Over 5000 Houses, Condos, Townhomes, Artist Lofts for rent in San Diego, California!
Articles What is a 1031 Exchange? Elements of an Exchange Types of Exchanges Exchange vs. Sell Investment Basics Resources Links Contact Us About 1031s Search All Categories What is a 1031 Exchange? Elements of an Exchange Types of Exchanges Exchange vs. Sell Investment Basics Resources Links Contact Us About 1031s Advanced Search Resources Links Resources Links Home Warranty Can Save You Hundreds! Traditionally, home warranties have protected homeowners from repair costs that aren't covered by home insurance. Home warranties cover such things as the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and major appliances Resources Links Best Resource on The Web to Locate a Renter! Colorado apartments, Colorado homes for rent, Colorado home rentals, Colorado vacation rentals, Colorado houses for rent, apartments in Colorado, and Colorado rental homes. Find apartments for rent, home and house rentals, condos for rent, apartment rentals, townhomes for rent, apartments, homes for rent, houses for rent, lofts and loft rentals. The list includes townhouses for rent, duplexes, rental property or properties, and other vacation rentals for rent in the Colorado area. Search for apartment rentals in CO, home for rent in Colorado, house for rent in CO, rent to own, and townhouses or a condo in Colorado. All rental listings are current and view them for FREE! Resources Links Chicago Title of Colorado With a title insurance policy, you as owner, have an indemnity contract that will reimburse you for loss in the event someone asserts a claim against your property that is covered by the policy. Resources Links Colorado Certified Public Account Professional Competent Advisor Serving Businesses and Individuals. Resources Links How to Buy a HUD Home What is a "HUD Home"? Answer: When someone with a HUD insured mortgage can't meet the payments, the lender forecloses on the home; HUD pays the lender what is owed; and HUD takes ownership of the home. Then HUD sell it at market value as quickly as possible. Resources Links I Am Interested in 1031 Tax Exchange RealEstateColorado.net is a Full Service Real Estate Brokerage structured towards a client-centered approach to helping you achieve your real estate investment goals and solving real estate problems associated with owning investment property. We work to protect our client's assets through our team of experts whose specialized services can defer capital gain taxation indefinitely. Click Here to Contact Us About 1031 Exchanges Resources Links Reasons For a 1031 Exchange The Qualified Intermediary provides the following important services: Shields parties (Exchanger, buyer and seller) from certain liabilities; Ensures the preservation of safe harbor Resources Links Section 1033 Involuntary Converstions If property (as a result of its destruction in whole or in part, theft, seizure, or requisition or condemnation or threat or imminence thereof) is compulsorily or involuntarily converted Into property similar or related in service or use to the property so converted, no gain shall be recognized. Resources Links Section Â§Â 121. Exclusion of gain from sale of principal residence Gross income shall not include gain from the sale or exchange of property if, during the 5-year period ending on the date of the sale or exchange, such property has been owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayerâ€™s principal residence for periods aggregating 2 years or more. Resources Links Sucessful Steps to a Tax Deferred Exchange 9 Sucessful Steps to a Sucessful Tax-Deferred Exchange Resources Links Â§Â 1031. Exchange of property held for productive use or investment No gain or loss shall be recognized on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if such property is exchanged solely for property of like kind which is to be held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. homes 4 sale | investors | tour denver | cities | subdivisions | new homes | area links | home Web Site Design By IMC Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved Latest Articles What is a 1031 Exchange? 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange Tax Deferred Terms Elements of an Exchange How to Initiate an Exchange The Role of the Qualfied What We Do for Clients Types of Exchanges Combining Seller Financing Converting a Rental to a Residence Installment Sales Exchange vs. Sell Non-Tax Reasons for a Tax Free Exchange The Tax Deferred Exchange Investment Basics Boot Exchanges Closing Costs Delayed Exchange Deadline Resources Links Home Warranty Can Save You Hundreds! Best Resource on The Web to Locate a Renter! Chicago Title of Colorado Contact Us About 1031s No articles available.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents Display HUD SECTION 8 PROGRAM (Senate - October 06, 1994) [Page: S14383] Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to address the Senate on some of the problems with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 project-based assisted housing program. The section 8 program was established in 1974 to help low-income families obtain safe, decent, and sanitary housing. The program has two components: tenant-based rental assistance and project-based rental assistance. Section 8 certificates and vouchers are referred to as `tenant-based' assistance; the other types of assistance such as new construction and substantial rehabilitation are known as `project-based' assistance. According to HUD's inspector general, over 20,000 properties are currently receiving section 8 project-based assistance. These properties serve approximately 1.5 million low-income families. HUD has provided approximately $131 billion budget authority to support its section 8 project-based subsidy programs over the past 20 years. Many section 8 projects are also FHA insured. HUD's inspector general issued a report in April 1993 on the results of an audit conducted from 1991-1993 on 28 troubled multifamily housing projects under the jurisdiction of six HUD field offices. The audit determined that the physical condition of 23 projects, or 82 percent, was unsatisfactory or below average. It is inexcusable that a disturbing number of projects are experiencing deterioration and neglect by their owners. Tenants, with their rent subsidies tied to these projects, are essentially trapped in deplorable living conditions. Unfortunately, two of these troubled projects are in southern Nevada. Sierra Nevada Arms Apartments in Las Vegas and Carey Arms Apartments in North Las Vegas received about $2.8 million in Federal subsidies last year. In particular, Sierra Nevada Arms received about 86 percent of rental income from the Federal Government. To say that the Federal Government should be concerned about the investment in this property is an understatement. Sierra Nevada Arms Apartments is a 353-unit complex consisting of 82 two-story buildings. Currently, 113 units are vacant. A two-bedroom unit in this apartment complex rents for $468 a month. The rent for a two-bedroom unit in a well-maintained unsubsidized property in the same neighborhood is $600 a month. According to a General Accounting Office [GAO] report released in July, HUD's Las Vegas field office considers Sierra Nevada Arms to be the worst project the office manages. GAO reports that field office inspections have revealed many vacant units stripped of kitchen appliances, bathroom fixtures, air conditioning and heating units, and electrical fixtures. GAO's own site inspection revealed interior units with soiled, stained, and torn carpet and linoleum; inoperative appliances, smoke alarms, air conditioning and heating systems; damaged kitchen cabinets with loose and missing drawers; severely damaged bathroom vanity tops and commodes; missing closet doors; torn and missing window screens; filthy walls; leaking toilets, bathtubs and sinks; and roach, rat and mice infestation. GAO's inspection of the project's exterior revealed faulty sprinkler systems with numerous leaks causing flooding throughout the grounds. They also found that many vacant units were missing door, windows, and screens. The laundry room was filthy and in poor condition, with extensive graffiti and garbage strewn throughout. In June, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee favorably reported the Housing Choice and Community Investment Act of 1994. This bill included significant reforms of the section 8 problem. The bill would have allowed HUD to reuse section 8 project-based assistance, recaptured when housing assistance payments contracts are terminated, to relocate tenants