The situation described in this material will probably perplex V Novom Svete readers living outside New York. Can it really be that in the Big Apple you have to pay a large bribe to move into a low-rent apartment under the program known as Section 8?
Such a thing would never occur to Russian-speaking residents in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles or any other city. Everywhere in America, receiving the desired apartment voucher takes a little more than two years from the time of application – everywhere but in New York (or, possibly, Los Angeles, but there is no talk of bribes there). It’s not by chance that some New Yorkers, parting with their dream of housing that would cost no more than $300 per month, leave the metropolis where their children and grandchildren live and move to places where there are no problems with Section 8, and where they do not have to wait in hopelessly long lines. I know several people who have done this.
Where there are shortages (in this case affordable housing for poor people), there is fertile ground for abuse. Everyone knows about this, discusses it within their close circle and decides not to air dirty laundry.
What has caused this shortage of low-rent apartments, mainly intended for those receiving social benefits – the blessed the supplemental Social Security Income (SSI)?
Because government funding was lacking, from 1994 until the end of 2006, applications for this type of housing were not accepted at all in New York. Naturally, the number of people who wanted to have affordable housing far exceeded availability. But almost two years ago, the dream of elderly poor people took on real shape. Finally funds allocated from the federal government, as well as from local sources, began to thaw the “frozen” Section 8 program. A call for applications for this cherished voucher, which allows people to find low-cost housing independently, was announced. True, the search was limited to a six-month period, but this wasn’t particularly frightening. However, the honeymoon did not last long.
In trying to find housing on their own, the first voucher holders ran up against an almost unsolvable problem: landlords refused to rent them apartments under Section 8 for various reasons. The image of elderly and not terribly healthy people rushing around the large city frequently appeared that they were running around in the dark – nervous and without direction. Added to this, like the sword of Damocles hanging over them, was the fact that the voucher was only valid for a certain period of time and the time allotted to looking for housing was rapidly running out. Many were forced to turn to realtors – help us, dear people, we will make it worth your while.
Real estate agents, generally Russians, have established a direct connection with landlords, who provide them with up-to-the-minute information on the availability of unoccupied housing, including housing that could be rented out under Section 8. Naturally, this information is not for free. Fees are determined by the location of the building, its level of comfort, etc. For housing near the water, in Brighton Beach for example, the amount of the bribe rounds out to $18,000 or even $20,000. Bribes for apartments in the Ocean Avenue area not far from Kings Highway average $15,000.
Such are the rules of the game established by the fans of a system that allows a few people to line their pockets in times of shortage.
The story of one of my friends, who I’ll call Leonid, is typical.
“When I received the voucher,” he recounted,” I swear I could not believe how lucky I was. And then it all started. We ran all over half the city but were brushed off everywhere we went. In the best cases, we were given the chance to get in a line that we had no way of knowing how long it was. And we had a very tight timeframe. In the end, when the voucher was only valid for another two months, one of our acquaintances, who had been down the same road, said, ‘Why are you putting yourselves through this? Just go to a real estate agent. He’ll find you something nice, but naturally not for free.’
When she gave me an approximate figure for the fee, I didn’t believe her at first, but then it turned out that her estimate was low. My wife and I did not have that kind of money, but my daughter said, ‘Don’t worry, find something nice. My husband and I will take care of the rest.’ In short, it turned out that there is plenty of Section 8 housing, you just have to know which door to knock on. Honestly, we had a couple of relatively inexpensive options, but we really did not want to move to crime-ridden neighborhoods. After all, you want to live out the rest of your life in peace. I won’t even go into how they did the so-called ‘super’s renovation,’ – that’s another story. It’s lucky that my son-in-law is good with his hands. He redid a lot and corrected things, he didn’t understand how an apartment could be handed over to new tenants in such a poor state. But these are just the trifles of life.”
Judging from the many stories told by lucky voucher holders, this is how it really works. Why doesn’t anyone file a complaint? Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes is also surprised by this. He complains that many people talk about landlords who agree to rent Section 8 apartments for bribes, but that no one can prove or document this.
