Section 8

Citation: Section 8
Parent Document: Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass'n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-02-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/205533/park-village-apartment-tenants-a... ↗

Full Text

1,415 chars

If Congress had intended that owners must continue to exe-
cute HAP contracts despite opting out of Section 8, it could
easily have said so. Instead, Congress was silent on the issue.
Rather than inferring from this silence an obligation on the
part of opting-out owners to enter HAP contracts, the more
logical inference (particularly in light of the opt-out provision
and the 1996 amendments to the Act) is that building owners
are free to opt out of Section 8 so long as they respect the eli-
gible tenants’ statutory right to remain. If owners are willing
to forego significant rental income in order to avoid the obli-
gations imposed by HAP contracts, they are free to do so. If
owners prefer to receive a fair market rent via enhanced
vouchers, they must also execute an HAP contract. But unless
and until Congress fills in the gaps in its statutory scheme, we
are unwilling to adopt the sweeping conclusion endorsed by
the Dissent and require Defendants to enter HAP contracts.
Indeed, we do not even know what HAP terms the PHA pro-
posed for the Defendants in this case because the record
2926       PARK VILLAGE v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST
before us does not include a copy. We cannot fathom that
Congress intended sub silentio to require Section 8 opt-outs
to enter contracts of adhesion whose terms are dictated solely
by PHAs but whose financial burdens can easily frustrate
other provisions of the Act.

Other Sections in This Document (141)

Full Text