currently living in distressed properties. The bill provided HUD with the choice of relocating tenants using either certificates or vouchers or providing alternative section 8 project-based housing. This protects tenants who might be displaced if HUD terminates the section 8 housing assistance payments contract for a property. The bill would have authorized the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to levy civil money penalties against owners--including general partners of a partnership owner--and managing agents who violate provisions of a section 8 project-based contract. Violations include failing to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing and knowingly submitting false statements for housing assistance. Payments of the penalty were prohibited from coming out of project income. Unfortunately, in the crush of the end of the legislative session, this bill did not reach the Senate floor. These reforms are so important that I pledge to work vigorously in the next Congress, to introduce and pass legislation to compel owners of troubled section 8 projects to improve conditions and to give HUD the tools to ensure that its subsidized housing is maintained according to housing quality standards. However, this is just one step in a process to deal with troubled projects. Much more needs to be done. In addition to providing HUD with the tools to discipline owners of troubled projects, HUD must carry out its monitoring responsibilities so that projects do not advance to this level of deterioration. HUD's inspector general said in July that HUD suffers from some major systemic weaknesses that significantly impact its ability to turn around these troubled projects and improve its management and oversight of section 8-assisted miltifamly housing stock. Prior inspector general reports have questioned HUD's capacity to manage and monitor its huge portfolio of insured and assisted multifamily properties. This must be corrected so that tenants can live in safe and decent housing and the Federal Government recovers misspent funds. We need to reverse this trend in the section 8 program of piecemeal response to deplorable conditions and waste. We need a comprehensive plan to improve the section 8 program and I will continue to work toward that end. [Page: S14384] THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents Display
Home | Local News | Sports | Obituaries | Opinion | Classifieds | Archives | Subscribe Serving Greene County, Arkansas www.ParagouldDailyPress.com News Front Page Local News Sports Obituaries Opinion World News Search Archives Classifieds Browse Ads Jobs Homes Cars Place an Ad Quick Search Advanced Search Main Categories Announcements (4) Employment (7) For Rent (36) Merchandise (7) Real Estate (13) Services (6) Transportation (4) Top Homes More Top Homes Services Advertising Rates Subscribe About Us Send a Letter to the Editor Online Forms Online Features Health Food Finance Classifieds Last Updated: Wednesday, December 29th 2004 For Rent (Total ads: 36) Select a sub-category within For Rent Apartments for Rent (10) Houses for Rent (12) Mobile Home Lots for Rent (1) Mobile Homes for Rent (10) Office Space for Rent (2) Rooms to Rent (1) Apartments for Rent - ( Top ) 2 BEDROOM, 1 bath apartment. All appliances, CH/A, extra large single garage. $500/ monthly plus deposit. Call 236-7097, leave message. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM duplex in Paragould. 1401 South 9th Street. Clean and recently updated. No HUD. Call 870-933-1013. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM garage apartment, all electric, appliances furnished. 408 East Emerson REAR . $300 monthly, $100 deposit. Days 476-4001, nights 236-4001. Save ad Email a Friend 704 BAYWOOD. 2 bedroom, 1 bath, tile, carpet, all appliances including washer/ dryer. $425 monthly. 240-8852 or 219-2896. Save ad Email a Friend APARTMENT FOR rent. Great location in Marmaduke. 2 bedroom, 1 bath. 597-4203. Save ad Email a Friend FRANKLIN APARTMENTS 2 bedroom, CH/A, w/d hook-ups. $320 or $425 with all utilities. Call 236-8931 or 239-0001. Save ad Email a Friend KINGSWAY MANOR- 2 bedroom apartments. Refrigerator, stove, dishwasher. Utilities paid. No pets. $425. Bratton Real Estate, 236-7100. Save ad Email a Friend NEWLY DECORATED 1 bedroom, CH/A, refrigerator, stove, washer/ dryer hook-ups. 236-7097. Save ad Email a Friend NICE 2 bedroom. CH/A, stove, refrigerator, dishwasher, washer/ dryer hook-up. $360/ monthly, $200/ deposit. No pets. 239-9362. Save ad Email a Friend SUBURBAN APARTMENTS . 1 and 2 bedrooms, utilities with expanded cable. Weekly/ $120, monthly/ $440, deposit/ $100. Shown and rented on Fridays 10:00 a.m. till 7:00 p.m. Call 236-6772 or 239-5611. Save ad Email a Friend Houses for Rent - ( Top ) 3 BEDROOM, 1 bath, all electric, CH/A, stove, dishwasher, carport. $475.00 month, $200 deposit. References required. No inside pets. 236-6241. Save ad Email a Friend 3 BEDROOM, 1.5 bath. Screened in back porch. 5141 Highway 49 South. $525 per month, $200 deposit. Senior discount. No pets. No HUD. 236-8235 Save ad Email a Friend 3 BEDROOMS, 2 bath brick. No inside pets. $450 month, $350 deposit. 828 Mill Street. 239-3943. Available January 1st. Save ad Email a Friend 4 BEDROOM, 2 bath home. $500 monthly, $250 deposit. 236-8047. Save ad Email a Friend 601 NORTH 10th Street, 3 bedroom, 2 baths, CH/A, quiet neighborhood. $500 monthly, $500 deposit. 236-3568 or 476-1722. Save ad Email a Friend FOR LEASE. 3 Bedroom, bath, w/ shop. Available January 1st. 2508 Christopher. $1000 deposit, $1000 monthly. Coldwell Banker. 239-2700. Save ad Email a Friend FOR RENT. Good location, Quiet neighborhood. 2 bedroom. $400 rent, $150 deposit. Call 236-8694. Save ad Email a Friend FOR RENT: 2 bedroom, 1 bath house outside of city limits. Call 476-0863. Save ad Email a Friend FOR RENT or sale by owner. 2 bedroom, all electric, convenient location. Call 239-8670 or 335-5711 any time. Save ad Email a Friend HOUSES AND Mobile Homes for rent in Marmaduke. SMOOT MOBILE HOMES. 597-4262, 597-2942, or 236-0164. Also R. V. spaces available. Save ad Email a Friend RENT TO own: 2/ 3 bedroom, 1 bath home, appliances provided, nice yard, lots of storage. $370- $450. 236-9266, 476-6939. Save ad Email a Friend STOP RENTING! 3 BEDROOM, $8000.00! Buy foreclosure. For listings, 800-690-3990 ext. H-847. Save ad Email a Friend Mobile Home Lots for Rent - ( Top ) FOR RENT- Fenced mobile home lot. Clean park. Call 870-239-0035. Save ad Email a Friend Mobile Homes for Rent - ( Top ) 2 BEDROOM, 1 bath mobile homes. $295 monthly, $100 deposit. No utilities furnished. No pets. 240-5705. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM, 1 bath, $200 monthly, $150 deposit. Call 870-761-3105. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM, 1 bath. Electric heat, extra large attached carport with storage area. One mile from Marmaduke on Highway 34. 870-586-9936, cell 870-240-6019. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM, 2 bath. Private lot available. Call for details 870-236-2386. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BEDROOM mobile homes, $225 and up. Water, garbage, sewer paid. 335-5073. Save ad Email a Friend 3 BEDROOM, 2 bath at 2010 Highfill. No pets. $450 monthly plus deposit. HUD approved. Call 215-2293 or 239-8050. Save ad Email a Friend 3 BEDROOM, 2 bath. Workshop, fenced back yard. No inside pets. Finch area. $500 monthly, $200 deposit. 236-7324. Save ad Email a Friend MOBILE HOMES for rent. 2 or 3 bedrooms with all utilities cable paid, from $100 to $120 a week, 870-240-5555. Save ad Email a Friend PAT S MOBILE Home Park. 2- 3 bedroom, 2 bath, all electric, front and back decks, very nice. Call 239-4203, 240-7311. Save ad Email a Friend SMALL 2 bedroom trailer. Utilities furnished. $90/ weekly, $200/ deposit. No HUD. No pets. 239-9362. Save ad Email a Friend Office Space for Rent - ( Top ) 1000 SQUARE feet. Suitable for professional office. Lease. Call 236-6342. Save ad Email a Friend 2- 1000 SQUARE foot spaces available in attractive Rockingchair Village. One is divided nicely for office space, and the other has a more open lay out. $500 each per month. 239-4358. Save ad Email a Friend Rooms to Rent - ( Top ) SLEEPING ROOMS and efficiencies starting at $40 a week, utilities paid. 236-1200 or 236-2386. Save ad Email a Friend Advanced Search Keyword Search: All Categories Announcements Education Employment For Rent Merchandise Real Estate Services Transportation Search ads containing: Any All keywords below with Partial or Full words. Word 1: Word 2: Word 3: Copyright 2004 Paragould Daily Press. All Rights Reserved.
