----

**Equal Housing Opportunities inNew York: An Evaluation ofSection 8 Housing Programs in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse**

----

**Chapter6**

**Section 8Housing in the Rochester Area** 

----

Thischapter provides a portrait of the Section 8 housing situation in the Rochesterarea covering such topics as demographics of the area, barriers to fair housingand mobility, and landlord concerns. Divided into six sections, it firstdescribes the demographic attributes of the city and surrounding area. Next, itdescribes the administrative structure and process of the five separate programsoffering Section 8 rental assistance. In addition, it contains statements fromhousing advocates, local landlords and apartment managers, and Section 8administrators.

**DemographicCharacteristics**

Rochesteris the third-largest city in New York State, with a 1990 census population of231,636.1It is the seat of Monroe County and is situated between Buffalo and Syracuse.

Whenviewed as a whole, Monroe County�s population exhibits diversity that is notdramatically different from that of New York State or the Nation. Whites formthe overwhelming majority of the households; blacks are the largest minoritygroup. While the proportion of Hispanics in the population is less than nationalor State levels, Monroe County has the largest Hispanic population in the Stateoutside of the New York City metropolitan area.

Acloser examination reveals several disconcerting characteristics. There is adistinct concentration of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as poverty-levelhouseholds, in the city of Rochester. While the city accounts for aboutone-third of the population and 5 percent of the land area of the county, nearly80 percent of all racial minorities and 76 percent of the local Hispanicpopulation reside in the city. Within the city, 4 of the 10 planning sectorsaccount for nearly 80 percent of all minorities.2

TheRochester region also has extreme household income disparities. Nearly 60percent of the city�s households are classified as low-income, compared withfewer than 30 percent of suburban households. Seventy-three percent of allMonroe County residents below the poverty level reside within the city ofRochester. Twenty-eight percent of whites live in areas having a poverty levelof 20 percent or higher, compared with 70 percent of Hispanics and 79 percent ofblacks.3  

----

| **Table        2            Distribution of Households by Race/Ethnicity** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                |
| **Race/Ethnicity**                                                                             |                      **United        States** |      **New        York State** |                   **Monroe        County** |
| White                                                                                          | 79.7% | 73.8% | 85.7% |
| Black                                                                                          | 11.2% | 13.0% | 10.3% |
| Hispanic                                                                                       | 6.6% | 9.8% | 2.7% |
| Asian                                                                                          | 1.9% | 2.9% | 1.1% |
| Other                                                                                          | 0.5% | 0.4% | 0.3% |
|                                                                                                |
| *Source:        1990 U.S. Census of Population.*                                               |

----

In1986, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 31,200low-income households with only 9,700 low-cost housing units available. Thusthere was a shortage of 21,500 affordable housing units, or more than threelow-income renters for each low-rent unit. That was one of the highest ratios ofall metro areas in the Nation.4

**Section8 Housing Agencies**

Inthe Rochester metropolitan area, there are five separate programs offeringSection 8 rental assistance:

-  The Rochester    Housing Authority (RHA) or �Rochester � program.The town of    Greece program.The town of    Irondequoit program.The village of    Fairport program.The Penfield or    �County� program (serving a consortium of municipalities in suburban    Monroe County, and excluding Rochester, Greece and Irondequoit).
TheRHA administers all but the village of Fairport program, which is administeredby the Fairport Urban Renewal Agency (FURA). Approximately 3,750 individuals andfamilies receive Section 8 assistance in the Rochester metropolitan area.5RHA administers a total of 3,445 vouchers and certificates, while FURAadministers 298 (see table 3).

Eventhough the RHA administers four of the five Section 8 programs from a singleoffice in the city of Rochester, there is no centralized waiting list for theseprograms. Each of the four programs maintains separate waiting lists andprocedures. Also, the three suburban programs, Greece, Irondequoit, andPenfield, use a residency preference waiting list. Applicants who live or workin the suburban jurisdictions covered by the programs have preferred status.6According to the *1996 Analysis of Impediments*, given the length of thewaiting lists for these Section 8 programs, it is unlikely suburban certificateswould be given to nonresidents.7

