Section § 1437f(t) was enacted to protect the “particularly
vulnerable populations” of low-income, elderly, and disabled
persons who occupy former Section 8 projects. See Estevez v.
Cosmopolitan Assocs., No. 05-4318, 2005 WL 3164146, at *5
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2005) (quoting Section 8 Housing: Hear-
ing before the Subcomm. on Hous. & Transp. of the S. Bank-
ing Comm., 106th Cong. (1999) (written testimony of Rep.
Rick Lazio)). HAP contracts play a central role in the statu-
tory scheme. HAP contracts prescribe, and enable PHAs to
enforce, the conditions of public housing that Congress
thought essential to the statutory purpose of providing the
poor not only an affordable but also “a decent place to live.”
§ 1437f(a). See also id. § 1437(a)(1)(A) (“It is the policy of
the United States . . . to assist States and political subdivisions
of States to remedy the unsafe housing conditions and the
acute shortage of decent and safe dwellings for low-income
families . . . .”). By countenancing enhanced voucher tenan-
cies in the absence of a HAP contract, the majority creates a
situation never contemplated by Congress.
2930 PARK VILLAGE v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST
Owners who do not enter into HAP contracts cannot
redeem enhanced vouchers. See 24 C.F.R. § 982.305(c)(2);
Guide at 11-3B. HUD regulations treat housing assistance
payments and HAP contracts as symbiotic. See id.
§ 982.309(b)(2)(iii) (“The HAP contract terminates if . . . the
PHA terminates assistance for the family.”); id.
§ 982.311(c)(2) (“Housing assistance payments terminate if
. . . the HAP contract terminates.”). Those courts that have
held that § 1437f(t)(1)(B) creates a right to remain using
enhanced vouchers have therefore also required the execution
of HAP contracts so that tenants may apply enhanced vouch-
ers to pay their increased rents. See, e.g., Feemster v. BSA Ltd.
P’ship, 548 F.3d 1063, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 2008), aff’g in rele-
vant part, 471 F. Supp. 2d 87, 92, 97 (D.D.C. 2007); Barrien-
tos v. 1801-1825 Morton, LLC, No. 06-6437, 2007 WL
7213974, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2007), aff’d on other
grounds, 583 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2009); Jeanty v. Shore Ter-
race Realty Ass’n, No. 03-8669, 2004 WL 1794496, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2004). But see Estevez, 2005 WL
3164146, at *7 (stating, in dicta, that owner who agrees to
accept as full payment of rent a tenant’s statutorily prescribed
contribution, thereby forgoing any money from enhanced
vouchers, “remains free to refuse to sign contracts with [the
PHA] and thereby to forfeit any rental income above and
beyond the direct payments made by tenants”).