Court Opinion

ID: 9721758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:08:10.327629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.532034
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
¶ 32. (dissenting). Families living in public housing have a right to live in peace, undisturbed by noisy, inconsiderate, out-of-control neighbors who, in the past, and perhaps even today despite the screening of potential residents, still plague those who are too *204poor to live in more tranquil and secure environments. I respectfully disagree with the Majority's conclusion that the notice and decision here were fatally deficient.
¶ 33. As the Majority notes, Leverna Bratcher was told that the agency was denying her application to participate in the Rent Assistance Program because, as material here (given the agency's ultimate basis for the denial), "[y]ou were found guilty of Disorderly Conduct on 10/7/03 in Milwaukee Municipal Court, Case No. 03132433." How can that be more specific?
¶ 34. Further, as the Majority recounts, Bratcher fully explained her version of the events that led to her conviction. The agency concluded that this was not the type of conduct that warranted entry into the Program, given the need to protect other residents from neighbors who are quick to fly off the handle and disturb the peace and tranquility to which all public-housing residents are entitled. The agency's decision fully explains why:
It is understandable that [Bratcher] was upset about her daughter; however, by the time she got home, the fight was over, the police were there and she could see her daughter was unhurt. While in the presence of police, applicant made threats, uttered profanities, banged on the door and caused a crowd to gather. The incident also happened near her residence and involved a neighbor.
"This," the agency concluded, "is the type of behavior that the Rent Assistance Program tries to screen out." Nothing could be more clear.
¶ 35. Recognizing the limited scope of our certiorari-review, the Majority asserts that the agency's notice and decision violated the law, and relies on the distillation of other authority by Driver v. Housing *205Authority of Racine County, 2006 WI App 42, 289 Wis. 2d 727, 713 N.W.2d 670. But this is not a Driver situation. There, the agency used a general written form that did not refer to the specific facts upon which the denial was based. Id., 2006 WI App 42, ¶¶ 3-6, 289 Wis. 2d at 733-735, 713 N.W.2d at 673-674. Rather, the agency's written "notice" was merely conclusory: "You violated your family obligation under the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program,'" id., 2006 WI App 42, ¶ 3, 289 Wis. 2d at 733, 713 N.W.2d at 673, as was its written decision, which also merely noted that the agency had concluded that Driver " 'violated [her] tenant responsibility,'" id., 2006 WI App 42, ¶ 5, 289 Wis. 2d at 734, 713 N.W.2d at 674.1 As we see, the notice and decision here are not similarly infirm. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

 The companion case decided by Driver v. Housing Authority of Racine County, 2006 WI App 42, 289 Wis. 2d 727, 713 N.W.2d 670, involving Dorothy Bizzle was substantially the same. Id., 2006 WI App 42, ¶¶ 7, 10, 289 Wis. 2d at 735, 736, 713 N.W.2d at 674, 675.