March 16, 2004 HUD’S RELIANCE ON RENT TRENDS FOR HIGH-END APARTMENTS TO CRITICIZE THE HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM IS MISTAKEN Data HUD Cites from a Recent New York Times Article Do Not Support HUD’s Contention that the Rent-Setting Mechanism in the Voucher Program is Flawed PDF of this report Related Reports: Administration Seeks Deep Cuts In Housing Vouchers And Conversion Of Program To A Block Grant View Additional Analyses More Topics... Back to Home Page - Publications by Subject - Press Room -Special Report Series About the Center - Board of Directors - Internship Programs - Job Opportunities - Staff Bios Join E-Mail List Donate to the Center If you cannot access the files through the links, right-click on the underlined text, click Save Link As, download to your directory, and open the document in Adobe Acrobat Reader. The Administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget requests an appropriation for the Section 8 housing voucher program that is $1 billion less than Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and more than $1.6 billion — or about 12 percent — less than would be needed to maintain services at their current level. The cuts then rise to about $4.6 billion by fiscal year 2009.  HUD officials claim these funding cuts will not lead to a reduction in the number of families served because the budget also proposes to convert the voucher program to a block grant (labeled the “Flexible Voucher Program”) and give local housing agencies greater discretion to set program policies, including the maximum subsidy levels for apartments that voucher-holders occupy. They claim that local housing agencies are better positioned than HUD to set maximum subsidy levels and that the increased flexibility provided under the Administration’s proposal will cause per-unit costs to drop. To support this assertion, they point to data in a November 29, 2003 New York Times article showing that market rents declined in ten metropolitan areas between 2002 and 2003. HUD asserts that rents in the Section 8 housing voucher program increased in each of these areas over the same time period. The data HUD cites do not support its contentions. In brief: The data in the New York Times article are for high-end apartments rather than the low-cost market segment accessible to households with housing vouchers; and Housing agencies already have flexibility to set local subsidy standards based on local market conditions. Following a discussion of each of these points, this analysis briefly explains why the Administration’s proposals are not needed to control voucher program costs. Specifically: While rental costs in the overall rental market are still rising, the annual rate of growth has slowed significantly. This, in turn, will slow the annual rate of growth of Section 8 voucher subsidy costs; The housing voucher program already has cost-control mechanisms in place; and To the extent that further cost control is desired, there are better ways to reduce costs than to convert the program to a block grant. HUD’s Reliance on the Times Data is Misplaced The Data in the Times Article Are for High-End Apartments, Not for the Segment of the Market Accessible to Voucher-Holders In relying on the Times data to criticize the housing voucher program, HUD is comparing apples and oranges. The Times article cites data for Class A apartments from the National Real Estate Index. These are high-end apartments, constructed or substantially rehabilitated in the last 15 years, which typically include a pool, tennis courts, and/or health/fitness rooms. These are not the modest apartments that are accessible to families with Section 8 housing vouchers. Rents for the high-end apartments discussed in the Times article do not follow the same pattern as rents for low-cost apartments accessible to families using housing vouchers. Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of the unique rent trends applicable to high-end apartments. The dotted line shows the annual rate of change in rents for professionally-managed apartments, as measured each quarter by M/PF Research, Inc. These are high-end (or near-high-end) apartment properties owned or operated by the nation’s largest apartment owners and management companies. The solid line, by contrast, shows the annual rate of change in rents for the overall rental stock, as measured by the rent component of the Consumer Price Index.  These two lines depict very different rent trends. As shown in Figure 1, the annual rate of change of rents for professionally-managed apartments was quite volatile between 1999 and 2003, rising as high as 10 percent in the third quarter of 2000 and then falling into negative territory by the first quarter of 2001, where it remained throughout 2002 and 2003. The overall rental market measured by the CPI rent index, by contrast, has been much more stable, with an annual rate of change between 2.7 percent and 4.7 percent throughout this period. While the annual rate of growth of rents in the overall rental market has slowed in recent years, it has still remained positive, in stark contrast to the decline in rents in the professionally-managed sector. As the Times article explains, the decline in rents of high-end apartments in certain cities is due in significant part to the overbuilding of such rental units. “There is just too much construction. There are too many units coming onto the market” economist Gleb Nechayev of Torto Wheaton told the Times . By contrast, in many areas of the country, there has been a loss of units affordable to low-income families. As the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University notes in The State of the Nation’s Housing 2003 : “The new multifamily apartments being built are substantially more expensive on average than the ones being lost. This trend . . . threatens to leave the nation with a dwindling supply of modest rentals.” Data from a 2001 Census Bureau survey (this is the most recent year for which these data are available) show that the vacancy rate for the least-expensive 40 percent of apartments — those most likely to be affordable to families with vouchers — was well below the vacancy rate for high-end apartments.  Housing Agencies Already Have Flexibility to Set Local Subsidy Standards Another problem with HUD’s argument is that it fails to recognize that local housing agencies already have significant flexibility to adjust housing voucher subsidy standards to meet local market conditions. Using census data and regional and local rent surveys designed to estimate market rents for modest apartments of decent quality, HUD develops a “Fair Market Rent” (FMR) for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county. Local housing agencies then adjust the FMR to meet local market conditions, setting a subsidy standard called the voucher payment standard. (Families typically pay 30 percent of their income for rent, with the housing agency providing a subsidy covering the difference between the family’s payment and the lower of the voucher payment standard or the actual rent.) Local housing agencies can set their payment standards between 90 and 110 percent of the FMR without HUD approval and can set higher or lower payment standards if they meet certain criteria designed to prevent subsidy costs from getting out of control (or on the other end, from being so low they shift too much of the costs to residents). As is discussed below, housing agencies already have incentives to ensure that voucher rents are at a reasonable level, and the evidence shows that the average rent for units rented by voucher holders is below the average rent charged for comparable units rented to non-voucher holders. HUD’s Proposals Are Not Needed to Control Costs As explained more fully in the other CBPP analyses cited throughout this paper, HUD’s proposal to convert the voucher program to a block grant and substantially cut its funding is deeply flawed. For the reasons summarized below, it also is unnecessary. CBO Projects that Growth in Housing Voucher Costs Will Slow Without Cuts or Program Changes As shown in Figure 1, the annual growth in rents for the rental market as a whole has slowed in recent years. As housing agencies adjust their payment standards and HUD updates the FMRs in light of the new rent data, the growth of voucher program costs will slow accordingly. The recovery of the economy also is expected to slow the growth of housing voucher costs by leading to increases in the earnings of low-income families and thus reductions in the amount of subsidy needed to help them afford their housing costs. (All else being equal, the average difference between 30 percent of household income and rental charges — i.e. the average voucher subsidy amount — rises more rapidly in economic downturns as income falls, and rises more slowly in recoveries, as incomes rebound.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average cost of a housing voucher will rise only 2.9 percent in fiscal year 2005, well below the rate of increase in recent years. CBO projects that overall spending under the Section 8 program, which includes both the housing voucher program and a separate project-based housing assistance program, will grow by only 1.8 percent in 2005. As Figure 2 shows, when inflation is taken into account, overall spending on vouchers is expected to be nearly flat in the coming years.  