On Friday, June 17, NAHRO submitted to HUD its comment letter on HUD’s UPCS-V Demonstration. NAHRO encourages all interested parties to provide their comments to HUD and comments may be submitted until July 5, 2016. NAHRO’s comments are split into four primary sections. They discuss concerns about the costs of transitioning to the UPCS-V protocol; concerns about the UPCS-V Demonstration; concerns about the protocol itself; and feedback on specific inquiries about the protocol. NAHRO hopes that HUD will carefully consider these comments as it moves forward with the UPCS-V Demonstration.
Members can read NAHRO’s full comments here.
On June 1, 2016, NAHRO partnering with Housing and Development Law Institute (HDLI), Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA), Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA), and Housing Authority Risk Retention Group, Inc. (HARRG) submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’s (HACLA) request for their appeal to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
HACLA reduced its Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Payment Standards and provided a flyer to all voucher holders at the time of the resident’s annual recertification. The flyer stated the effective date and that the new payment standards would not apply until the resident’s “next regular reexamination.” HACLA also held public meetings and sent a “four-week notice” to residents before the payment standard was applied. Two residents filed suit against HACLA claiming HACLA’s failure to provide understandable information about the payment standard change and its one-year application date violated the residents’ constitutional procedural due process rights and various state laws. HACLA prevailed at the trial court level. The residents appealed, and the case was sent back to the trial court. HACLA prevailed again, and the resident appealed again. At this time, the appeal court (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit) ruled in favor of the residents with specific directions for the residents to prevail at the trial court.
Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) around the nation should have certainty about what constitutes notice when changing HCV payment standards, which the current regulation provides. NAHRO will continue to follow the progress of this case (Nozzi v. HACLA) and would like to hear from other PHAs that may be in the same situation.
Click here for NAHRO’s June 15, 2016 Monitor which contains additional analysis on Nozzi v. HACLA (members only).
As we noted in our last blog, the House Appropriations Committee approved its Transportation and HUD (T-HUD) bill after debate on several housing- and transportation-related amendments, though only a manager’s amendment making technical changes to the bill was ultimately approved. The House T-HUD bill received a robust $48.2 billion allocation, which is $1.7 billion higher than the Senate allocation. However, statements from leadership toward the end of last week were non-committal on the future of House appropriations. These statements came after the House failed to pass a final vote on its Energy and Water bill due to a controversial amendment. It is unclear at this point whether the House will attempt to take up either the Energy and Water bill again or any other appropriations bills. This would be unfortunate, as the entire THUD appropriations process would come to a halt once again due to an unrelated, non-spending issue.
NAHRO has released a comprehensive summary of the House bill as it relates to Public Housing programs. It covers the Public Housing Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, Family Self-Sufficiency, Executive Compensation, and other proposals and initiatives.
Click here for NAHRO’s in-depth analysis of Public Housing Programs (members only).
Click here for NAHRO’s in-depth analysis of Community Development Programs (members only).