New HUD Regulations to Ban Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Tenants Together applauds the new HUD regulations that will help stop discrimination in federally assisted/insured housing on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is a major step toward ensuring fair access to housing free of arbitrary discrimination.

The final rule, which will take effect in 30 days, does the following, as described in the HUD press release:

Requires owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing, or housing whose financing is insured by HUD, to make housing available without regard to the sexual orientation or gender identity of an applicant for, or occupant of, the dwelling, whether renter- or owner-occupied. HUD will institute this policy in its rental assistance and homeownership programs, which include the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance programs, community development programs, and public and assisted housing programs.

Prohibits lenders from using sexual orientation or gender identity as a basis to determine a borrower’s eligibility for FHA-insured mortgage financing. FHA’s current regulations provide that a mortgage lender’s determination of the adequacy of a borrower’s income “shall be made in a uniform manner without regard to” specified prohibited grounds. The rule will add actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity to the prohibited grounds to ensure FHA-approved lenders do not deny or otherwise alter the terms of mortgages on the basis of irrelevant criteria.

Clarifies that all otherwise eligible families, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity, will have the opportunity to participate in HUD programs. In the majority of HUD’s rental and homeownership programs the term “family” already has a broad scope, and includes a single person and families with or without children. HUD’s rule clarifies that otherwise eligible families may not be excluded because one or more members of the family may be an LGBT individual, have an LGBT relationship, or be perceived to be such an individual or in such relationship.

Prohibits owners and operators of HUD-assisted housing or housing insured by HUD from asking about an applicant or occupant’s sexual orientation and gender identity for the purpose of determining eligibility or otherwise making housing available. In response to comments on the proposed rule, HUD has clarified this final rule to state that this provision does not prohibit voluntary and anonymous reporting of sexual orientation or gender identity pursuant to state, local, or federal data collection requirements.

SF Mayor Appoints Tenants Together Honoree Kent Qian as Rent Board Commissioner

Kent Qian, an attorney at the National Housing Law Project, will soon be the newest member of the San Francisco Rent Board Commission. Kent is an impressive housing attorney and a strong ally of Tenants Together. At our annual event in 2011, we honored Kent for his outstanding work to protect renters in foreclosed properties.

We commend San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee for his decision to appoint Kent to the Rent Board. Kent will hold one of two Tenant Alternate seats on the Commission. He is scheduled to be sworn in this Thursday, January 5, 2012, at SF City Hall.

Smart, hardworking and firmly committed to housing justice, Kent is the perfect person to represent San Francisco tenants on the Rent Board.

Congratulations to Kent for this well-deserved appointment!

Merced City Council Gives Final Approval to Anti-Eviction Law Protecting Tenants

Despite an intense lobbying effort by local realtors, the Merced City Council gave final approval yesterday to the Central Valley’s first anti-eviction law. The law seeks to stop evictions of innocent tenants after foreclosure. It will take effect on December 21, 2011.

This was the second reading of the ordinance. Usually, the second reading is a mere formality and matters are adopted by consent, meaning there is no debate, public comment, or additional testimony. However, under pressure from local realtors, the anti-eviction law was pulled from the consent calendar. Two hours of discussion followed. The Council chambers were packed with supporters and opponents of the law.

The Council voted 5-2 in favor of the law. The vote was met with a standing ovation from local residents who came to the hearing to support the measure, including members of Tenants Together, Occupy Merced, Journey for Justice, and UC Merced.

Mayor Pro Tem Bill Blake and Council Members John Carlisle, Noah Lor and Mary-Michal Rawling were steadfast in their support for the law at all hearings. These council members consistently put people above politics and stood firm in the face of a misinformation campaign by local realtors. Council Member Josh Pedrozo surprised the crowd by voting in favor of the law after voting against it on November 7. Mayor Spriggs and Council Member Michele Gabriault-Acosta voted in opposition to the law.

Members of Tenants Together immediately praised the Council’s action. “The Council has done the right thing,” said Angela Fragulia, a renter displaced from her Merced home after foreclosure. Her story was noted by Council Member Lor when explaining his support for the ordinance. Michelle Dirickson, another renter evicted by foreclosure, commented: “this law doesn't cost anybody anything. It doesn't hurt anybody, and it helps families and it stabilizes communities."

This is a game changer for Merced tenants and the entire community. Under the new law, tenants will be able to stay in their homes, rather than being callously tossed into the street by banks that care nothing about creating unnecessary homelessness, vacancy and blight.

Tenants with questions about the new law can contact Tenants Together’s Foreclosure Hotline toll free at 1-888-495-8020 or contact Tenants Together by email at info@tenantstogether.org. TT will be distributing a fact sheet for Merced tenants on their rights under the new law.

Congratulations to our Merced members and allies on this tremendous victory!

