Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TYRONE A. GOODWIN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.: 2:17-CV-01537
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Hornak
-vs.-
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
PARTIES
16. Plaintiff Tyrone Goodwin, who is African American, resides at 7704
Tioga Street at the BHP. Plaintiff has resided at the BHP for fourteen
years. Plaintiff pays $25 per month for a one-bedroom apartment.
17. Defendant HUD is a federal agency charged with the administration and
enforcement of all federal laws and contracts related to federally-
assisted properties, including the BHP. HUD’s Region III office is
located at Moorhead Federal Bldg., 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh,
PA 15222.
18. Defendant Jane E. Miller is the Region III Field Office Director of HUD’s
Multifamily Program Center. Miller is responsible for the Section 8
project-based programs in Western Pennsylvania. Her office is in the
Moorhead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
19. Defendant Reggie Samuel is the Managing Director at Leumas
Residential. Leumas Residential is HUD’s relocation contractor. His
office is located at 1125 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 400,
Fredericksburg, VA 22401.
20. Defendant Caster D. Binion is the Executive Director of the Housing
Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (“HACP”). The HACP is the Public
Housing Authority (PHA) created and authorized by state law to
develop and operate low-income housing in Pittsburgh. The HACP
enters into an Annual Contributions Contract with HUD to administer
the program requirements. The HACP must ensure compliance with
federal laws, regulations and notices and must establish policy and
procedures to clarify federal requirements and to ensure consistency in
program operation. 1 The executive director is responsible for ensuring
compliance with federal and state laws and directives for the programs
managed. 2 Their office is located at 100 Ross Street, 4th Floor,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219.
21. Defendant Aishel Real Estate manages HUD project based Section 8
housing, including the BHP. Aishel Real Estate is located at 224 Penn
Avenue, Suite 3B Pittsburgh, PA 15221.
1
Nan McKay & Associations, HACP Housing Choice Voucher Program (Formerly known as
Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance): Administrative Plan, Effective 7/27/17, pg. 1-1.
2
Ibid, pg. 1-2.
22. Defendant Homewood Residential LP is owned by Michael Lehrer. The
office is located at 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2500, Long Island, NY
10176.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Relocation Assistance
29. The Uniform Act “ensures[s] that persons displaced as a direct result of
Federal or federally-assisted projects are treated fairly, consistently,
and equitably so that such displaced persons will not suffer
disproportionate injuries…” Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 [Public Law 91-646; 84 Stat.
1894], 42 U.S.C. 4601, et. seq.
30. Displaced persons are protected by the mandatory relocation notices –
General Information Notice (GIN), Notice of Relocation Eligibility, and
the 90-Day Notice - sent first-class, certified mail with return receipt
requested. 49 CFR 24.203. In addition, HUD issues the Relocation
Assistance to Tenants Displaced from Their Homes (HUD 1042-CDP).
Displaced persons are referred to at least three comparable
replacement dwellings, or at least one in case of threat to health and
safety. Comparable replacement dwelling is defined as housing
currently available to the displaced person on the private market. 49
CFR 24.2(a) (6) (vii). The Uniform Act also provides a notice of appeal
rules. 49 CFR 24.10. The displaced person also must be advised of
their rights under the Fair Housing Act. 42. U.S.C. 3601-19.
The Fair Housing Act
31. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“The Fair Housing Act”), 42
U.S.C. §§3601 et seq., provides that it shall be unlawful “to make
unavailable or deny a dwelling unit to any person because of race,
color, religion, sex familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.
§3604(a). HUD may not intentionally, or by the effect of its actions,
engage in discrimination contrary to the Fair Housing Act.
32. HUD has a duty to administer programs and activities relating to
housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively that furthers
fair housing. 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e) (5).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
33. The BHP is owned by Homewood Residential LP, of Long Island, N.Y.,
and locally managed by Aishel Real Estate, of Wilkinsburg, PA. 3 It has
141 housing units located throughout Pittsburgh, PA. The area is
located in communities in close proximity to important amenities such
as quality schools, recreation centers, public transportation, and
employment centers.
34. The BHP has been subsidized by a project-based contract through
Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1437f. The
project-based contract provides a monthly rental subsidy of
approximately $109,293, also known as housing assistance payment
(“HAP”).
