Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Page 7
AFFAIRS OF STATE (Column)
Freeze on Rental Subsidies Puts Senior in a Bind
By DAVID KLINE
A plan designed to keep rent subsidy costs under control turned into a lesson in bureaucracy for one local senior—but there is a happy ending.
Esther Figot, an 82-year-old resident of the Shadowood Apartments near Country Club Plaza in Sacramento, faced eviction because her landlord is increasing the rent and the subsidy program rules wouldn't allow her to pay—even out of her own pocket.
The story starts with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, which recently froze rent increases for tenants and landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program—the taxpayer-funded subsidy which many people still refer to by its former name, Section 8 Housing.
The freeze, effective July 1, is supposed to save money in light of reduced funding from the federal Housing and Urban Development program. The savings will help the program continue assisting 11,000 renters in the area, SHRA said.
Figot is one of those people. She has been receiving rental assistance since she turned 65, and is very grateful for the help.
Figot's rent is $595 a month. She pays $269 and the subsidy program pays $326. Her landlord has decided to increase the rent on all tenants, so Figot's 756-square-foot apartment is to go up $45, to $640 a month.
Under the subsidy rules, the tenant, landlord and SHRA are in a three-way agreement which dictates how such increases are to be handled. The landlord must give SHRA notice of intent to raise the rent, and if the increase is found to be reasonable in light of market conditions, the subsidy is increased to cover part of the rent hike.
At least that's the way it used to work. Now, under SHRA's freeze, the landlord submits the rent increase and the housing agency responds with a letter saying no increases will be approved. Period.
Under the rules of the program, Figot can't simply cover the $45 herself, even if she has the money. This provision was stressed upon her at a recent meeting with SHRA officials, she said, and was confirmed Friday by SHRA spokeswoman LaShelle Dozier.
The ban on using personal money apparently is designed to keep renters from getting gouged and to make sure they have enough after-rent money to pay for food, clothes and other necessities.
Figot was in a bind. Her landlord wasn't backing down from the rent increase, the housing agency wouldn't cover the increase, and if she paid the $45 out of her own pocket she would be in violation of the rules and could be kicked out of the subsidy program.
Her only option seemed to be to move. Even if she just moved next door, the new lease would trigger a new agreement with the landlord and SHRA and the problem would be solved—regardless of whether the new rent is higher than her current rent!
Figot would qualify for rent as high as $719 a month—$79 more than her current apartment after the rent hike. The amount she pays from her own pocket is based on income and wouldn't change, so the higher rate would be picked up by the taxpayers. So much for the savings from the freeze.
Figot didn't want to move. She researched the location of her apartment before moving in seven years ago, making sure she is close to public transportation and shopping, and picking a unit in a quiet area with proper sunlight for her plants.
“It's everything I need,” she said. “I searched for it, I found it.”
Nor does she want to face the physical, social and financial demands of moving.
Figot's apartment manager sympathizes, but still gave her an eviction notice as a formality required under the subsidy rules.
Until Friday, none of the three parties appeared likely to yield. The apartment owner wanted the extra $45, SHRA was sticking with its freeze, and Figot was fighting back by contacting the press and local politicians.
But then Dozier called and said SHRA will bend its rules to make sure Figot and others in her situation aren't sent out in the cold by the subsidy freeze. Her apartment is priced below the market rate, even after the increase, and it makes no sense to send her to a higher-priced apartment, Dozier said.
“It doesn't serve anybody's purposes to make her move,” she said.
Figot was happy to hear our inquiries, prompted by her phone call, resulted in this flexibility. The outcome is best described using her words: “Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful!”
— Capitol News Service
Copyright 2004, Metropolitan News Company