HOUSING AUTHORITY CITY OF LOS ANGELES
(HACLA)
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
Commits to Change
Editor's Note:
(AAGLA is cautiously optimistic that the Section 8 program will be improved. Stay tuned.)
The federally-funded Section 8 Housing Program provides rental subsidies to private property owners on behalf of eligible low‑income families. The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA) administers the second largest Section 8 program in the nation, assisting more than 47,000 families and infusing more than $434 million each year into the Los Angeles economy.
Participating families pay approximately 30% of their income for rents. All units must meet minimum federal housing quality standards and are inspected at least once per year.
While HACLA has faced challenges in the past, we are committed to improving owner service. We now offer direct deposits, expediting subsidy payments. We have increased communications with owners and streamlined administrative policies so it is easier to participate in the program.
If you have a HACLA Section 8 tenant and you want to participate in the direct deposit program, please contact Tony Agoncillo or Nixia Johnson at 213-252-6189. HACLA has also recreated the Owners' Council, meeting with AAGLA representatives, conferring with participating Section 8 owners, and involving them in our current strategic planning process.
In response to owner input from these meetings, we have recently instituted the Rent Request Desk to centralize the receipt of all rent increase requests, and we increased staff to complete the volume of rent requests. Please fax requests to 213-252-6177 or mail them to HACLA S8RR, Foy Station, P0 Box 57367, Los Angeles, CA 90057.
We have also developed a cooperative understanding with the Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD), which agrees to bypass inspecting any unit that has been inspected by HACLA in the past nine months.
If you are a rental property owner and wish to participate in the Section 8 program, please contact HACLA's Owner Services office at 213-252-1249.
We will continue to work with owners to better serve you and we appreciate the input and dialogue that many of you have offered. Thank you again for your cooperation and participation so that we can make this program work for those who need it most.
If you have a Section 8 issue, please contact any of the HACLA Ombudspersons listed here. All can assist you, but each has an area of specialty.
HACLA OMBUDSPERSONS
Lorraine Betts (Inspections) 213-252-5425
Anne Biondi (Participants) 213-252-2668
Vonciel Brown (Owners Concerns) 213=252-8703
Serina Canon (Applicants) 213-252-1613
Yolanda Marlowe (Participants) 213-252-2596
Christine McKinney (Legislative Contact) 213-252-5420
Juanita Patterson-Wright Applicants & Reasonble Accommodations) 213-252-1085
My Experience With The Los Angeles
City Housing Department
By Greg Hall, AAGLA Member
0n April 12, 2006, my three unit building was inspected as part of the Systematic Code Enforcement Program (SCEP). Per instructions from the Los Angeles City Housing Department, I properly noticed my tenants about the inspection and on the appointed day I escorted the inspector around the property. He found two relatively minor issues. An outside light fixture needed replacement, and the overflow on one of the hot water heaters was not up to standard. After a brief conversation, the inspector told me that he was not going to write anything up formally, and that he trusted I would make the necessary repairs.
I fixed the hot water heater overflow that afternoon and replaced the exterior light fixture the next day. I was impressed with this inspector. He seemed diligent and reasonable. He could easily see that I was involved with my building and had done considerable work over the last few years. Some of the more involved projects have included new roof, re-stucco of exterior, new tile in the bathrooms, new hardwood floors throughout, electrical upgrades, new copper mainlines, some selective copper re-piping of individual units and, of course, new paint.
While it is an old building, after some work it is in pretty decent shape currently. As I said, I was impressed with the seeming reasonableness of this Housing Department representative. He allowed me to do my thing and he did his thing. I am thinking life is good. This is how it should be. I maintain and/or repair the building. The inspector inspects and we get on with life. No need for voluminous paperwork over relatively minor issues. After effecting the requisite repairs, I am thinking this is now a done deal, next project in my life please.
Well now dear reader, you do not believe that is the end of the story, do you? That would make for a very short story and thus, it could not be. Approximately two and one half weeks later, the plot thickens considerably. On May 1, I receive a Notice and Order to Comply from the Los Angeles City Housing Department. This Notice and Order is from a completely different inspector and addresses two issues that had not been discussed at all during the aforementioned inspection of April 12.
The first issue was the Inspector's conclusion that I was guilty of "Failure to maintain the required landscaping and automatic irrigation system in the front yard." The second issue was "Failure to maintain required off-street parking spaces accessible for vehicular use." And the Notice and Order instructs me to formally notify my tenants of a complete re-inspection of the entire property again on June 6. This Notice and Order also came with a bill for $201.50 due and payable within 30 days.
Notice and Order was from a completely different
inspector and addressed two issues that had not
been discussed at all during the aforementioned
inspection of April 12.
My building was built in the early fifties. The building code requiring automatic irrigation does not come into the building code until 1989. Thus, issue one is a complete non-issue. This three unit building comprises two one-bedroom units and one two bedroom unit. I believe current code calls for four parking spaces in such a circumstance.
The older code applicable to my building only requires two parking spaces. I have obligated myself to provide four off-street parking spaces in my rental agreements. There are no less than eight legitimate off-street parking spaces available on my property, more if people have small cars or I really want to jam them in there.
Bottom line, issue two is also a complete non-issue. I explained these points to the second inspector on the telephone. I got nowhere. He insisted I was wrong on those two issues, and further that there would be a re-inspection and the fees would stand. He did tell me that this Notice and Order was based on a complaint. He would not discuss any particulars citing confidentiality.
Do we now have the situation where anyone can complain and the property owner gets to pay fees? How can I verify that there really was a complaint? Not that I am paranoid, but worse fabrications have occurred. Based on the intransigence of this inspector, I filed an appeal.
Yes, I made two trips to the department, one to get the appeal form, the other to deliver the appeal form after filling it out. Between those two trips and the considerable time at the Department of Building and Safety to research the codes regarding the two issues, I have at this point invested considerable time in the whole matter.
Though I must say the appeal form itself was helpful and facilitating. After filing the appeal, I wait. I hear nothing. In the meantime, I attend a meeting of owners and mangers at the new Mission Hills police station. We are informed by police officers, city attorneys, AAGLA reps (thank you Arnie Corlin) and housing officials about various laws and issues affecting the rental business.
During his presentation, the representative from the Housing Department informed the attendees that there would be no fees assessed if the complaining party does not first notify the property owner. This contradicts what has happened in my case.
I continue to wait for some response to my appeal. As the June 6 date draws near, I call the housing department to inquire. I am told filing an appeal doesn't matter. I still must comply and there will still be a re-inspection and the fees will still be still due. I ask to speak to a supervisor. There are none that will talk to me.
At this point, getting nowhere, I look for other people to call to try to get some straight answers. I called the Housing Department representative who was at the meeting at the Mission Hills Police station. As my case was not in his chain of command, he was unable to take direct action, however, he did give me the number of another supervisor who might help. Indeed, this supervisor seemed reasonable and since my case is in his chain of command, he promises to look into it.
I call Councilman Greig Smith's office. One of his staff people promises to look into the matter also. I then receive a phone call from the supervisor of the inspector who wrote the Notice and Order. He sets up a time for me to come to the Housing Department to discuss the issues with him. It was not an easy meeting, but in the end, this supervisor did see it my way and cancelled the Notice and the fees.
This whole thing was way more work than it should have been. There were roadblocks everywhere. There were employees who simply did not know their job. I do not like being treated like a criminal just because I own an old building. An old building that I have put considerable work into, I might add.
|