Merced Passes Tenant Protection Law to Stop Arbitrary Evictions after Foreclosure

This week, the Merced City Council passed the Central Valley’s first anti-eviction law. The ordinance seeks to stop evictions of innocent tenants after foreclosure. Members of Tenants Together successfully advocated for passage of the law.

Mayor Pro Tem Bill Blake and Council Members John Carlisle, Mary-Michal Rawling and Noah Lor voted to pass the law. Blake, an early proponent of the law, called it “the moral and right thing to do.”

Mayor Spriggs and Council Member Pedrozo had previously voiced support for the law at a city council hearing in August, but bowed to pressure from realtors and voted in opposition to the new tenant protections. Council Member Michele Gabriault-Acosta, herself a real estate agent, opposed the law at all times.

The final vote was 4-3 to pass the law.

TT member Tenea Wallace and her family rent a home in Merced that is scheduled for auction later this month. Under existing law, her family could face eviction after the foreclosure auction. Wallace welcomed the City Council vote: “Our communities are sick and tired of evictions by irresponsible banks that kick out good renters after foreclosure. With this new law, tenants like me will be able to stay in our homes.”

The law approved by the Council on Monday requires that banks and investors have “just cause” for evicting tenants after foreclosure. The law spells out the specific circumstances where eviction is permitted, such as where the tenant fails to pay rent or where the owner wants to move into the property. Foreclosure is not a recognized reason for evicting tenants under the law. Fifteen other California cities already have laws against eviction of tenants due to foreclosure.

Mayor Pro Tem Blake and Councilmembers Carlisle, Rawling and Lor deserve enormous credit for listening to Merced’s residents and doing their part to stop the unfair evictions, vacancies, and blight that are plaguing this community.

“We look forward to working with renters who want to stay in their homes after foreclosure,” commented Pahoua Lor, staff attorney with Central California Legal Services, a nonprofit legal services organization in Merced that will assist eligible renters exercise their rights under the law. “This new law will enable many tenants to stay in their homes and keep paying rent, rather than being forced onto the streets when banks take over foreclosed properties.”

There will be a second reading of the ordinance. The law is expected to take effect before the new year.

Tenant Advisory: Eviction Assistance Websites

Tenants Together is regularly contacted by tenants whose landlords are facing foreclosure. These tenants are often searching for attorneys to represent them in eviction cases resulting from their landlord's foreclosure. Regrettably, many communities do not have a well-developed tenant bar, and local legal aid organizations are often unable to meet the overwhelming numbers of tenants seeking representation.

This vacuum has led tenants to websites that offer services in pro per. (Pro per is when a person represents themselves in a legal action.) These websites advertise—sometimes for extraordinarily high prices—the preparation of basic legal paperwork. The potential tenant-client is often told that she will be able to stay in her home for several months because of the documents she is sold. These websites fail to inform tenants that they generally have the right to stay in their homes for 90 days or longer after foreclosure regardless of the paperwork that is filed, and that they have the right to contest the eviction in court after the notice expires, which can take over a month.

Tenants Together would like to provide some basic guidelines on how to determine if the service you are paying for is legitimate and whether you are paying for something that you could get for free, simply by going to your local self-help center.

1. Do not pay a paralegal to prepare documents unless they are a registered unlawful detainer assistant or working under the direct supervision of an attorney. In general, we would suggest that you only pay money when an attorney is preparing the legal documents. In California, unlawful detainer assistants may prepare documents for landlords or tenants. However, they must be registered and specifically are not allowed to provide legal advice.

2. In most communities, if you are unable to receive assistance from legal aid, you can go to a self-help center generally located at a courthouse. There, you can obtain the appropriate documents and some assistance on how to fill them out. See http://www.lawhelpcalifornia.org/CA/index.cfm/ for a list of free local resources for document preparation.

3. Be wary of guarantees. It is rare that any attorney can guarantee the result of a legal action. An experienced attorney will rarely make such a claim but instead can describe the usual practice and provide a reasonable expectation.

4. Make sure you understand your rights as a tenant so that you are not paying for “extensions of time” that you already have a right to without any “filing of motions.”

5. It is generally important to attend hearings. Be wary of anyone who tells you that you do not need to attend a hearing, go to court or appear before a judge.

6. Do not use a company that claims to provide assistance in several states but provides information regardless of location. Every state has different laws regarding tenants. In California, 15 cities also have their own local just cause for eviction laws. Advice that does not take into account state and/or local law will rarely be accurate in this context.

Please feel free to contact our office if you have further questions or if you have paid money to a service that you feel may not be legitimate. We would like to hear about your experience with the service.

Tenants: Occupy

Across California and the nation, the 99% are joining together to protest economic inequality and corporate excesses. In an age when most politicians are servants of corporate interests, the public has done one of the few things left to do: occupy public space in protest of a system gone awry.

