Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok_Culture_3621 t1_j8st2a1 wrote

This article doesn’t mention that housing authorities almost always pay a percentage above the Fair Market Rate set by HUD in order to encourage landlords to take voucher tenants, who tend to be seen as higher risk (even if that perception isn’t justified). IIRC, the last town I worked in Massachusetts was authorized to spend as much as 180% above the FMR. The article does make it sound like HUD isn’t happy with what the city is doing, but I don’t know if it’s accurate to suggest the practice of overpaying itself is something unique to the city (or necessarily against HUD rules). People with more federal housing experience, feel free to correct me if I’m off base.

12

ahtigers10 OP t1_j8sud8s wrote

Even if DCHA is authorized to pay a certain percentage over market rate, it appears they are still going way over even that by simply paying out the cap based on the number of bedrooms with zero consideration for actual market rates in a given area. Just no accountability whatsoever.

9

ChucktheUnicorn t1_j8tnykl wrote

I believe DC landlords are required to accept vouchers and it would be discriminatory for them not to, so there's no need to overpay

6

meanie_ants t1_j8tx4ar wrote

I work in housing and voucher programs, in compliance. Not in DC proper though.

The FMR isn’t necessarily the required rate or a limit. Some program structures do a comparable unit analysis to determine if the rent is reasonable. And sometimes a certain percentage above the FMR is authorized, as you said. It depends on what kind of voucher and how it is funded.

Also want to add that the comment in this particular article about concerns of vouchers leading to increased rent pressure is insulting in how offbase it is.

5

giscard78 t1_j8udqri wrote

DCHA is at 187%. I can’t remember exactly how it got there but I think it groups SAFMRs (ZIP codes) into neighborhoods, and “does analysis” to arrive at some number. DC is probably one of the most data rich (and should be data driven) cities in America, I shudder at the thought of DCHA’s analysis.

If you don’t mind me asking, when you say compliance, is that both tenant, landlord, PHA, or all of the above compliance?

4

meanie_ants t1_j8vm6y9 wrote

I don't work for a PHA but I work with them on certain project types. It's all tied together, really, so aside from regulations that apply specifically to a PHA's program, it's all kind of in the same basket because what a tenant has to do is connected/related to what a landlord has to do - they're just steps in the overall process.

I visit 24 CFR (the regulations relating to anything HUD, which includes PHAs) to reference something probably about once a week on average. Since my organization serves tenants, it's usually related to what we must do as a recipient of funding from various streams or to what a tenant must do as a participant in one of those federally funded programs. Some of our clients are tenants in project-based voucher programs.

On the SAFMR and grouping/analysis, I believe HOC in Montgomery County does something similar in doing their rent reasonableness analyses, but it might be on a more granular basis.

3

isbutteracarb t1_j8vmo12 wrote

You’re not wrong. DCHA’s issue is that they aren’t doing any rent reasonableness assessments and haven’t done so for years. Paying over FMR might make sense in certain areas, but DCHA isn’t following through on their own policies to assess that.

3