Hello,

I came across your blog with the FHEPS horror stories. I am curious to find out why the real estate lobby or small property owners association hasn’t brought a lawsuit against the city regarding the legality of these vouchers? If they are not considered permanent housing subsidies that will be paid on time and for all lease renewals how does the city force you to accept a voucher if you know the tenant cannot afford to pay the rent if the voucher is not renewed. At one time, buildings with less than 6 families did not have to accept a voucher. Now only 2 family houses or owner occupied is exempt. It is my understanding that the voucher has to be recertified every year and only up to 5 years. What happens after that time? More than likely the tenant cannot pay on their own. The city is not signing as a guarantor. And if a landlord should say that they don’t take vouchers a discrimination lawsuit is filed against them.

Host Response

My guess is that the real estate lobby or small property owners association hasn't brought a lawsuit against the city because of difficulties involved in suing the city. From my experience most attorneys like slam dunk easy cases. Although, this is an obvious easy slam dunk case and should be a class action lawsuit; I believe that most attorneys don't like suing the city because of the amount of time and resources it will take. The vouchers specifically the FHEPS or CityFHEPS voucher completely violates the terms of every lease. The rent is never paid in full before the 5th of each month, and if the tenant Public Assistance case gets closed then FHEPS/CityFHEPS stops paying the rent immediately, and they don't honor the yearly lease although they are requiring the landlord to provide a lease for a year. It really is horrible and no landlord should ever accept a tenant with a FHEPS/CityFHEPS voucher.