Cost-Control Mechanisms are Already in Place Under current law, each housing agency is required to compare the rent for every apartment leased by a voucher holder to market rents for similar units in similar locations and must refuse to make payments on vouchers where the rent is out of line with the local market. In 2001, a study conducted for HUD took the first systematic look at implementation of these requirements by local housing agencies. The study found that, on the whole, the requirements were being followed, and that the average rent of units occupied by families with housing vouchers was $95 less than the estimated rents for comparable unassisted units. More specifically, the study found that housing voucher units “in relatively high cost submarkets almost universally have rents less than comparable rents. Overall, such units rent for $244 less than comparable rents. Only 3 percent of such units have rents that exceed market rent by 5 percent or more. By contrast, rents in relatively low cost submarkets are, on average … just $14 less than comparable rent. Housing agencies also have strong local political pressures to keep costs reasonable. To the extent the voucher program is paying above-market rents, landlords will prefer voucher-holders over unassisted households, a situation that would lead to substantial local political opposition to the voucher program because it places unassisted households at a disadvantage. There are Better Ways to Control Costs Rather than convert the voucher program to a block grant, a better way for HUD to control costs would be to work within the current system to ensure that FMRs are as accurate and up-to-date as possible. This would help ensure that housing agencies are provided with the best possible guidance regarding appropriate rent levels for low-costs apartments in each market. In this regard, it is noteworthy that HUD requested and received additional funds in fiscal year 2003 to improve the accuracy of FMRs by increasing the number of local rent surveys used to calculate them. However, it appears that HUD has not spent the funds appropriated for this purpose. As HUD also received additional funds for this purpose in fiscal year 2004, HUD now has both the funds and the means to make the voucher-program more efficient and effective. Other possibilities for helping to reduce per-unit costs within the current system include: Awarding administrative bonuses for local housing agencies that succeed in keeping costs low without compromising families’ access to quality housing or increasing their rent burdens; Alternatively, such local housing agencies could be allowed to increase the number of families they serve; Conducting research on low-cost strategies for helping families with their housing search, such as transportation assistance, apartment locator services, and expanded landlord outreach. Anecdotal evidence suggests that such strategies can help families access more units below any given rent level. If confirmed by research, the dissemination of this information could show housing agencies how a modest, up-front cost could keep ongoing subsidy costs low, saving the government money over the long run. End Notes :  For a detailed analysis of the Administration’s FY 2005 housing voucher proposals, see Barbara Sard and Will Fisher, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Administration Seeks Deep Cuts in Housing Vouchers and Conversion of Program to a Block Grant,” available on the Internet at: http://www.cbpp.org/2-12-04hous.htm .  To match the M/PF Research, Inc. data, the CPI data show, for each quarter, the annual change relative to the same quarter in the prior year. The CPI data measure changes in the “rent of primary residence” in urban areas nationally.  Analysis by Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies of 2001 American Housing Survey data. * Outlays in Figure 2 are in constant 2003 dollars, adjusted using the CPI. Outlay levels for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 are CBO projections from the March 2004 baseline. In 2007 through 2009, the chart shows the amount of outlays required to support all authorized Section 8 units that will require funding under CBO assumptions regarding the number of authorized units, per-units costs, and the voucher utilization rate. Because of technical, statutory constraints on the methods CBO uses to project total Section 8 outlays, CBO’s actual outlay projections in those years are below the level required to support all of the authorized units that will require funding. As a result, CBO’s actual projections are somewhat below the adjusted levels shown in the figure.  Overall growth in Section 8 spending reflects growth in the number of Section 8 units in addition to growth in the average cost per unit .. The recent increases in expenditures shown in Figure 2 in part reflect Congressional decisions, particularly in the years from 1999 to 2001, to expand the number of vouchers. In 2003 and 2004, Congress authorized no new “incremental” vouchers, and the Administration has not requested any incremental vouchers in 2005. For more information, see Barbara Sard and Will Fischer , “Nearly All Recent Section 8 Growth Results From Rising Housing Costs And Congressional Decisions To Serve More Needy Families,” available on the Internet at: http://www.cbpp.org/2-2-04hous.htm . Home | Background Information | Board of Directors | Center Staff Search | Publication Library | Job Opportunities | Internship Information State Policy Work Home Page Click here to join the Center's e-mail notification list. To ask questions, or send comments, write to firstname.lastname@example.org Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 820 First Street, NE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20002 Ph: (202) 408-1080 Fax: (202) 408-1056
Welcome to the Idaho Edition of the MLSHub.com Idaho Homes for sale by owner and foreclosures including Boise, Idaho falls fsbo MLSHub.com has links for Idaho real estate listings. Whether you're searching for foreclosures, rental property, real estate to purchase or listings of for sale by owner (fsbo) property, you can find it at MLSHub.com Agents/owners can use our free listing service to direct buyers to their own homepage. Buyers can search our database for homes listed from agents or owners selling for sale by owner in Idaho. Below is a free for all list of property for sale or rent in the state of Idaho. Add your Listing What do the icons mean? Nation Home Page REAL_ESTATE_FOR_SALE Garden Valley, ID - FSBO - No price Listed ***** VIEW PHOTOS ONLINE ***** Idaho foreclosures - No price Listed Idaho Homes for sale by owner and foreclosures including Boise foreclosures, Idaho falls foreclosures and fsbo has links for Idaho real estate listings. Whether you're searching for foreclosures, rental property, real estate to purchase or listings Bank Foreclosures - No price Listed foreclosures and foreclosed home listings Eagle, Idaho - $300,000+ 4000+ sq. ft. floor plan on 5 acres (could be divided into 1 acre lots for development). Sunken living room with a 20’ vaulted ceiling to the balcony library. Hardwood floors with plenty of windows and skylights. Master bedroom, upstairs, is 650 sq. ft. Garden Valley, ID - FSBO - Mountain Retreat - $225,000 - $250,000 Fishing, hunting, hiking & kayaking here. In the winter you can cross country ski or snowmobile from your front door. Subdivision has hot water pools & hot tubs. Golf Course is 1 1/4 miles away. Sandpoint, ID - FSBO - REDUCED - $125,000 - $150,000 10 acres + two homes FSBO. Property is 660 x 660, with nearly half on top of the hill, and half on a north slope. We have deeded access to the property, with a road to the top of the hill running a short distance from a year around maintained county road. Idaho Falls - $150,000 - $175,000 6 Bedroom 3 bath home for sale in Idaho Falls, Idaho Rigby - $225,000 - $250,000 6 bedroom 3 bath 5000 Square foot home for sale in Rigby Rexburg - $300,000+ 4 bedroom 3.5 bath home on 122 acres in Idaho Rexburg - $200,000 - $225,000 6 bedroom 2.5 baths on 1 acre in Rexburg, Idaho Preston - $150,000 - $175,000 GOLF COURSE HOME FOR SALE in Preston, Idaho. Located only 25 miles north of Logan, Utah. This one level home is in a subdivision that is completely surrounded by the 18 hole Golf Course. If you like to fish, camp, hunt or play golf this is it! forclosures in Idaho - No price Listed Idaho forclosure listings. forclosed homes include Hud, Va and Bank forclosures. Boise - No price Listed Wonderful neighborhood! 1620 Sq. Ft. Great Price! See, Web Site. Sandpoint - $300,000+ Custom Lakefront Victorian. Located on the shores of beautiful Lake Pend Oreille, just minutes by boat or car from downtown Sandpoint, Idaho. 5.84 manucured acres. 322 feet of deeded lakefront. 