TheRHA does not maintain a residency preference list; any resident of five of thesix counties in the metropolitan area is given equal selection status. Inpractice, however, the majority of participants in the RHA program are cityresidents. Tenants with a subsidy from this program may use their certificate inany part of the five counties without having to transfer to another HA. Cityresidents may choose to rent an apartment in the suburbs, or suburban residentsmay use their subsidy for an apartment in Rochester. In practice, however, thisdoes not occur often. About 86 percent of the Rochester program participantslive in Rochester, while a similar percentage of participants in the Greece andIrondequoit programs live outside the city of Rochester. All of the Penfieldprogram participants live in the suburbs.8

Currently,the RHA Section 8 program has no available vouchers or certificates. Nearly6,000 families are on waiting lists for participation, and the number ofhouseholds on the waiting lists for the various other Section 8 programs exceedsthe number of families currently being served by the program. No newapplications are being accepted, and HUD is very unlikely to authorize funds foradditional subsidies in the Rochester area.9 
**Table        3     Distribution        of Section 8 Certificates  and Vouchers in the Rochester Area**
**                                                                    Certificates and        HA        program                                                    vouchers                      ****                                     Percent**

Rochester

3,020

81%

Greece

197

5%

Irondequoit

178

5%

Penfield

50

1%

Fairport

298

8%
*Source:        Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice In Monroe County, 1996.*
Thereis a distinct difference in racial makeup between the city and suburban Section8 programs. The racial composition of Section 8 participants varies by program.Table 4 shows the varied racial composition of both participants and persons onthe waiting lists of the Section 8 program in Monroe County.

Ofthe RHA program participants, 95 percent of blacks and 87 percent of Hispanicsreside in the city, compared with 46 percent of white participants.

Althoughthere are a few small Section 8 programs that serve portions of the suburbanarea around Rochester, nearly 81 percent of the subsidies in the region areallocated to the RHA. Because essentially one HA administers the Section 8program for the entire region, unlike Buffalo and to a lesser extent Syracuse,there are few restrictions on Section 8 subsidies available to minorityresidents of the city of Rochester. Thus minority residents of Rochestertheoretically have access to nearly all the subsidies allocated to the area. Yeta review of the use of Section 8 subsidies by minority residents of Rochestershows that more than 9 out of 10 use their subsidies within the city limits.10
**Table      4          Racial Composition of Section 8 Recipients and      Waiting Lists, Monroe County**
**Participating      households****City of      Rochester****Town      of Greece****Town      of Irondequoit****Penfield****Fairport****Total**
**# of units**

3,020

197

178

50

298

3,743

White

29.0%

80%

86%

81%

92%

40.1%

Black

64.0%

15%

12%

15%

8%

53.8%

Hispanic

6.5%

5%

2%

4%

0%

5.6%

Other

0.5%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0.4%

**Waiting      list**
      
White*

28%

71%

70%

57%

77.0%
 
Black*

71%

25%

29%

42%

22.6%
 
Other

1%

4%

1%

1%

0.4%
 
Hispanic

13%

13%

8%

17%

0.4%
 
Non-Hispanic

87%

87%

92%

83%

99.6%
 
* Includes      Hispanic

*Source:      Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice In Monroe County, 1996.*
**FairHousing Advocates**

TheAdvisory Committee heard from representatives of three local, nonprofit agenciesthat provide support and legal services to low-income individuals who believethat they are the victims of discrimination: Monroe County Legal AssistanceCorporation, the Rochester Center for Independent Living, and the HousingCouncil of the Monroe County Area, Inc. The representatives from theseorganizations stated that their concerns include the following:
-  The    inability of participants to find landlords outside the inner city that    accept Section 8 certificates.The    pressure to get lease approval on a unit before the 60-day deadline.The    unique difficulties persons with disabilities face when trying to find a    Section 8 unit.
Thepanelists provided the Advisory Committee with examples of these concerns andothers during their presentations.  