35. Residents are low-income individuals, qualified to receive rent subsidies
through the project-based Section 8 program, 42 U.S.C. 1437f. Through
the program, each resident household pays 30% of their adjusted
3
Bethesda Homewood sold Homewood Residential LP the apartment building at 7704-7706
Tioga Street, where Plaintiff resides, for $2.4 million on January 18, 2006, according to the
Allegheny County Real Estate Portal. These apartment buildings were erected in 1955.
monthly income to the owner for their rent. HUD pays the remaining
cost of the rent to the owner. HUD pays a utility allowance to the owner
and so this housing expense is included in the rent.
36. Plaintiff’s lease will terminate automatically if the Section 8 contract
ends for any reason.
37. The owner is required to maintain the BHP in “decent, safe, and
sanitary” conditions and to comply with applicable state and local laws
relating to the physical condition of the property.
38. On April 9, 2014, the BHP had a failing inspection score of 35 out of
100 points. The absentee owner failed to provide routine maintenance.
39. From February to August of 2017, Plaintiff complained to Defendant
Miller and Resolution Specialist Rita J. DeMarco, of HUD, and the
management agent of criminal activities at the BHP. These complaints
(with photos and videos) included nonresidents leaving drug
paraphernalia, used condoms (Trojans), and cigarette butts in the
hallway; and used drug syringe discovered in hallway. No action was
taken to remedy these criminal activities.
40. About February 17, 2017, HUD mailed a Compliance, Disposition and
Enforcement (CDE) Plan that required, inter alia, that the owner hire a
HUD-approved management agent to assume management of the
properties and to fix all the physical deficiencies. 4 HUD, again, failed to
take enforcement action against the owner.
41. By this time, the BHP needed repairs due to years of deferred
maintenance and lack of capital improvements.
4
Resolution Specialist Rita DeMarco, Notice of Compliance, Disposition and Enforcement (CDE)
Plan: For Bethesda Homewood Properties (Contract Number: PA 28E000006).
42. On July 13, 2017, the BHP failed the inspection with a score with 15 on
a scale of 1 to 100 points with 130 health and safety deficiencies. 5
HUD, again, failed to use a myriad of enforcement mechanism to bring
the owner into compliance.
43. HUD failed to provide BHP residents and the local government with a
copy of the REAC Inspection Report, the Notice of Default, or any
information about the nature of the health and safety concerns identified
in the July 2017 Inspection Report.
48. Defendant Miller has the final sign-off authority for the contract
termination. Miller must consider the availability of relocation monies
and suitable housing before terminating any rental contract. 7
5
Samuel Tuffour, Program Manager, Real Estate Assessment Center, letter, July 13, 2017.
6
Nick Keppler, “How housing vouchers and ‘Section 8’ stigma fail Pittsburgh’s neediest
households,” PUBLICSOURCE, June 8, 2017.
7
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Processes and Procedures For Contract
Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, DRAFT, pg. 2.1.9.
49. HUD describes the rental housing market in the Allegheny County
submarket, including the City of Pittsburgh, as “slightly soft” with a
vacancy rate of 7.5 percent. 8
50. The city’s Affordable Housing Task Force reported a 17,000-unit
shortage of affordable housing for low-income families. 9
51. Within ninety (90) days prior to termination, HUD must organize tenant
meetings related to the upcoming termination. 10 HUD failed to conduct
this tenant meeting.
52. HUD hired Leumas Residential, of Virginia, who had no experience in
the Pittsburgh rental housing market.
53. On September 29, 2017, HUD mailed a Notice of voluntary relocation
for tenants that chose to move. 11 This notice made no mention of the
termination (or suspension) of the HAP contract.
54. On October 11, 2017, Defendant Miller introduced tenants to Leumas
Residential and the HACP at the Homewood YMCA in Pittsburgh, PA.
55. Leumas Residential replaced the mandatory notices with its Relocation
Newsletter 12 and the BHP Frequently Asked Questions.
56. Plaintiff did not receive HUD’s Relocation Assistance for Tenants
Displaced From Their Home.
8
HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, “Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis:
Pittsburgh, PA”, July 1, 2016, page 11.
9
R. Daniel Lavelle and Raymond W. Gastil, “Affordable Housing Task Force Findings and
Recommendations to Mayor William Peduto and the Pittsburgh City Council”, May 2016.
10
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, DRAFT Processes and Procedures For
Contract Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, pg. 2.1.9.
11
Director, Property Disposition Division, Jovanna M. Morales, Notice of Tenants’ Meeting,
September 29, 2017.
12
Leumas Residential, Relocation Newsletter: Bethesda Homewood Properties, October 11,
2017.