40 foot floating dock. Zoned for horses. Small barn. Moscow - $125,000 - $150,000 Charming 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath home with front wrap-around deck. Great view of the Moscow Mountain. This well maintained home has the look and feel of a brand new home without all the hassle. Located in a great family-friendly neighborhood. Vaulted ceilings Sandpoint - $50,000 - $75,000 This is a beautifully parked out 5 acres of mixed trees where you can build your dream home and view the abundant wildlife. Only 12 minutes from Sandpoint. Star - $225,000 - $250,000 Boise - $150,000 - $175,000 Greatroom design single story on greenbelt in convenient location. Immaculate, two years new with low maintenence, fully fenced yard. For pictures and more info check out www.myidahohouse.com Chubbuck - $175,000 - $200,000 Like New Parade Home Boise Foreclosure home listings - No price Listed Boise Foreclosure homes. Surrounding areas with forclosures close to Boise also included. Foreclosed homes include Hud, Va and Bank foreclosures. Idaho Falls Foreclosure home listings - No price Listed Idaho Falls Foreclosure homes. Surrounding areas with forclosures close to Idaho Falls also included. Hope - $50,000 - $75,000 *** For Sale by Owner: Secondary lot (0.89 acres) on Lake Pend Oreille in Bonner County. All utilities to the lot. Common areas include a picnic and boat launch area. Many trees on the lot in an area of half million dollar homes. *** Lucile - $225,000 - $250,000 custom quality rancher on 25.7 usable acres overlooking the Salmon River Elk City - $150,000 - $175,000 Elk City Restaurant Bar home FSBO Coeur d\'Alene , ID - No price Listed Home for sale by owner - This is a lake property with 4.5 acre nestled in Kidd Island Bay .Only 11 miles south of town, school bus route 1/4 mile . Elk City - $200,000 - $225,000 Back country Restaurant with Residence in Beautiful Mountain Setting Salmon, ID - No price Listed Home for sale by owner - 360 Deg Mountain View of Continental Divide and Salmon National Forest. Eagle - $150,000 - $175,000 Eagle home on 1 acre Boise, ID - No price Listed Homes for sale by owner - Beautiful wooded view that often includes wild turkeys & big game. A creek runs year round. Finish the hot wire fence for your horses with the t-posts Boise, Idaho - No price Listed Real estate for sale by owner - Large home in beautiful, prestigious subdivision of northwest Boise; 3020 square feet, 5 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1/4 acre corner lot Idaho Falls, Idaho - No price Listed Real estate for sale by owner - This property is one of a kind in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Centrally located between Sun Valley, Idaho, Yellowstone National Park and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, unbelievable 1.4 acre yard with mature trees, plants, combined with Coeur d'Alene Idaho - $300,000+ Real estate for sale by owner - Sagle - $175,000 - $200,000 Idaho Falls Idaho - No price Listed Real estate for sale by owner - Approx. 65 acres. Over 1 mile of Snake River water frontage. Property includes 40 acres deeded ISLAND! Also, 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom home. Great water skiiing. Only 5 minutes from Idaho Falls Heyden Lake Idaho - No price Listed Real estate for sale by owner - This spacious 4 bedroom, 3 bath custom ranch on Hayden Lake, ID sits on 4.64 acres. Sit in the outside Jacuzzi and take in the breathtaking view of the lake, the nearby mountains & forest or take one Sandpoint Idaho - $300,000+ FSBO. Wilderness land and house for sale. Sandpoint Idaho - $300,000+ FSBO Property. Mountain Range 5 Ranch Homes and utility installation in each parcel. This acreage can be developed for sporting ventures or exclusive real estate development. Priced to Sell. Value 9 Million. Nampa Idaho - $275,000 - $300,000 Great Investment Opportunity! Triplex For Sale by Owner with great cash flow. Moscow Idaho - $300,000+ For Sale By Owner. Open 1st floor w/marble entry & hardwood floors. Hickory cabinets, faux painted walls. 400 sq.ft. office off MB Suite. Prof. landscaping, w/pond. Elegant country living in town. Home faces private pond for homeowners. Grandeville Idaho - $150,000 - $175,000 Real Estate FSBO Timberland Retreat (Douglas Fir), borders National Forest. New, owner-built dwelling with fenced yard, walk-in pantry, growing room, solar system, spring and cisterns, young semi-dwarf orchard, view, and abundant wildlife. Grangeville Idaho - $150,000 - $175,000 FSBO 3 acres one and one half miles from town, 2 story daylight apartment downstairs, 2 bedrooms up stairs,1 down completely carpeted except kitchen and bathrooms, two car adjoining garage. Kellogg - $125,000 - $150,000 Very well maintained old theater with lots of possibilities for use. Two front offices now leased for $250 per month. Very nice 1 bedroom apartment upstairs. Two large 24 x 56 auditoriums that can be made into one large. Two new furnaces, 3 phase power. Elk - $225,000 - $250,000 Gas station, Liquor Store, Convenience Store, Laundromat small mountain town, year a-round recreation. 2 bedroom apt. upstairs A-frame and garage located on lot next door for nightly rental for sale. Elk - $150,000 - $175,000 Motel and apartment building located on Hwy 14 - rent by the night, week, or month - average annual income $30,000 Hauser Lake - $300,000+ For Sale - Prime real-estate investment opportunity approx. $51,000 (US$) annual income from an 18 unit Mobile Home Park located on 5 acres by Hasuer Lake in NW Idaho. Property includes some mini-storage rental income and additional 14.5 acres. Heyburn - $300,000+ 500+ acres of the most beautiful Idaho riverfront property for sale. It overlooks the Snake River. It is one of the last pieces available of this size. Great for a hunting reserve. Many Species of birds visit by the thousands. Boise - $150,000 - $175,000 Spectacular view of mountains; 5 miles from Bogus Basin Ski Resort; log cabin, private deck; trees everywhere; horses ok; horse/bike trails; fishing; watch elk, deer, wild turkeys, quail from your porch; freshly painted; ready to move in. Idaho Falls Idaho - No price Listed real estate for sale by owner - Four level split. 2460 sp. ft. 4 bed 2.5 bath. 2 family rooms. 3 car garage, RV pad, fenced yard, auto sprinkler, dog REAL_ESTATE_FOR_RENT Walden Park Apartments - No price Listed Features cambridge homes, apartments massachusetts, cambridge apartments, massachusetts apartments, apartments for rent in massachusetts, massachusetts apartments for rent, apartments for rent in cambridge ma and cambridge ma apartment rentals. Cambridge Idaho - No price Listed ADD YOUR LISTING HERE Caution! Ensure that all information is entered correctly. Once an ad has been placed, it cannot be edited. Use your mouse or your TAB key to move from field to field. DO NOT hit your ENTER/RETURN key. You are welcome to add your property to our list. We do have a few requirements though. 1. Each property may only be listed once. (multiple listing of a property will result in the property being removed entirely) 2. Every property listed must be linked to its own individual URL (address). If your home is not online or it doesn't have a unique URL, we suggest using FSBOFreedom.com to list your site first. They will provide you with a unique URL for your home. Listings will not be accepted without a unique URL. For Real Estate Agents, this means that if you only have one page with all your listings on it, you may only place one listing in our database. Please don't use offensive or adult-related wording or link to anything except a web page of your property. Each section is limited to 50 links, new links placed on top! Why not add your own link?! Your email address is required, but not shown or given out to anyone. City URL of your property (web address, this is required and it must link to your home) Name Email Address Description Garage none 1 car 2 car 3+car Bedrooms 1 2 3 4 5 5+ n/a Bathrooms n/a 1 1 1/2 2 2 1/2 3 3+ Price Range (Homes for sale list Sale price, Homes for rent list monthly rental price) $25,000 - $50,000 No price Listed $50,000 - $75,000 $75,000 - $100,000 $100,000 - $125,000 $125,000 - $150,000 $150,000 - $175,000 $175,000 - $200,000 $200,000 - $225,000 $225,000 - $250,000 $250,000 - $275,000 $275,000 - $300,000 $300,000+ Under $250 per month $250 - $350 per month $350 - $450 per month $450 - $550 per month $550 - $650 per month $650 - $750 per month $750 - $850 per month $850 - $950 per month $950 - $1050 per month $1050 - $1200 per month Over $1250 per month Section to be placed in: Real_Estate_For_Rent Real_Estate_For_Sale MLSHub listings include: for sale by owner, foreclosure, foreclosures, homes for sale by owner, houses for sale by owner, free, hud foreclosures, forclosures, bank foreclosures, va foreclosures, home foreclosure, house foreclosure, forclosure, hud foreclosure, va foreclosure, bank foreclosure, home foreclosures, foreclosed homes, home in foreclosure, foreclosure listings, foreclosed property, home foreclosures, forclosure, forclosed homes, rentals, fsbo, real estate foreclosures, real estate, home foreclosure, foreclosure real estate, foreclosed real estate, fsbo, homes fsbo, mls, mls listings, free home listings, free real estate listings, free for sale by owner listings, foreclosed property, forclosed property, forclosure, forclosures, Albuquerque Foreclosures,Atlanta Foreclosures, Austin Foreclosures, Baltimore Foreclosures, Boston Foreclosures, Charlotte Foreclosures, Chicago Foreclosures, Cleveland Foreclosures, Colorado Springs Foreclosures, Columbus Foreclosures, Dallas Foreclosures, Denver Foreclosures, Detroit Foreclosures, El Paso Foreclosures, Fort Worth Foreclosures, Fresno Foreclosures, Honolulu Foreclosures, Houston foreclosures,Indianapolis Foreclosures, Jacksonville Foreclosures, Kansas City Foreclosures, Las Vegas Foreclosures, Long Beach Foreclosures, Los Angeles Foreclosures, Memphis Foreclosures, Mesa Foreclosures, Miami Foreclosures, Milwaukee Foreclosures, Minneapolis Foreclosures, Nashville Foreclosures, New Orleans Foreclosures, New York Foreclosures, Oakland Foreclosures, Oklahoma City Foreclosures, Omaha Foreclosures, Philadelphia Foreclosures, Phoenix Foreclosures, Portland Foreclosures, Sacramento Foreclosures, St. Louis Foreclosures, San Antonio Foreclosures, San Diego Foreclosures, San Francisco Foreclosures, San Jose Foreclosures, Seattle Foreclosures, Tucson Foreclosures, Tulsa Foreclosures, Virginia Beach Foreclosures, Washington Foreclosures, Wichita Foreclosures, Alaska Foreclosures, Arkansas Foreclosures, California Foreclosures, Colorado Foreclosures, Connecticut Foreclosures, Delaware Foreclosures, District of Columbia Foreclosures, Florida Foreclosures, Georgia Foreclosures, Hawaii Foreclosures, Idaho Foreclosures, Illinois Foreclosures, Indiana Foreclosures, Iowa Foreclosures, Kansas Foreclosures, Kentucky Foreclosures, Louisiana Foreclosures, Maine Foreclosures, Maryland Foreclosures, Massachusetts Foreclosures, Michigan Foreclosures, Minnesota Foreclosures, Mississippi Foreclosures, Missouri Foreclosures, Montana Foreclosures, Nebraska Foreclosures, Nevada Foreclosures, New Hampshire Foreclosures, New Jersey Foreclosures, New Mexico Foreclosures, New York Foreclosures, North Carolina Foreclosures, North Dakota Foreclosures, Ohio Foreclosures, Oklahoma Foreclosures, Oregon Foreclosures, Pennsylvania Foreclosures, Rhode Island Foreclosures, South Carolina Foreclosures, South Dakota Foreclosures, Tennessee Foreclosures, Texas Foreclosures, Utah Foreclosures, Vermont Foreclosures, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin Foreclosures, Wyoming Foreclosures Copyright 2000 MLSHub.com All Rights Reserved
