Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document
Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Effective Date
2009-10-09

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text

1,832 chars
[6] The goals of the HUD regulation and LARSO, as
expressed in the purposes of each governing statute, are the
same—to increase the availability and affordability of hous-
ing. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(a), with L.A. Mun. Code
§ 151.01. Morton argues that HUD’s goal in defining “good
cause” was to encourage owner participation in the section 8
program, an objective not found in LARSO.6 This argument
  5
     Morton does not argue on appeal that it is physically impossible to
comply with both the HUD regulation and LARSO.
   6
     The district court agreed with Morton that “when enacting LARSO, the
City had no concern for encouraging owner participation in the section 8
program.” Though we need not resolve this question because we hold that
the primary goals of the HUD regulation and LARSO are compatible, we
note that nothing in the record suggests that the City of Los Angeles was
unaware of concerns regarding the availability of section 8 housing.
            BARRIENTOS v. 1801-1825 MORTON LLC            14443
is illogical, however, as HUD and Congress have deemed
owner participation an important means to the ultimate end of
providing housing, but not a goal in itself. Thus, while HUD
may have listed examples of “good cause” in order “to pro-
vide explicit regulatory assurance to prospective section 8
owners that legitimate owner concerns will be recognized as
grounds for termination of tenancy,” 49 Fed. Reg. at 12,233,
the fact remains that the same regulation specified that “good
cause is determined in local landlord tenant courts,” id. at
12,234. Any agency assurance that it considers the desire to
raise the rent as “good cause” to terminate a lease is, by the
very terms of the regulation, necessarily subject to case-by-
case evaluation by state courts, which are also required to
apply local law.