***MonroeCounty Legal Assistance Corporation***

LaurieLambrix is a staff attorney with the Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation(MCLAC), which represents low-income people in civil matters and specializes inpublic and assisted housing cases. She stated that over 85 percent of herclients are single mothers:

They    tend to be women who already are dealing with the challenges of being a    single parent and of being low income. Now they get this wonderful    opportunity after maybe 2 or 3 years on the Section 8 waiting list. So, they    go to their briefing, and they get their paperwork, and they are told they    have 60 days to get lease approval papers back on a unit, back to the    Section 8 office, who will then arrange for an inspection of the unit, will    check to see if the rents are appropriate for the fair market rents, etc.11

Accordingto Ms. Lambrix, clients have difficulty finding landlords outside the inner citythat accept Section 8 certificates. To illustrate, she recently picked up anavailable rental list provided by the RHA for Section 8 recipients. According toMs. Lambrix, of the 87 addresses on the list, only 1 was from a suburban rentalproperty. Seventy-two percent of the addresses on the list were in census tractsthat have a greater than 42 percent minority population, while 30 percent of theunits were in census tracts where the minority population is greater than 80percent. In addition, 65 percent of the addresses on the list were in poorneighborhoods, with 22 percent of the addresses in census tracts where 40percent or more of the population is below the poverty line.12

Ms.Lambrix is troubled that the rental lists being given to her clients areinhibiting their ability to move out of areas of high poverty and in factencourage them to remain in the city. She expressed concern that �this istheir chance to go anywhere in a six-county region, but when they�re askingfor help about where to find housing, they�re getting this kind of list that .. . reinforces segregation.�13

Ms.Lambrix said that when a client does find a unit and turns in her paperwork,very frequently the client is told that the unit failed inspection. She referredto RHA data that show 90 percent of the units turned in failed the firstinspection.14

Ms.Lambrix offered a story of what can happen when enough information is not givento a Section 8 recipient. A client of hers, who was living in a subsidizedhousing project in suburban Irondequoit needed to move because ofdissatisfaction with her landlord. Ms. Lambrix said:

She    received her certificate and was given 60 days to locate a suitable    apartment. She wanted to stay in Irondequoit, which is one of the suburbs,    because she had a little boy who she wanted to keep in the Irondequoit    School District. She went down and got the rental list from RHA, which only    listed city rental properties. So, I called the Greece and Irondequoit    Community Development Departments to see if they had any separate lists that    would have Irondequoit listings. They didn�t have anything. They referred    me back to RHA which said they didn�t have anything else they could give    her. So this woman who had been living in the suburbs ended up back in the    city because she had been unable to find something out in the suburbs within    the 60-day timeframe.15

Ms.Lambrix suggested that this type of outcome is not uncommon given the racial andgeographic breakdown of where certificates are used. �This was not a goodoutcome for her. She was happy to get the subsidy, but because of lack ofinformation and assistance, she wasn�t able to find housing in a place whereshe wanted to live,�16 she said. HAs have the authority to extendthe 60-day search period to 120 days, but �it�s next to impossible to get anextension, �17 she contended.

***RochesterCenter for Independent Living***

MicheleOlyer is a housing specialist with the Rochester Center for Independent Living,which assists people with physical and developmental disabilities. Her clients,Ms. Olyer said, face all of the same �dilemmas� other minorities face, butbecause of their disability, they face additional problems. �When you hear acomment about transportation, the individuals I work with, not only do they nothave access to transportation because it doesn�t exist, even if it did exist,it may not be accessible.�18  

She gave two examples of what people with disabilities face when they areparticipating or trying to participate in the Section 8 program. One involvesthe complexity of the paperwork and rules of the Section 8 program and the otheraffects persons with mobility impairment.

�Individualswith cognitive disabilities are at a disadvantage,� Ms. Olyer stated, �dueto the complexity of both the paperwork and rules of the Section 8 program,where even a person of average intelligence has difficulty completing all thenecessary steps.�19An individual with some type of cognitive impairment, including mentalretardation, traumatic brain injury, or mental health disabilities, has thatmuch more difficulty completing those steps. It is also not uncommon, accordingto Ms. Olyer, for these individuals to experience more difficulty negotiatingwith landlords, and consequently they may give up the process much sooner.

Shewould like to see extra assistance given to these individuals in both paperworkprocessing and going over the rules several times, especially for individualswho have a short-term memory loss. Many of these individuals, she said, oftentimes do not have case workers or managers to provide the extra time needed towalk them through the process and make sure they understand the rules andprocedures.