As the serious health effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, have become better understood, the seepage of ETS into apartments and condominiums has emerged as a growing area of controversy for tenants and building owners alike. Clearly, virtually all tenants find secondhand smoke which enters their residence from their neighbors to be an annoyance and a discomfort, but for some persons it is also a cause of serious illness or the precipitant of significant health problems. For landlords or condominium associations, the issue of ETS seepage creates unwanted concerns and tensions, but also potential legal and liability problems, as evidenced by the increasing number of lawsuits resulting from these situations. In this section of the SFELP web site, we have included information on methods of addressing these issues. We have presented suggestions for dealing amicably with these situations, and we have also reviewed the types of legal actions and theories which can be pursued when all else fails. We have also provided direct links to other web sites which have relevant information on this issue. Additional materials will be added to this site on a regular basis. The information provided herein is written for a wide range of audiences, including tenants, property owners and the legal profession. These materials and links to other sources are provided for informational purposes only and are not intended to be and should not be construed as legal advice. The Public Opinion on Smoke-Free Environments portion of the SFELP site includes a section titled Public Opinion Surveys on Smoke-Free Apartment Topics which has links to a number of surveys completed in recent years to determine public support for various types of smoke-free apartment policies. To access this section of the SFELP site, click here and scroll down to the section. MICHIGAN SMOKE-FREE APARTMENTS INITIATIVE In July, 2004, SFELP unveiled a multi-faceted smoke-free apartments initiative in Michigan whose purpose is to encourage and assist apartment owners to adopt smoke-free apartment policies in their buildings, as well as to inform tenants of their rights to live in smoke-free apartments and assist them in working with their landlords to obtain smoke-free apartments. The smoke-free apartment initiative utilizes a new web site called mismokefreeapartment.org to provide a wealth of information for both tenants and landlords. In addition, the initiative includes two radio ads and 4 billboards to publicize the web site and the reasons for adopting smoke-free apartment policies, as well as the legal right to do so. The initiative also includes 4 postcards which will be mailed to landlords informing them of this initiative. SFELP will also be conducting surveys in various parts of Michigan to determine the current availability of smoke-free apartments and will develop an online listing of smoke-free apartments throughout the state. SFELP will be available to provide information and assistance to landlords and tenants desiring smoke-free apartment buildings. To access the mismokefreeapartment.org web site, click here. To access a 56-slide PowerPoint presentation which describes this initiative, including showing the billboards and postcards, click here. [NOTE: When you get to the PowerPoint page, if you click on individual slides or on "Click to Start Here," you can view the slides, but a few of the slides -- particularly the billboards and postcards -- may not show all of the images. However, if you click on "Download presentation source," you will be able to view all the images on all the slides.] PRESENTATION FOR LANDLORDS OR OTHERS TO USE TO MAKE THE TRANSITION TO A SMOKE-FREE APARTMENT POLICY As a part of the mismokefreeapartment initiative described above, SFELP developed a PowerPoint presentation for use by landlords (or others). We want to help landlords make the transition to smoke-free living as smooth as possible. This presentation can be used to help landlords announce their smoke-free intentions to tenants and employees and to inform them of the very real risks secondhand smoke poses to their health. Once they see the facts, they can see going smoke-free is a win-win change for the better. To access the 29-slide presentation, you can go to the mismokefreeapartment.org web page for the PowerPoint by clicking here or you can go directly to the PowerPoint by clicking here. INFILTRATION OF SECONDHAND SMOKE INTO CONDOMINIUMS, APARTMENTS AND OTHER MULTI-UNIT DWELLINGS In April, 2004, the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, of which the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project (SFELP) is a founding member, published a "law synopsis" of the above title which discusses legal remedies available to tenants and landlords concerned about secondhand smoke infiltration. The article was written by SFELP Consulting Attorney Susan Schoenmarklin and can be accessed, in pdf format, by clicking here. SECONDHAND SMOKE IN APARTMENTS & CONDOMINIUMS SFELP has developed a concise analysis of the options available to the resident of an apartment or condominium who is exposed to secondhand smoke against his/her will. This includes a review of the legal options available and recent legal cases involving secondhand smoke entering such residences. This information is also valuable for the owners of such properties in that it presents many of the potential liability issues faced by an owner who allows smoking in his/her building. For information, click here. THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE PROTECTION OF PERSONS WHO ARE DISABLED BY SECONDHAND SMOKE The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, family status, national origin, or disability. The FHA, among other things, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, including those with severe breathing problems which are exacerbated by secondhand smoke. The FHA prohibits such discrimination by owners and operators of most housing, including most apartments and Section 8 and other HUD-assisted housing. It is clear from the language of the FHA, its interpretation by HUD General Counsel, and court decisions, that the FHA is available to people with breathing disabilities to seek reasonable accommodations from owners and operators of most housing in the United States in order to address the serious health hazards posed by secondhand smoke which infiltrates their housing. A detailed analysis of this issue by the Office of the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was prepared in 1992 and is still in effect; a copy may be accessed from the HUD site by clicking here. For a link to HUD's online complaint form which can be filed directly, click here. For a link to download the HUD complaint form, in pdf format, so that it can be sent to a HUD office, click here. To access an analysis by SFELP of the FHA and how it can be used to protect persons who have breathing disabilities which are caused or exacerbated by secondhand smoke in their housing situations, click here. HUD LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION: LANDLORDS ARE FREE TO MAKE APARTMENTS TOTALLY SMOKE-FREE At the request of the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project, the Chief Counsel of the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) field office in Detroit issued an opinion on July 18, 2003 in which she stated that: "Currently, there is no HUD policy, by statute, regulation, handbook or otherwise that restricts landlords from adopting a prohibition of smoking in common areas or in individual units." The opinion goes on to state that there is nothing in federal law, including the federal Fair Housing Act (see SFELP analysis of the FHA above), or in Michigan law (see Michigan AG Opinion below) which prevents a landlord from making some or all of his/her apartment units smoke-free. The opinion states: "Similar to Michigan law, federal law does not prohibit the separation of smoking and non-smoking tenants in privately owned apartment complexes and in fact, does not prohibit a private owner of an apartment complex from refusing to rent to smokers." The only caveats to this policy which the opinion lists are: 1) if the apartment owner wishes to make the policy a condition of the lease, HUD approval is necessary to the extent that the owner is bound to utilize HUD's model lease; and 2) "if owners seek to make their complexes smoke-free they must take caution to grandfather in those smoking residents currently residing at the complex." To access this opinion, click here for page 1 and click here for page 2. MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LEGAL OPINION: PRIVATELY-OWNED APARTMENT COMPLEXES CAN BE SMOKE-FREE This is a link to a 1992 Legal Opinion of the Michigan Attorney General which examined the issue of whether privately-owned apartment complexes could be either entirely smoke-free or have certain buildings in a complex be smoke-free. The Attorney General concluded as follows: "It is my opinion, therefore, that neither state nor federal law prohibits a privately-owned apartment complex from renting only to non-smokers or, in the alternative, restricting smokers to certain buildings within an apartment complex." There has been nothing enacted in Michigan or federal law since this opinion was written which would overrule this opinion. To access the opinion, click here. LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SMOKE-FREE