Institute "one unit for market" requirement

The third approach to effecting change in the Housing Choice Voucher program disallows the business strategy of targeting voucher holders through administrative rules. It targets only the landlord that exclusively leases to voucher holder and by forcing the landlord to market at least one unit in a building to a non-subsidized tenant (or sustain the vacancy), it would reduce the profits associated with the business strategy. The rule could be added to the Housing Quality Standards enforced at the time of application through inclusion in the Request for Tenancy Approval form that each landlord must complete before a HCV contract is created (CHA, 2013d). The addition of a question about the number of units in a building would allow a queries of data to show the number of active housing assistance payment contracts at a particular address alongside the number of inhabitable units. Verifying the housing units in a two- to four-unit property could be an easily added inspection item.

The requirement could be narrowly tailored to address the particular problem-causing landlords. Landlords who develop and implement a supportive services plan could receive a waiver, releasing them from the marketing requirement since they should have already developed such a plan to qualify for CHA project-based housing vouchers. A unit that is owner-occupied would satisfy the one-unit minimum, further limiting the policy to investor-owned two- to four-unit buildings. Still, the policy would likely require changes in federal rules and regulations for the Housing Choice Voucher.

Monitor and support Sub-Area FMR Demonstration

The second approach revolves around the Small Area Fair Market Rent demonstration discussed in Chapter 4. If adopted, this program would reduce the maximum rent any landlord could charge a Housing Choice Voucher recipient in Woodlawn. It would also increase the rent a landlord could charge in a higher-rent area within the region, creating more rental opportunities for assisted households. If successful, this program would work towards the same objective as the first approach, Unlike the first approach, however, it would not as effectively allow apartment and management quality to be a source of differences in rent, since the maximum rent will be reduced for all landlords regardless of quality. Less discretion would give way to a more uniform approach to reducing the incentives for targeting voucher holders.

HUD–Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program for Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Program participants; Fiscal Year 2013

Bibliography

HUD. (2012). Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program for Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Program participants; Fiscal Year 2013. Federal Register, 77(224).

Date Published or Accessed: 2012-11-20 Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

Chicago DHED–Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 application for federal funding

Bibliography

Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development. (2009). Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2 Application for Federal Funding (Application).

Date Published or Accessed: 2009-07-14 July 14, 2009

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes

 

HUD–HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative _ round 1 NOFA

Bibliography

HUD. (2010). HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative _ round 1 NOFA (NOFA No. Docket No. FR-5415-N-25).

Date Published or Accessed: 2010-00-00 2010

Link to Original Source

Reference Summary

Reference Quotes

 

Reference Notes