Shealso recommended that Section 8 staff have some type of disability awarenesstraining in how to deal with individuals with different types of disabilities.For example, �When interviewing a person who is deaf, be sure the person cansee your lips while you are talking, don�t look down at your desk whileyou�re writing and talking.�20

Thesecond issue Ms. Olyer discussed was the discrimination that individuals withmobility impairments may face when looking for an apartment. She said,�Landlords who are knowledge- able on Section 8 and Federal laws may actuallydiscriminate against individuals with disabilities who require modification totheir apartments, for example, a ramp, because once you�ve accepted a Section8 certificate, you are now subject to [Section] 504 regulations,21because you are receiving Federal money.�22

Shesuggested establishing a program to help property owners absorb the expense theywould incur to accommodate Section 8 recipients with disabilities. In heropinion, landlords would be more attracted to the program and to renting topersons with disabilities if they knew that this money was available to improvetheir properties by making them more accessible.

***HousingCouncil of the Monroe County Area***

Accordingto its executive director, Anne Petersen, the current goal of the HousingCouncil of the Monroe County Area, Inc., a 25-year-old nonprofit organization,is the maintenance, expansion, and availability of decent, safe, and affordablehousing in Rochester and Monroe Counties.

Oneof the services provided by the Housing Council is compiling the �registry ofavailable rental property,� which is made available free of charge to publicassistance recipients and other low-income individuals. Nearly all of the 1,300listings, which represent almost 30 percent of the available rental propertiesin Monroe County, are located in the city.

In1996 the housing council mailed 23,800 registries on request to Monroe Countyresidents, and 6,800 registries to 66 service providers across the county. Ms.Peterson was not sure to what extent the Housing Council list overlapped withthe list RHA provides to its clients. But she said, �Their list is moreexpansive than our list and the units cost more. Ours serves a group that isvery low income.�23  I  seek immediate  relief  in  this  matter before it is taken further under theCollective Bargaining Agreement. She added:

While    most of us in this room today can turn to an array of units available in the    local paper to choose an apartment, low- and very low-income residents have    no such good luck. The rental registry is the only free source of increased    housing choice in the admittedly already narrow universe of the inner city.24

Ms.Petersen stated that she will be adding to the list a page of consumerprotection information and tips on how to get the most for your rental dollar.She believes that housing choice is directly affected by supply and demand.Increasing the known supply of available units makes it more likely that theworst units will go unrented, encouraging landlords to improve their propertiesif they want them rented.25 

Ms. Petersen concluded, �The concept of mobility has as its basic premise thatsupply is really limited to the supply one knows about, and real housing choicedepends on greatly increasing the knowledge of what the choices are andpreparing to exercise those choices effectively.�26

**Landlords**

Theviews of business people and landlords on the workability of the Section 8program outside the city were represented by Harriet Howitt, a certifiedproperty manager and vice president for Midland Management, which managesapproximately 1,000 apartment units primarily in suburban Rochester, and DonRothchild, president of the Maplewood Landlords Association, a privateorganization representing the views of smaller apartment complexes and owners.

***MidlandManagement***

Apartmentvacancies, Harriet Howitt stated, are running between 5 and 10 percent higherthan they have been in any time in the past 30 years. Landlords  therefore are trying  everything  to lure tenants. Accordingly, she said,it would not make good business sense to turn away potential tenants simplybecause they are on some type of public assistance.27

Onesuburban complex has 284 units of which 29 are rented by people on some type ofassistance. Four of those units have Section 8 subsidy holders consisting of twowhite and two black families.28 She said as far as she knows, propertymanagers around the region take Section 8 tenants. Regarding attracting moresuburban landlords to participate in Section 8, she thinks they are discouragedby the perceived difficulty in dealing with the administrative paperwork and theoftentimes �draconian rules� of the program.29

Ms.Howitt told the story of one apartment rented by a Section 8 recipient thatneeded to be reinspected before a yearly rental increase was approved. Theinspector arrived and found a piece of curled up linoleum *under* thedishwasher. The property manager was told that it must be repaired in 10 days.According to Ms. Howitt, this was the busiest time of the year for the propertymanager who was trying to turn over 30�40 units a month, and this was notsomething that needed to be done or even could be done immediately. The managerwas able to get a 30-day extension, but could have been denied rent for thatperiod of time until that little piece of linoleum got tacked down. �These arethe things that drive private landlords crazy. You have to use good commonsense,� she cautioned.30

Whenasked if there was anything preventing Section 8 recipients from renting one ofher apartments, Ms. Howitt responded, �All of our rents in all of our suburbancomplexes, except maybe one, would fall within Section 8 guidelines.�31