BUILDINGS, INCLUDING COURT DECISIONS & HUD/FAIR HOUSING ACT DECISIONS PERMITTING SMOKE-FREE APARTMENT BUILDINGS This is a link to an excellent Legal Research report containing a wealth of cases and information on smoke-free buildings, including apartments, and the law. Note that Appendix 2 to the report contains a bountiful number of cases, including ones utilizing the Fair Housing Act (see paragraph above on the FHA) to obtain smoke-free buildings, and others using common law theories to do the same (these cases support the SFELP analysis above and the legal strategies analysis below by Robert Kline). The page also contains two surveys: Secondhand Smoke in Apartment Buildings -- Owners Survey and Renters Survey. These reports were produced by the Center for Energy and Environment, based in Minneapolis. To link to this page, where you will be able to access the reports, in pdf format, click here. LEGAL STRATEGIES FOR ETS INCURSIONS INTO MULTI-UNIT RESIDENCES This article by Robert Kline of the Tobacco Control Resource Center in Boston describes the major legal theories that non-smoking residents of multiple unit residential dwellings may use to deal with incursions of secondhand smoke into their units. It suggests that use of various state regulations can be effective in protecting non-smokers from secondhand smoke incursions, or, in the alternative, that certain common law remedies may be available. To access this article, click here. TACOMA-PIERCE AND KITSAP COUNTY (WA) HEALTH DEPARTMENTS' SMOKE-FREE HOUSING SITES The Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department and the Kitsap County Health District in Washington state have sections of their web sites devoted to Providing Fresh Air Housing. The sites contain a number of very useful materials, including the following: Providing Smoke-Free Rental Units: A Guide for Building Owners and Managers; Secondhand Smoke in Apartments and Condos: A Guide for Owners and Managers; The Smoker Next Door ... Handling Unwanted Tobacco Smoke in Apartments and Condos; Model Policy for a Smoke-Free Condo or Apartment; Frequently Asked Questions; Phone Survey of Tenants in Pierce and Kitsap Counties; and, Owners and Managers: It's Your Decision for a Fresh Air Housing Blueprint. There are also links to smoke-free apartment listings. The phone survey is an excellent 28-page report on the findings of a random sample phone survey of 1,106 tenants in Pierce and Kitsap Counties conducted in January, 2003. To access the survey report directly, in pdf format, click here. To access the Tacoma-Pierce County Smoke-Free Housing Site, click here. To access the Kitsap County Health District Smoke-Free Housing Site, click here. SUGGESTIONS FOR DEALING WITH SECONDHAND SMOKE IN APARTMENTS Colorado GASP provides a site with brief suggestions for dealing with secondhand smoke which seeps into apartments. Click here to go to their site. THE SMOKER NEXT DOOR: TIPS FOR TENANTS This link to the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights web site provides a short set of steps tenants should consider to protect themselves from secondhand smoke seeping into their residence. To access this information, click here. SECONDHAND SMOKE: A GUIDE FOR OWNERS & MANAGERS This link to the Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights web site provides a brief set of guidelines for owners and managers of buildings in which secondhand smoke seepage into other residences is an issue. One of the suggestions for solving the problem is eliminating smoking within all the residences. To access these guidelines, click here. SMOKING IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING: WHAT CAN BE DONE? This link to the Technical Assistance Legal Center in California provides a good overview of what persons living in apartments can do when they are affected by secondhand smoke from neighbors. While this fact sheet focuses on California law, it also has general applicability. Click here. SMOKE FREE WORLD GUIDE - HOUSING, DINING, TRAVEL, ETC. The Smoke Free World site has links to listings for a variety of smokefree facilities around the world, including housing, dining, entertainment and travel. While the site is still new and has its limits, it is a start on filling a real need. Click here. Smoke-Free Environments Law Project The Center for Social Gerontology 2307 Shelby Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48103 734.665.1126 734.665.2071 Fax SFELP@tcsg.org
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents Display LEGISLATION TO RECTIFY PROBLEMS IN THE SECTION 8 PROJECT-BASED PROGRAM -- HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON (Extension of Remarks - September 28, 1994) [Page: E1976] --- HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON in the House of Representatives WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to rectify widespread problems in the Section 8 Project-Based Assistance Program. This Section 8 Project-Based Program is separate from the more widely known Section 8 Voucher Program in that the subsidy attaches to the apartment rather than to the tenant. Tenants do not have the choice to move to another apartment building because their rental subsidy cannot be used elsewhere. The Employment, Housing and Aviation Subcommittee which I Chair has been investigating this program. We held a hearing on July 26, 1994 and will have a second hearing next week on October 6. The results from the first hearing were startling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], the agency that administers this program, could not even identify for the subcommittee which projects were troubled either financially or physically. The HUD Inspector General reported that, to date, HUD has provided over $131 billion in assistance to over 20,000 projects. More than 30 percent of these projects are troubled. Many are in deplorable shape: families are living with rat infestation; leaking toilets, sinks and roofs; no heat or smoke detectors; and holes in walls and ceilings. HUD has not done a complete assessment of its inventory of troubled projects, which this bill would require. This assessment would include a financial and cost-benefit analysis of each troubled property to determine appropriate remedial action. It would also examine the social impact these properties have on tenants, owners, and communities. In addition, this bill would require HUD to identify its troubled properties, collect and analyze the financial information for each project, and weigh its options for remedial action. HUD would then choose the most cost-effective action to take, while considering its affect on tenants, owners, and the community. Without a systematic method of determining what actions it should take on troubled projects, HUD could be wasting millions of dollars on projects that should not receive further assistance. One solution, included in the bill, would permit HUD to recapture section 8 project-based funds for reuse as vouchers or certificates. This would allow tenants who live in substandard apartments to move to another building. In addition to being in deplorable shape, many apartments have rents that are higher, in some cases double, the rent of comparable apartments in the same neighborhood that do not receive a subsidy. The General Accounting Office found a troubled section 8 property in Chicago where rent for a two-bedroom apartment was over $800 and a comparable apartment in a nearby building was just over $400. Some owners of section 8 assisted projects may be receiving undue profit at taxpayers' expense. The bill contains provisions that will control section 8 rent increases and make the rents comparable to unassisted rents in the area. I hope that with this bill, requiring more efficient and cost-effective HUD oversight of section 8 properties, we can improve the management and financial and physical condition of these properties; properties that, by law, are intended to provide habitable rental units for thousands of low-income Americans. A summary of the legislation follows: [Page: E1977] The Subcommittee on Employment, Housing, and Aviation held a hearing on July 26, 1994 to examine problems in the Section 8 Project-Based Assistance Program. The findings from the hearing follow: Approximately 30% of the projects do not meet HUD's housing quality standards and are classified as `troubled'. Of the total inventory of over 20,000 projects, about 10,000 are insured by HUD; HUD cannot identify which projects in its inventory are troubled; HUD is neither adequately inspecting projects nor ensuring that repairs are made; HUD is not taking aggressive enforcement action against owners of troubled projects. According to the HUD Inspector General, aggressive enforcement action is the `exception at HUD, not the rule.' Although some of the sanctions available to HUD may hurt tenants, several of the administrative sanctions would not. The inability of HUD to address the problems of troubled projects is due to a variety of factors, including ineffective management, inadequate data systems, staffing shortages, and a lack of program accountability. HUD has not done a complete assessment of its inventory of troubled projects. This would include a financial and cost-benefit analysis of each troubled property to determine remedial action. It would also examine the social impact these properties have on tenants, owners and communities. Many Section 8 apartments have rents that are excessive compared to comparable unassisted apartments in the same area. A 1993 HUD report analyzed 4,125 properties and concluded that 42% of those properties had assisted rents at, or exceeding, 140% of market rents in the area. In 1989, Congress directed HUD to issue regulations for conducting rent comparability reviews, which examine the difference between HUD-assisted