Opinion ID: 1963825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the brooke amendment applicability to turnkey iii

Text: Petitioner argues that under the Brooke Amendment NCHA is not only limited to charging no more than 25% of a family's income for rent, but may not bar an applicant if his income is so low that 25% of it will not meet the required payments. In our judgment, this application of the Brooke Amendment to the Turnkey III project was not intended by Congress. In view of the circumstances around which the Brooke Amendment was passed and its legislative history, we can safely conclude that it was intended to apply only to conventional public housing rental projects where maintenance and operating costs are federally subsidized. This court is aware that the 25% income requirement is being used as a minimum limit or a floor in this case, even though Congress meant the Brooke Amendment to be used as a ceiling on rents when it was passed. The key to this case, however, is the crucial difference between the way a conventional public housing project is run and the way the Turnkey III program is run. Petitioner's argument would have more validity in a typical rental public housing project. Congress has by statute created an entitlement to a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling for everyone. [15] Federal subsidies make this possible, and the Brooke Amendment makes it possible to extend this benefit to even the poorest low-income families by providing for the additional subsidies that make up the difference between income from rents and operating expenses. The purpose of the relevant statute though, is not to provide everyone with the opportunity to own a home, but merely to provide people with a place to live. The language of the statute itself speaks of dwelling and does not use the word home in the sense of ownership. There is no statutory or constitutional right to homeownership. The Turnkey III program, on the other hand, enables local housing authorities to provide selected low-income families with an opportunity to actually own their own homes. This enables those families selected to attain something more than they are entitled to by law. Turnkey III projects are meant to be self-liquidating; additional subsidies to cover operating and maintenance expenses are not available. Money for those things comes from the participants themselves and is put into the EHPA or the NRMR in the form of part of the home buyer's monthly payment. [16] HUD's intent to make the project self-liquidating is reflected in the language of regulation § 1270.104(f) (2) [17] which requires that the incomes of all selected home buyers result in a required average monthly payment of at least 10% more than the break-even amount for the project. [18] In light of the purpose of Turnkey III and the way it is administered, it is quite rational for NCHA to use the 25% figure as a floor instead of a ceiling. To use the 25% figure as a floor in a conventional public housing project would be to deny those who could not pay rent from that portion of their income a right which Congress has conferred on them by statute. To deny persons entrance into the Turnkey III program because they cannot meet monthly payments from a certain portion of their income does not deny them anything that they are entitled to by statute or otherwise. Consequently, in the court's view, the 22.5% minimum income requirement does not violate the United States Housing Act or any of the concepts embodied therein.