![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.6666666666666667in"
height="0.7604166666666666in"}

September 28^th^, 2008

Regulations Division

Office of General Counsel

Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W.

Room 10276

Washington DC 20410-0500

RE: [Comments on Docket No. FR-4990-P-01, Streamlining Public
Housing]{.underline}

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) is a leading,
independent, nonprofit organization that provides innovative solutions
to the most urgent problems facing low-income New Yorkers. Since 1995,
the CSS Housing Policy Unit has been working closely with and providing
technical assistance to resident leaders in the city's public housing
community, which includes over 180,000 households in more than 340
developments. In addition, the CSS Tenant Advocacy Program provides
individual assistance to many public housing residents experiencing
problems in being admitted to or sustaining occupancy in public housing.
In the summer and fall of 2007, two CSS staff members participated in
the HUD Public Housing Administrative Reform Initiative to streamline
public housing regulations. Our comments on the proposed streamlining
regulations follow:

> [903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in
> development of the Annual Plan?]{.underline}

CSS recommends that this section of the proposed regulations not be
adopted for the following reasons:

1)  The proposed regulation for selection of Resident Advisory Boards
    (RAB) conflicts with existing HUD 24 CFR Part 964 regulations for
    tenant participation, for which HUD has agreed to defer streamlining
    proposals. Under the 964 regulations, a Public Housing Authority
    (PHA) must recognize and collaborate with the duly-elected
    jurisdiction-wide resident council, or, in the absence of a
    jurisdiction-wide council, the duly-elected resident councils at the
    development level, on all policy decisions. The PHA is prohibited
    from recognizing any other resident entities as legitimate tenant
    representatives. Accordingly, since the 1998 enactment of QHWRA, HUD
    has promulgated rules that require that PHAs recognize the
    duly-elected jurisdiction-wide council as the RAB public housing
    component, where such a council exists, or form a RAB with the
    existing resident councils.

> The proposed regulation allows the PHA to compose the RAB or several
> RABs as it pleases. As such, it undermines the rights and primacy of
> resident councils that are established and duly elected under the
> existing HUD 964 regulations.

2)  The proposed regulation, in our view, would severely weaken intended
    resident participation in the Annual Plan and in PHA policy
    decisions. It would threaten and weaken the existing resident
    participation structure, which was formed in compliance with
    existing 964 regulations. It would render ineffective any RAB that
    was selected at the pleasure of the PHA. The creation of several
    RABs, at the discretion of the PHA, could dilute and weaken the
    influence of residents in the Annual Plan process.

> [Part 966---Public Housing Lease and Grievance Procedures]{.underline}
>
> CSS recommends that HUD's proposed regulatory changes to the grievance
> procedure

not be adopted for the following reasons:

1)  The proposed regulations are inconsistent with Congressional
    directives. Congress has amended the United States Housing Act to
    ensure that PHAs do not violate tenants' and applicants' due process
    rights. The Act requires PHAs, among other things, to set forth
    their grievance procedures in their Annual Plans and to hold a
    hearing where an application for either Section 8 or public housing
    has been denied. It also allows tenants to review any relevant
    documents prior to the hearing. The proposed regulations greatly
    diminish these rights.

2)  The proposed regulations will lead to serious violations in tenants'
    and applicants' due process rights. Congress has codified the due
    process requirements articulated in the landmark cases of
    [Goldberg v. Kelly]{.underline}, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and
    [Escalera v. New York City Housing Authority]{.underline}, 425 F.2d
    853 (2d Cir. 1970). Those cases established the now uncontroversial
    minimum rules government actors must follow when seeking to deny
    federal assistance. They include the right to a hearing before an
    impartial arbitrator, the right to review relevant documentation
    prior to the hearing, and the right to have the hearing officer's
    decision based solely on the evidence produced at the hearing.

> The proposed rules would violate due process in key respects. HUD
> proposes eliminating 24 CFR 966.56(b)(5) which requires a hearing
> officer to base his/her decision "solely and exclusively upon the
> facts presented at the hearing." The removal of this provision would
> enable PHAs to base a decision on information obtained after the
> hearing, and not made available to the tenant. This would deprive
> tenants of the right to effectively cross-examine witnesses and defend
> themselves.
>
> Finally, HUD proposes to eliminate a requirement that the PHA "take
> all actions or refrain from any actions necessary to carry out the
> decision...within a reasonable time." This provision may lead some
> PHAs to pick and choose those decisions they want to enforce. This
> would make the hearing process meaningless.

Very sincerely yours,

Victor Bach Jacqueline Burger

Senior Housing Policy Analyst Director, Tenant Advocacy

Community Service Society of New York Center for Benefits and Services

\(212\) 614-5492 Community Service Society

[**vbach@cssny.org**](mailto:vbach@cssny.org) (212) 614-5311

[**jburger@cssny.org**](mailto:jburger@cssny.org)