and unassisted rents charged for similar apartments in the same neighborhood. Although HUD issued a proposed rule in 1992, it has yet to issue a final rule--four and one-half years later. HUD placed a moratorium on conducting comparability reviews until the final rule is published. In the meantime, HUD is not doing comparability reviews, and owners are receiving automatic rent adjustments. In order for HUD to take appropriate remedial actions, statutory changes may be required. For example, under current law, HUD cannot `recapture' Section 8 funds for reuse as vouchers or certificates. The Section 8 Project-Based Management Improvement Act of 1994 would address many of the problems with Section 8 project-based properties. It would: Require HUD to identify troubled Section 8 project-based projects within 30 days of the bill's enactment. HUD will establish two categories for projects--severely troubled and troubled. Require HUD to have completed a financial and social impact analysis on all of its severely troubled and troubled projects. HUD will have 18 months after the bill's enactment to complete the analyses. HUD is required to complete the analysis for all severely troubled projects in the first six months after the bill's enactment. HUD is required to complete the analysis for all troubled projects within eighteen months of the bill's enactment. The financial and social impact analysis would assist HUD in determining remedial actions to be taken on projects. There are several actions that HUD can choose to take on each troubled project; such as providing funds to renovate the property; enforcing sanctions against the owner; providing Section 8 vouchers and certificates to tenants; and, in cases where a project is beyond repair, foreclosing on the building. HUD is required to collect and analyze the appropriate information on each project, and weigh the possible options. It should then choose the most cost-effective action to take, while considering its effect on tenants, owners, and the community. In performing the financial and social impact analysis, HUD is required to include the following (1) background information (2) financial information (such as the project's estimated rehabilitation costs, alternative financing mechanisms, and income and expenses) (3) comparison of options for remedial action. (4) an assessment of the social impact of each option, and (5) any other information as determined by the Secretary of HUD. Require HUD to develop the guidelines it will use for determining remedial actions to take on each project. HUD must submit these guidelines to Congress within 30 days of the bill's enactment. Permit HUD to `recapture' project-based Section 8 funds for reuse as vouchers or certificates (under current law, terminated Section 8 funds had to be returned to the Treasury and could not be used for vouchers or certificates). Repeal a prohibition on lowering Section 8 rents that were in effect on or after April 15, 1987 for certain projects. Require HUD to develop final regulations on conducting comparability reviews within 30 days of the bill's enactment. Permit HUD to switch between applying the two methods of determining rent increases for Section 8 projects when refinancing (Annual Adjustment Factors and budget-based). [Page: E1978] THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Contents Display
Home | Local News | Sports | Obituaries | Online Store | Reader Comments | Classifieds | Archives | Subscribe Local News WV/VA News National News Sports Local Sports Sports Briefs National Editorials Editorial Columns Police Blotters Obituaries Letters to Editor Business Financial News Health News Weather Front Page News Sports Obituaries Lifestyles Lifestyle Columns Local Arts Calendar Business Directory Comics Horoscopes Lottery Movies Music Television Daily Puzzle Todays Ads Place an Ad Email Newsletter Contact Us Forms Lifestyles Photo Reprints Subscribe Archives var now = new Date(); var dayNames = new Array("Sunday","Monday","Tuesday","Wednesday","Thursday","Friday","Saturday"); var monNames = new Array("January","February","March","April","May","June","July","August","September","October","November","December"); document.write(dayNames[now.getDay()] + ", " + monNames[now.getMonth()] + " " + now.getDate() + ", " + now.getFullYear()); Select a sub-category within FOR RENT BUSINESS PLACES FOR RENT (1) FURNISHED APARTMENTS (1) HOUSES FOR RENT (1) UNFURNISHED APARTMENTS (12) BUSINESS PLACES FOR RENT - ( Top ) Prime retail and office space avail., in Blfd., WV. 304-327-0149 or 276-322-0486. Save ad Email a Friend FURNISHED APARTMENTS - ( Top ) EDGEWOOD APTS 40 units. Completely furnished, Rt. 52. 1 1/2 miles north Blfd State. All util., furn. 304-589-0243. Also 14-unit located State Street, Athens, WV. Save ad Email a Friend HOUSES FOR RENT - ( Top ) 3 BR, 2 BA, Nice neighborhood $535/ month 304-320-4697 Save ad Email a Friend UNFURNISHED APARTMENTS - ( Top ) 2BR S. Blfd $400 304- 324-5566www.bluefield-princeton-apartments.com. Save ad Email a Friend 2 BR Apt. Avialable in Bluewell Kinzer Apts. 589-6941 or 589-6949 Save ad Email a Friend 2 BR, Apartment S. 7th St. Pctn, $400 + utilities $400 deposit references. 323-2389. Save ad Email a Friend 2-3 BR, carpeted and ceramic tile. W/D hookup, AC, all utilities except electricity, 425-2288. Save ad Email a Friend 1944 Virginia Ave. , Blfd, Va. 2 BR 1 BA , LR, Kit. $270/month. 322-5017 Save ad Email a Friend 1944 Virginia Ave., Blfd., VA. small eff. apt. $185. 276-322-5017. Save ad Email a Friend LEATHERWOOD Manor Blfd., VA, has 2 BR apartments starting at $360 plus electric utility. No pets. Security deposit with references. Shown by appointment only, 276-322-3616. Save ad Email a Friend Blfd, VA. 2 BR, 1 BA, laundry hook-up, Heat pump, water/ sewr furnished $350/month and $350 deposit. 326-6166 Save ad Email a Friend COLONIAL GARDEN apts. Taking applications. Double Gates, Bluefield, VA. 322-1311 Save ad Email a Friend Crescent View Apartments, Bluefield, Virginia. Accepting applications for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Rent is subsidized through the HUD Section 8 Program. Utilities included in rent. Apply in person at rental office, 209-02 Vencil Street, Mon-Fri, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (276) 326-2323. Equal Housing Opportunity. Save ad Email a Friend Newly remolded 1 BR 2 BR apartments in Princeton. Some utilities included, HUD vouchers accepted and security deposit required. Call 327-9562 or 549-0143. Save ad Email a Friend NOW leasing 2-3 BR apts., $395-$675. Call 304-323-1996. Save ad Email a Friend ADVANCED SEARCH Keyword Search: All Categories ANNOUNCEMENTS AUTOMOTIVE EMPLOYMENT FINANCIAL FOR RENT MEMORIALS MERCHANDISE PETS - LIVESTOCK REAL ESTATE SERVICES Search ads containing: Any All keywords below with Partial or Full words. Word 1: Word 2: Word 3: PLACE AN AD Click here to place a classified ad. MAIN CATEGORIES ANNOUNCEMENTS (16) AUTOMOTIVE (33) EMPLOYMENT (33) FINANCIAL (2) FOR RENT (15) MERCHANDISE (54) PETS - LIVESTOCK (14) REAL ESTATE (14) SERVICES (10) SEARCH Keyword: advanced search Copyright 2004, The Bluefield Daily Telegraph. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of the Daily Telegraph. Bluefield Daily Telegraph P.O. Box 1599 / Bluefield, WV 24701 / 304-327-2811
NCPA - Federal Spending The Budget - HUD's Section 8 Taxpayer Rip-Off? Federal Spending The Budget HUD's Section 8 Taxpayer Rip-Off? The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development last week awarded $716 million in grants to public housing authorities to demolish their housing projects and hand over to residents enough money to find lodgings in suburbia and elsewhere. This was done under HUD's so-called Section 8, a housing welfare program under which recipients pay 30 percent of their income -- which may be zero -- toward an apartment or house and the federal government picks up the rest of the rent. Secretary Henry Cisneros believes that public housing has been a failure because it "concentrates the very poor" -- which could be rectified by moving them into middle-class neighborhoods. Subsidy levels are set for each city and county in the country, with the amount determining where the recipient can live -- even on Nantucket Island, for which HUD would hand out $1,771 a month to selected welfare recipients, a higher rent than 95 percent of American renters pay. According to HUD, paying such lavish subsidies is no more than "fair." Critics call the mixing of supposed "market" principles with government handouts a fraud perpetrated on taxpayers. In 1994, HUD raised the subsidy for Plano, Texas, to $750 for a two-bedroom and $900 for a three-bedroom apartment -- even though the median rent there is only $586 per month. In the Washington, D.C. area, HUD will pay up to $1,303 per month for welfare apartments -- even though there are almost no apartments that rent for such a high price anywhere near Washington. Complaints are often heard from non-subsidized residents in Section 8 areas that some welfare residences are used for drug distribution, and that the houses have become either "crack houses" or garbage dumps. Because the subsidies are so lavish, ordinary working-class renters find their own rents raised, or have trouble finding places to rent. HUD's policies have led to charges the department is building ghettos in the suburbs. Not surprisingly, with benefits so generous, bribery is sometimes involved in their distribution. Source: James Bovard (Competitive Enterprise Institute), "Demolition and Dispersion," Washington Times , October 16, 1996. Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | Debate Central | Contact Us Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924 Washington Office: 655 15th St. N.W., Suite 375 - Washington, DC 20005 - 202/220-3082 - Fax 202/220-3096 2001 NCPA