004

Local officials expect many of the roughly 3,000 refugees coming to the Fresno area from the Wat Tham Krabok camp in Thailand will end up living with family and friends.

Kee Yang, the patriarch of a family of eight, plans to squeeze about 30 refugee family members into the three-bedroom home he owns near Ashlan Avenue. His siblings and mother are among those who will be moving in.

"We are used to living that way. My family is big," Yang said. "We love each other so much. We are a close family."

And refugees looking to the federal government for housing assistance will have to line up behind about 2,100 low-income families already on a waiting list for rent vouchers. An additional 17,000 Fresno County families are waiting for space in public housing.

The United States will accept about 15,000 Hmong from the camp beginning this summer. An estimated 5,000 are expected to resettle in California -- 3,000 of them locally.

About 2,100 Fresno County families are on a waiting list for Section 8 vouchers.

About 17,000 families are on the waiting list for federally owned public housing.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement will give each refugee $400 within seven days of their arrival in the United States. They can spend it on housing, clothing or other needs, said Pai Yang of Catholic Charities.

More than 22,500 Hmong call Fresno home.

Click below for full story...

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/8694936p-9570045c.html

*****************
June 11, 2004
E-mail story   Print 
Officials Get Tough on Rent Subsidies
L.A. Housing Authority will start enforcing federal rule and end aid to illegal immigrants.

GOBy Jocelyn Y. Stewart, Times Staff Writer
After nine years of not doing so, Los Angeles housing officials plan to begin enforcing a federal rule that will ban thousands of undocumented immigrants from subsidized housing.
The change in policy means that thousands of undocumented immigrants who receive housing assistance will lose their monthly subsidy or face higher rents. The regulation, which has existed since 1995, prohibits undocumented immigrants from receiving assistance in public housing developments or through Section 8, a federal program that provides help with monthly rents.   
Since its inception, officials in the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles had applied the regulation only to new participants in the programs. In May, however, officials notified families who were already receiving assistance in 1995 that the rule would be applied to them as well.
The Housing Authority's failure to implement the regulation in the past constituted a violation of federal policy, said David Clark, acting director of Section 8 for the Housing Authority.
"The intentions were probably good," Clark said Thursday. "They wanted to keep families together as long as possible and not hurt them. But the law is the law."
Officials determined that about 3,000 people will be affected in some way: 639 families on Section 8 and 251 in public housing.
The regulation requires officials to terminate assistance to families in which all members are undocumented — about 140 Section 8 families and 21 families living in public housing developments.
Mixed families, in which some members are documented and others are not, will have to pay more of their rent, based on the number of undocumented members. Rents will increase on average about $327 a month.
The decision has upset housing advocates, who are already scrambling to help families affected by other cuts to the Section 8 program.
"Given the escalating rents and high cost of housing everywhere, there's no way any of these families are going to find a cheaper place than where they already are," said Bob Erlenbusch, executive director of the Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger & Homelessness.
Of the 3,000 people, almost 1,700 are children younger than 18, said Erlenbusch. The average Section 8 family has an income of $12,385 a year. The average family living in public housing has an annual income of $11,972.
"We know that 20% of the families will be paying 80% of the income in rent," he said. "Those families will be placed into incredibly difficult choices: rent vs. food, rent vs. clothes for their children."
The decision is the latest fallout from a funding crisis that surfaced in February and threatened the Housing Authority with being placed in a federal receivership. An agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the agency gives federal officials greater control over Housing Authority matters and requires local officials to abide by all HUD regulations.
Implementing what has been dubbed the "citizenship rule" was not specifically a part of the agreement signed by HUD and local housing officials, "but it has been a part of the discussion we've had since the beginning," Clark said. "We wanted to be as forthcoming as possible."
HUD spokesman Larry Bush said families aren't often terminated from the program because they tend to seek other housing once their immigration status becomes known.
"Many choose not to continue with the assistance because they fear it will lower their chances for obtaining citizenship," Bush said.
Families were initially notified in 1995 of the regulation and were given time to get proper documentation, said Judy Luther, the Housing Authority's acting executive director.
As more families provide documentation, the estimate of those affected by the new implementation will continue to decline, she said.
"Some of the families we're working with to help them get their documentation," Luther said. "Some of the families we know we can't help get documentation, we're trying to help them get other housing."

************
May 28 Tacoma Tribune

LUI KIT WONG | THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Geneva Runyan tells the Tacoma Housing Authority on Thursday that she recently learned she no longer qualifies for federal Section 8 housing.

HUD cutbacks blasted

JASON HAGEY; The News Tribune

"The bottom line is there are going to be 400 families without homes," said chairman Hyun Um.

On Thursday evening, the officials who run the Tacoma Housing Authority heard plenty.

They heard from a mother of three who was homeless for three months last summer but who now lives in a safe, comfortable home because of a federal voucher.

They heard from a disabled father who once earned $300,000 a year in construction but who now survives on $507 per month. He wonders what will happen to his family if they lose their housing aid.

And they heard from a mom who can't work because of a stroke. She and her 15-year-old daughter live on $564 per month.

"If it wasn't for food stamps, we wouldn't eat," Sherry Crelling said. "We don't know what to do."

Click below for full story...

http://www.tribnet.com/news/local/story/5128083p-5056875c.html

*************
Contra Costa Times

Posted on Tue, Jun. 01, 2004

Section 8 tenants get brief reprieve but cuts coming

By Susan Fuller
STAFF WRITER


Thanks to a $179,000 windfall from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and loans from within the Housing Authority, Alameda's Section 8 landlords will be paid in full for June. But HUD will cut its rent assistance payments as of July 1, meaning that some 200 vouchers will be terminated and those families could be out in the cold.