Also,when asked about having her properties placed on the rental list, Ms. Howittresponded, �We�re not on the list of RHA . . . never knew there was such alist. I just thought that Section 8 people knew they could go anywhere theywanted. But I think we can help with that, by letting our landlords know thatthey should be on the list.�32

Sherecommended that Section 8 administrators go out to the suburbs and promote theprogram to suburban landlords who may not know that much about the program andmay need more information to feel comfortable with it. �When people put theirheads together, I think they can solve problems. We have housing. Let�s try toget the people to it.�33

***MaplewoodLandlords Association***

DonRothchild is a private full-time landlord with both urban and suburbanproperties. Concerning his participation in the Section 8 program, he stated,�I enjoy the Section 8 program, and I welcome their inspections. They bring alot of things to my attention that I don�t know about, and I am happy tofollow through.�34

Heexplained that �It is to the landlords advantage to hold out for a desirabletenant who will bring the neighborhood up while enhancing the propertyvalues.�35He said that his Section 8 tenants have run the gamut. �I�ve had greattenants who have stayed year after year after year, and I�ve had one who Icouldn�t wait to get rid of. I took that particular person to court, becauseshe would not pay her share of the rent. She was finally eliminated from the[Section 8] program.�36  

As to how the program may be extended to include more suburban landlords, Mr.Rothchild responded, �I�m not so sure you should expand it to the suburbanarea. I�m not so sure you�re going to get suburban landlords interested inthe government telling them what to do and how to do it. They aren�t used tothat, and we don�t want some stereotype individuals, whether it�s DSS[Department of Social Services], Section 8, or others, to move into certainsuburbs.�37

**Section8 Administrators**

TheAdvisory Committee heard from representatives of the two local housingauthorities that provide Section 8 programs: the village of Fairport program andthe Rochester Housing Authority. The representatives from these programsdiscussed landlord participation, residency preferences, and HUD changes to theSection 8 program.

***Villageof Fairport***

KennethMoore is the village administrator for Fairport and formerly managed thevillage�s Section 8 program. By working with suburban landlords he has learnedwhat attracts them to and dissuades them from joining the Section 8 program.

Accordingto Mr. Moore, the main problem with recruiting suburban landlords is that theysimply are not as knowledgeable of the program as the average city landlord. Hebelieves that it is very important for HAs to attract the larger suburbanlandlords, while concurrently considering the small landlord for Section 8.Suburban landlords, Mr. Moore said, �pay a little bit closer attention totheir property. They expect a little higher quality of property maintenance andthey may have a little bit more suspicion of government programs, but they canbe a big part of the Section 8 program.�38

Inorder to increase suburban participation in the Section 8 program, Mr. Moorebelieves, administrators should go out into suburban communities and talk withvillage boards, town boards, and building inspectors to see what particularconcerns the community may have. Furthermore, they should also hold trainingsessions for landlords on Section 8 procedures and try to gain their confidence.39 Referring to options available to suburbanlandlords, he stated:

My    experience was that landlords expected to be dealt with professionally and    they expected the paperwork to be there on time, that if it wasn�t, they    became disenchanted with the program, and given the fact that the vacancy    rates in the suburbs are relatively low, they really have other options.40

Whenasked whether the Fairport program had a residency requirement, Mr. Mooreanswered that the program does not have a residency requirement now, although itdid for the first 18 years of existence. The residency requirement had beeneliminated a few months before the date of the factfinding forum in Rochester.41The Committee has more recently been advised by Mr. Moore that the village ofFairport has reinstated its residency preference.42In part this was due to the refusal of the town of Irondequoit and the town ofGreece to remove their residency preferences, and to the fact that the personswho were obtaining subsidies once the preference was removed had been largelyunsuccessful in finding apartments before their search periods expired.

Atthe time of the removal of the preference, the Fairport waiting list was 42percent minority. After the reinstatement of the residency preference, theminority percentage on the Fairport waiting list dropped to 22 percent, whichmeans during this period while the residency preference was removedapproximately 20 percent of minorities on the waiting list were given Section 8certificates to find housing. Yet the minority percentage of successfulparticipation in the program (participants who secured housing in Fairport) didnot significantly increase. It is possible that, in the absence of theavailability of mobility counseling for subsidy holders, minority city residentswho had been backed up on the Fairport list were unable to use those subsidiessuccessfully when they finally got them. Consequently, they lost their chance to participate  in  the  program  when their searchperiod expired. This question may bear further exploration by the Committee.

