Section 888

Citation: Section 888
Parent Document: Open Cmtys. Alliance v. Carson, 286 F. Supp. 3d 148 (2017)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2017-12-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7328080/open-cmtys-alliance-v-carson/ ↗

Full Text

2,130 chars

Finally, HUD's incorporation into the Rule of various provisions designed to protect against the very concerns that the demonstration project identified further undermines HUD's reliance on demonstration project data to delay the Rule. Most significantly, as discussed above, the Rule requires all PHAs within an affected metropolitan area to use SAFMRs, addressing *173a crucial issue that the demonstration project uncovered. 24 C.F.R. § 888.113(c)(3) ; Final Rule , 81 Fed. Reg. at 80,568. The Rule also contains several other provisions to protect voucher holders against issues the demonstration project revealed, including (1) "limit[ing] the annual decrease in Small Area FMRs to no more than 10 percent of the area's FMR in the prior fiscal year" and allowing PHAs to (2) "hold harmless those families remaining in place from payment standard reductions," (3) "establish a new payment standard for families under HAP contract between the full 'hold harmless' option ... and the new payment standard based on the Small Area FMR," (4) "establish different policies regarding how decreases in payment standards will apply [to voucher holders] for designated areas within their jurisdiction," and (5) "request and receive approval to establish an exception payment standard promptly for a ZIP Code area if necessary to react to rapidly changing market conditions or to ensure sufficient rental units are available for voucher families." Final Rule , 81 Fed. Reg. at 80,572 -74. HUD has discounted the importance of two of these five enumerated voucher holder protections incorporated into the Rule, noting that the 10 percent SAFMR cap "may only slow the pace of the loss of units, as opposed to preventing the overall decline in the number of units available to HCV families," and that the "hold harmless" provision does not "protect[ ] families that must move to a new unit or [ ] applicant families off the waiting list who are trying to lease a unit on the program for the first time." Suspension Mem. at 5-7. HUD seemingly has not, however, considered or addressed the Rule's other voucher holder protection provisions.15

Other Sections in This Document (99)

Full Text