On Thursday the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners -- the City Council plus one tenant member -- unanimously approved a bail-out plan that also includes reducing rent payments.

Termination notices will be sent soon to those tenants losing vouchers. Tenants will be terminated in reverse order of receiving assistance. In June, the Housing Commission will consider a proposal to give a waiting list preference to terminated families.

The potential crisis started May 6, when HUD informed the Housing Authority that its funding formula had changed, retroactive to January. The council leaped into action to avoid cutting June rent assistance to all 1,659 Alameda voucher holders.

"We acted fast so the system didn't crater," said Vice Mayor Tony Daysog. "We need to let people know we worked our darndest."

Hopes rose May 21, when HUD announced it was releasing $150 million to refill the reserves of 525 housing authorities nationwide. Alameda wasn't one of those authorities, for reasons that are unclear.

Instead, HUD told the authority last week it would receive an additional $179,000 on June 2.

In addition to that payment, the Housing Authority will borrow from designated reserves for its managed complexes to cover the June shortfall.

"We will have to watch our cash flow (for the managed complexes) to make sure we can pay bills," said the authority's executive director Michael Pucci. The authority will also have to repay the loans, which Pucci believes can be done in a few months.

For the new fiscal year, which starts July 1, there are two outstanding issues: HUD has changed from a per-voucher payment to a fixed payment and HUD is using incorrect data to calculate that payment, Pucci said.

HUD is telling housing authorities to forget about the number of vouchers, that they are getting a fixed payment and to stay within that budget, Pucci said. The fixed figure is $180,000 to $200,000 per month less than what the Alameda Housing Authority is currently paying for housing assistance.

Changing the data will reduce the 2004-05 shortfall from $3.1 million to $1.2 million. The Housing Authority requested the change but HUD staff replied that it is unsure if or when a change will be made, according to Pucci. It is that shortfall that necessitates terminating vouchers and reducing rent amounts.

The Housing Authority sent notices to Section 8 landlords and tenants informing them that at least half of the subsidy payment would be made June 1. A revised notice was sent May 26 that 100 percent of the rent would be paid.

Administrative costs, which will also be reduced, are funded under a separate formula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach reporter Susan Fuller at 748-1659 or sfuller [at] cctimes.com.

*************
Oakland Tribune

Article Last Updated: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 - 3:20:03 AM PST

Alameda slashes housing aid to 240

Authority faces $250,000 monthly shortfall after U.S. department changes formula for providing funds

By Susan McDonough, STAFF WRITER

ALAMEDA -- The Alameda Housing Authority has told 240 families they'll be dropped from a subsidized housing program at the end of the month.

The notification Saturday came just two weeks after the same families and hundreds more sweated out news that there might not be enough money in the program to pay the rent in June. The crisis was temporarily averted when the city scrambled to fill the gap with reserve funds.

At the time, Alameda Housing Authority Executive Director Michael Pucci assured residents enrolled in Section 8, a federal program providing rent subsidies, that funding to the program would be replenished July 1, although he warned there could be reductions.

"It didn't happen," Pucci said Monday. "Things are changing every day."

At the heart of the debate is a change in the way the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds regional housing authorities.


HUD, which subsidizes the rents of more than 700,000 people in California, changed its funding formula last month, retroactive to January.

The formula change will leave Alameda more than $3 million short this year, as it did last year. (HUD's fiscal year runs July 1 through June 30.)

Faced with a monthly shortfall of about $250,000, the Alameda Housing Authority said it will terminate 240 Section 8 contracts -- the last tenants to make the competitive voucher list are the first to go -- while working with landlords to reduce rents.

About 600 landlords here rent to people paying a portion, and in some cases all their rent, with vouchers. Many landlords have said the cuts hurt them as well, because they rely on the Section 8 funds for their own income.

News that 240 people would lose their rent subsidies surprised city leaders who thought the housing crisis ended when Alameda tapped into money reserved for building repairs to fill the budget gap.

"The scope of the problem far exceeds my earlier expectations," said Alameda Vice Mayor Tony Daysog. "It's a sad day for Alameda."

Daysog said he thought the housing authority would reduce its costs going forward by gradually shedding Section 8 tenants through attrition, such as not reissuing vouchers when people leave the program. Alameda issued vouchers to 34 more families than the 1,625 vouchers it is authorized by HUD to provide, a practice that until recently was encouraged as a way to help as many families as possible.

Without federal backup, the additional families on the list create added debt for the local housing authority that, Pucci said, also has been hurt recently by skyrocketing rents and a bad economy that has left many Section 8 tenants with further reduced incomes.

Word of the cuts has left many tenants bewildered.

"This is crazy, " said Cassandra Ford, who teaches pre-kindergarten in Oakland, and relies on Section 8 to subsidize her rent.

She pays $546 a month for a two-bedroom she shares with her 15-year-old son, while HUD picks up the rest of the $1,375 monthly tab.

"I love where I am living. I am about to be struggling all over again," said Ford, 42.

With a monthly income of about$1,700, she can't afford the rent on her own, she said.

Her neighbor, Monica Knox, also will be dropped from the program. She broke into tears when recalling the days before being accepted into the voucher program, which can keep potential recipients on waiting lists for years.

"I was bouncing all around with my son," said Knox, a well-spoken 28-year-old woman who works in a San Francisco law office.

"Now we have a stable home. I'm stable. ... It's just so hard to get to this point in my life, and now for them to take it away from me," she said.

Cities across the country and the state are experiencing similar funding shortages.

Pucci said the current administration has already effectively converted the program into a block grant that caps the dollar amount local housing authorities receive, rather than providing the funds needed to take care of the people on their voucher lists.

The change could also cause many people receiving Section 8 to pay higher rents, Pucci said.

Contact Susan McDonough at smcdonough [at] angnewspapers.com