The figures are increasingly well known, thanks in no small part to the success of the Occupy Wall Street movement. 1% of the U.S. population controls over 40% of the nation’s wealth and 25% of its annual income. The top 1%’s income has grown by 275% over the last 30 years. Meanwhile, one in seven Americans lives in poverty. Unemployment is in double digits. Student loan debt is a staggering trillion dollars. The economic inequities are so depressing, that for years many have wondered how to even begin trying to make change.

Avenues for political change from within have been largely blockaded. The right wing’s assault on the judicial system has resulted in a judiciary hostile to the rights of poor and middle class people. Long gone are the days when judges furthered social justice by using their discretion to protect the vulnerable.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling was the last straw, toppling reason in transparent service to moneyed interests. Thanks to the decision, corporate control over the political process is here to stay, unless there is a constitutional amendment or popular uprising. By giving corporations all the privileges of personhood, including the right to buy elections, the Supreme Court made a mockery of our democratic process.

Rather than be satisfied with a skewed system in which wealth is concentrated at the top, those at the top have sought further and further gains at the expense of working people. Politicians of all parties have obliged: eliminating the estate tax; cutting taxes on the richest Americans; slashing spending on housing, education and welfare programs; bailing out banks while abandoning homeowners to fend for themselves; refusing to hold anyone accountable for fraudulent conduct leading to the mortgage meltdown. The Occupy movement summarizes the overwhelming feeling of the masses who, with every occupation, collectively shout: “Enough!”

California tenants share this feeling. California has over 15 million tenants. Most are working people of low or moderate incomes, including millions of people of color. Legislators in the state capitol ignore tenants, shamelessly serving real estate industry interests who pay to play in a game that is rigged against tenants and other working people. Meanwhile, tenants find no refuge in the courts, where decades of conservative appointments have created an unmistakable hostility to tenant rights.

Tenants are joining the Occupy movement in large numbers. Occupations are occurring across California – in Oakland, San Jose, Fresno, Merced, Los Angeles and dozens of other cities. Honest, emotional, creative and constructive voices for change are emerging and the chorus is getting louder.

For tenants and homeowners in foreclosed properties, the Occupy movement has particular poignancy. Some housing groups try to fight off evictions by bringing the community together in eviction blockades, but these actions are designed to save one family’s housing at a time, and despite these heroic efforts, banks continue the mass-displacement of people from their homes for no good reason. Occupations provide a forum for collective refusal to vacate. There is safety and power in numbers, notwithstanding the violent and misguided police actions in Oakland and other cities in recent days.Tenants Together commends Occupy Wall Street and the entire Occupy movement for giving voice to the frustration felt by the 99% and for sparking a long overdue and desperately needed movement for economic justice.

To our members across the state, and our allies everywhere, we say: “Occupy.”

Tim Lincecum Joins the Ranks of Blacklisted Tenants

By Dean Preston

Tenants Together would like to welcome Cy Young winner Tim Lincecum to the tenant blacklist. Here, with nothing more than a landlord’s accusations, a tenant’s ability to find rental housing can be damaged forever.

Last week, Lincecum was sued by his ex-landlord. Headlines blared that Lincecum had allegedly “trashed” his apartment, stolen items from the unit, and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. The sole source of information was, and is, the landlord’s complaint filed in superior court. No details were submitted with the lawsuit. No photos of the alleged damage were made available. In fact, not a single story contained independent verification of any of the landlord’s claims. But the price tag was widely reported – a whopping $350,000.

Now maybe Tim Lincecum will find a landlord willing to rent to him next season, but it’s likely that regardless of the facts of the case, he will be discriminated against if he tries to rent housing in the future. Even if he wins the case and disproves the allegations, the lawsuit will remain in the files of credit reporting agencies and tenant screening services, not to mention Google searches. He has been, and will forever remain, blacklisted, and there’s not a thing he can do about it.

Lincecum is not alone. Each year, tens of thousands of tenants in California are sued by their landlords, often in eviction actions. In some cases, there are grounds for the lawsuit. In others, there are not. The blacklist does not distinguish between the two types of cases.

Credit reporting companies scour court records for cases and report them to prospective landlords as part of credit checks. These companies include cases regardless of outcome. So even if a jury decides the landlord’s cases is frivolous, the case will likely end up damaging a tenant’s credit history.

There’s a state law on the books that prohibits credit reporting companies from including eviction case information unless the landlord wins the case. That makes a lot of sense, since only after the landlord wins is there reason to believe that the case had merit. However, California courts struck down this law, announcing that credit reporting companies had a First Amendment right to report available court records. As a result, credit companies report cases regardless of merit.

Rather than uncritically accept Lincecum’s landlord’s claims, let’s wait for some evidence. I’ve practiced landlord-tenant law for years. I’ve never heard of a tenant doing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to an apartment without a fire or flood. It makes me wonder what price tag this landlord would have claimed if her tenant didn’t have a multi-million dollar contract with the San Francisco Giants.