No Written Notice by HUD
57. On November 1, 2017, HUD ended the HAP contract, according to the
Oct. 27th letter of Aishel Real Estate. 13
58. HUD failed to follow its own policy. The Section 8 Renewal Policy
states, in relevant part:
“The Regional Center or Satellite Office shall notify, in
writing, all tenants in a project who are receiving Section 8
assistance, of HUD’s decision not to renew the project’s
Section 8 contract.” 14
59. On October 27, 2017, Aishel Real Estate writes “As you are aware,
effective November 1, 2017, HUD is ending the HAP subsidy to the
property” 15 . Based on this letter, local newspaper accounts, the URA’s
Request for Proposal, and belief, this was HUD’s final agency action.
60. On November 9, 2017, Plaintiff emailed Miller on the failure of a written
notice and the opportunity to be heard. One month later, December 11,
2017, Miller responded with no comment due to this litigation.
61. Once vouchers are approved, the PHA (HACP) is responsible for
issuing the HCV. 16 The HACP waived the unusual waiting list due to
the relocation. HACP failed to follow the relocation requirements for
this target funding category, relocation, according to the HACP’s
Administrative Plan.
62. On November 11, 2017, HCV Dept. Director Heather T. Gaines issued
Plaintiff a Housing Choice Voucher, which expires on 3/18/18.
13
The Housing Assistance Payment contract states, “The Owner shall promptly notify the Family
of such abatement”.
14
Section 8 Renewal Policy: Guidance for the Renewal of Project Based Section 8 HAP
Contracts, Effective July 28, 2017, page 13-4.
15
Aishel Real Estate, Bethesda Homewood Properties: Notice To All Tenants, October 27, 2017.
16
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, DRAFT Processes and Procedures For
Contract Administration of Project Based Section 8 Housing, February 2002, pg. 2.1.9.
63. The eligibility for relocation assistance portrayed by HUD’s relocation
contractor (no on-site move) conflicts with the Notice of Relocation
Eligibility provisions.
64. The BHP Frequently Asked Question’s Problem/Special Needs fails to
advise Plaintiff of his legal rights under the Uniform Act or the Fair
Housing Act.
65. Each landlord listings of the HACP and Leumas Residential, developed
from the HACP listings, does not comply with comparable replacement
dwellings. See HUD’s Relocation Assistance for Tenants Displaced
from Their Homes.
66. “Jerome Jackson, executive director of Operation Better Block…, said
his staff worked through the list and found many properties did not
accept Section 8 vouchers or else had a waiting list”. 17 A few, he said,
“were known slumlords.” 18
67. HACP Policy states, “The HACP will complete the initial inspection,
determine whether the unit satisfies HQS, and notify the owner and the
family of the determination within 15 days of submission of the Request
for Tenancy Approval (RTA)”. 19
68. To date, Plaintiff has not received any referrals to comparable
replacement housing from either the HACP or HUD’s relocation
contractor.
69. “The city supports efforts by residents and their legal counsel to
address the conditions of these properties and keep them in place if
17
Mark Kramer, “Instead of preparing for an unwanted move, this Bethesda-Homewood resident
prepared a federal lawsuit”, PublicSource, February 13, 2018.
18
Ibid.
19
Nan McKay & Associations, HACP Housing Choice Voucher Program (Formerly known as
Section 8 Tenant-Based Assistance): Administrative Plan, Effective 7/27/17, pg. 8-10.
possible…” said a statement from Mayor’s spokesman Timothy
McNulty. 20
70. On December 14, 2017, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)
approved a $500,000 loan for the Bethesda Homewood Redevelop. 21
At this board meeting, URA member Jim Ferlo partially blamed HUD for
making deals with property owners without any input from the city. 22
71. On December 21, 2017, the URA issued a Request for Proposal to
transfer the subsidy to other rental properties so that the affordable
resource can be preserved in the City of Pittsburgh. 23
LEGAL CLAIMS
Count One:
Administrative Procedures Act and Section 223 (c) (2) and 223 (d) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017
Count Two:
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution
Bivens Claim
Count Four:
42 U.S.C. 1983
88. Plaintiff re-alleges each of the preceding paragraphs;
89. Defendant Reggie Samuel, Managing Director of Leumas Residential,
as a private party, and Defendant Caster Binion, Executive Director of
the HACP, are persons acting under the “color of state law”.
90. Each defendant performed a public function of providing housing,
including relocation services.
91. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights under the Uniform Act by
withholding notices, referrals to comparable replacement housing, and
appeal procedures.
92. Defendants failed to notify Plaintiff of rights under the Uniform Act or
Fair Housing Act.
Count Five:
Count Six:
Violation of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, 68 P.S. Section 250.502
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Tyrone Goodwin