Askedwhat efforts the Fairport program was making to encourage mobility from theinner city, Mr. Moore responded that they are not making great efforts topromote the program outside the program area. �The public feeling and thefeeling of the elected officials is that the program be for the benefit of thepeople in the program area. They do not see as their goal the solving of widerhousing problems.�43Mr. Moore did volunteer to share the Fairport�s program rental list with theRochester Housing Authority and anyone else who requested it.

***TheRochester Housing Authority***

TheAdvisory Committee heard presentations from the executive director of the RHAand the director of Leasing Operations for the RHA. They discussed issuesincluding the mobility aspects of their program and related their concerns aboutHUD�s recent changes in the Section 8 program.

*ThomasMcHugh, Executive Director*

ThomasMcHugh has been executive director of the Rochester Housing Authority since1974. According to Mr. McHugh, a high level of minorities have been using theirSection 8 certificate outside the city of Rochester since 1988, when the RHAcomputerized its Section 8 statistics. Since 1988, the RHA has signed contractswith 815 households using Section 8 certificates for units outside the city ofRochester, 31 percent of whom have been minority.44As of December 1996, for the authority�s own program, 350 households havefound units outside the city, with 29 percent of those being minorityhouseholds. The 350 figure represents 11 percent of the entire Section 8Rochester Housing Authority allocation.45

WhileMr. McHugh claims 11 percent is a �respectable number,� it translates tohardly more than 3 percent of minority subsidy holders renting outside the city.Nevertheless, the RHA intends to increase that number with the advent of a newmobility counseling center for Section 8 recipients.46

InJuly 1996, RHA was awarded a grant in excess of $1 million to develop andimplement such a counseling effort. According to Mr. McHugh, RHA established anadvisory committee to provide input into the draft counseling plan as well as toprovide an ongoing voice during the plan�s 5-year implementation. The advisorycommittee will consist of representatives from the towns, a Section 8 tenant, amajor city/county Section 8 landlord, and representatives of the Greater UpstateLaw Project, Neighborhood Housing Services, the Rochester Urban League, andMonroe County. Mr. McHugh is very �optimistic that this endeavor will furtherenhance the work that has already started relative to housing mobilitythroughout the metropolitan Rochester area.�47 

*John Haire, Director, Leasing Operations*

JohnHaire is the director of Leasing Operations for the Rochester Housing Authorityand in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Section 8 program. He has beenwith the RHA since it first initiated the Section 8 program in 1976.48

Mr.Haire was questioned regarding the RHA�s policy for extending the 60-day limitif the tenant has difficulty finding a suitable apartment. He responded, �Weperhaps are known as an agency that is rather stingy with extensions. There hasto be a good reason for an extension. With over 5,000 people on the waitinglist, it seems unfair to penalize somebody on a list while somebody sits thereprocrastinating about using their certificate.�49He did say that he would grant extensions in certain medical circumstances. Mr.Haire also indicated that as part of the Regional Opportunity Counselingprogram, RHA would extend the search time to 120 days automatically for any ofthe mobility program participants.50

Askedwhy 95 percent of blacks use their subsidy in the city, Mr. Haire responded:

They    [minority Section 8 recipients] already know where it is they want to look    for housing . . . Let�s not forget the element of choice    . . . It is    important to remember the vital role the urban landlord has played in    providing quality, affordable housing throughout the Section 8 program�s    20-year history. The urban landlords are the backbone of this program.51

Mr.Haire is worried that new HUD regulations that would reward HAs based upon theextent to which contracts were executed for units in low-poverty census tractswould put a restriction on a family�s choice. He stated, �Does this meanthat housing agencies will be penalized for approving leases in high-povertycensus tracts? If so, are you removing the element of choice from the Section 8tenant?�52

Mr.Haire also expressed concern over the HUD changes that have made the Section 8program more landlord friendly by making tenants more accountable. He gave anexample: 

An    owner may now execute a 1-year lease with a provision for a 1-year renewal    or he may elect to renew on a month-to-month basis. However, the Section 8    tenant continues to enjoy a provision which [allows] him the ability to give    30-day notice of intent to vacate at any time after the initial term. How do    you explain to an owner that despite what he thought, the Section 8 tenant    can still walk with 30 days notice?53

Askedwhether it was realistic that a Section 8 tenant would leave a suburbanapartment after making such an effort to obtain it, Mr. Haire responded:

[It    is a] waste of time debating whether it�s realistic or not. If we�re    going to try to solicit these suburban landlords, and we say, we�re going    to be as unobtrusive as possible, but these tenants can walk with 30 days,    they [the suburban landlords] are going to tell me to walk in 30 seconds.54

AnnePetersen responded to Mr. Haire by saying that it is important to note howrealistic it is that a tenant would actually take advantage of that clause andleave a landlord hanging. She said:

In    our presentations to landlords, it needs to be presented in the proper    context, yes, this could happen, but we are providing a counseling program    that brings people into your unit, and we  have an ongoing  programhere    and we�re not going to disappear because the tenant has moved in and that    we will continue to work with the tenant.55

Accordingto Ms. Petersen, landlords are familiar with and accept �transfer clauses,�which allow tenants to move with 30�60 days� notice if they are transferredfor work-related reasons. �Landlords accept those clauses everyday, and it�smuch more likely that it will be activated by a very mobile tenant than it�sgoing to be activated by a Section 8 tenant. So it�s got to be described inthat kind of context.�56  

**Endnotes**

1 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 CP�1�34, 1990Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, New York 49, table 5(1992).

2 According to 1990 census data, the African American and Hispanicpopulation of the city of Rochester was 93,079 out of a total population 231,636(40.18 percent), while the African American and Hispanic population of MonroeCounty, excluding the city of Rochester, was 18,412 out of a total population of482,232 (3.82 percent ). *See*Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 1990 CP�1�34, 1990 Census of Population, General PopulationCharacteristics, New York, p. 49, table 5; p. 175, table 6 (1992).

3 Ibid.

4 1990 census data indicate that the affordable housing deficiency isnow about 15,000 units.

5 *Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing In Monroe County*, 1996.

6 For the Penfield program preference is given to applicants who reside orwork in Monroe County.  �Nonresident� applicants include persons wholive or work in the city of Rochester, Greece, and Irondequoit or applicantsoutside Monroe County who do not work in the county. The service area for theFairport program is Eastern Monroe County, excluding the city of Rochester andIrondequoit. Preference is given to applicants who live or work in Perinton,Fairport, Pittsford, Penfield, East Rochester, Webster, Brighton, and Henrietta.

7 *Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing In Monroe County*, 1996, pp.viii�6.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid., pp. viii�7

10 Philip Tegeler, Michael Hanley, and Judith Liben, *Transforming Section8: Using Federal Housing Subsidies to Promote Individual Housing Choice andDesegregation*, 30 Harvard C.R.�C.L. Rev*.* 451 (1995).

11 Laurie Lambrix, statement before the New York Advisory Committee to theU.S. Commission on Civil Rights, factfinding meeting, Rochester, NY, Nov. 21,1996, transcript, p. 43 (hereafter cited as Rochester Transcript).

12 Ibid., p. 47.

13 Ibid., p. 48.

14 Ibid., p. 49.

15 Ibid., p. 59.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid., p. 54.

18 Olyer statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 64.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., p. 70.

21 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, applicable to recipients ofFederal funds, requires program participants to make reasonable accommodationsat their own cost for individuals with disabilities, so long as it does notcause an undue economic hardship. 29 U.S.C. � 794; 24 C.F.R. Pt. 8.

22 Olyer statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 67.

23 Petersen statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 120.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 121.

26 Ibid., p. 122.

27 Howitt statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 99.

28 Ibid., pp. 97�98.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., p. 102.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid., p. 103.

34 Don Rothchild, president, Maplewood Landlords Association, statement,Rochester Transcript, p. 198.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Moore statement, Rochester Transcript,  p. 136.

39 Ibid., p. 137.

40 Ibid., p. 136.

41 Ibid., p. 140.

42 Conversation with State Advisory Committee member Michael L. Hanley, Apr.1, 1998.

43 Ibid., p. 141.

44 McHugh statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 157.

45 Ibid., p. 157.

46 Ibid., pp. 157�58.

47 Ibid., p. 159.

48Haire statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 207.

49 Ibid., p. 174.

50 Ibid., p. 213.

51 Ibid., p. 179.

52 Ibid., p. 180.

53 Ibid., p. 182.

54 Ibid., p. 204.

55 Petersen statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 206.

56 Ibid.