A little commentary is required here that is in no way meant to place under doubt the respected D.A.’s sincere intention to get rid of the corruption in this essential and important matter.
First, the incoming tenant hands money over to the realtor or the landlord (in a number of cases, directly) one on one, without witnesses. As one lawyer I know explained, this is a deal between two private individuals so, speaking strictly by the law, it is difficult to judge these as acts of bribery; after all, “bribery” is usually understood to correlate with giving money to a government worker. Second, the incoming tenant, who receives modest benefits, will never admit that he has a large amount of money in his piggy bank, and saying that his son or daughter helped out is not terribly convincing. The participants on the receiving end of the deal understand this perfectly and don’t really risk anything. That’s why the D.A. is unable to prosecute any cases of this nature.
True, there has been some progress in this area. After a long fight, the New York City Council was able to pass Intro 61-A, which bars discrimination against renters on the basis of race, creed, color or income source. The last point pertains directly to Section 8 voucher holders. Landlords do not have the right to deny them low-cost housing if they have a “legal source of income,” which includes any payments from government funds. However, they can still denied housing for various fabricated reasons. But for the right amount, please be so kind as to give me the cherished key to the apartment. As the saying goes, wheels don’t turn without oil.
Since the thaw of Section 8 in New York, 100,000 applications for low-cost housing have been received. At best, 20 percent of these applications have been considered; the rest await their time. But given the economic situation in the country and the program’s obvious shortfalls, which have been pointed out many times by both lawmakers and visible social activists in the city, it is not known when these applications will be reviewed. At a meeting focused on Section 8, the above-mentioned D.A. Hynes even read out telephone numbers to report problems with the program: 718- 250-2555 and 718-250-2340, as well as a hotline: 212-577-3639.
After a scandal developed at the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), which is the agency in charge of the vouchers, the agency itself began to devote special attention to the program. Under Section 8, low-income people pay only 30 percent of their family’s income towards rent, while the government pays the remainder to the landlord. Naturally, you have to present documents proving that you are poor. As it turns out, you can tinker with this data and obtain this cherished document through the back door. This is exactly what one HPD employee, Joba Cortorreal, did over the course of several years when she falsified the data of her clients, who could hardly be classified as poor citizens. The investigation determined that there were 16 voucher “stowaways,” which means that the same number of people who had a legal right to the vouchers were relegated to the back of the line. The swindler will get what she deserves, as will the intermediaries who brought her the clients who in turn paid off the unscrupulous bureaucrat.
Clearly, the problem is not only with this scandal, which caused management at the city agency to tighten the process of considering Section 8 applications. As Sen. Carl Kruger admitted, the system itself leads to malfunctions. “The entire process of the Section 8 program does not work,” he announced. And he explained why. Owners of buildings in good neighborhoods are not burning with desire to rent out housing under this program, which entails bureaucratic red tape and filling out a massive amount of documents, a process that could stretch out over months. In addition, landlords will face annual inspections by city agencies, which in turn do not always make their share of the rent payments on time. Why do they need all this trouble if they can rent their apartments at market rate without any delays or fuss? The result is that the happy voucher holders end up sidelined.
Attorney Albert Gurevich believes that this situation requires both a carrot and a stick. A policy like this should take into account the interests of the landlords, while using the full force of the law when there is clear discrimination of voucher holders. As reported in The New York Times, over the past couple of years HPD has received $250 million from the federal government and has issued 29,000 new vouchers, which are supposed to help low-income people, as well as those in difficult situations, including the homeless, get a roof over their heads. But there are more and more calls coming in to various hotlines from people complaining that for all practical purposes they have been deprived of this opportunity. As the saying goes: so near and yet so far away. In New York, it is unlikely that even the clever Buratino [a Russian version of Pinocchio, where Buratino, carved out of wood by Papa Carlo, searches for a golden key – LG] would be able to take advantage of the golden key that is Section 8. To do this he would need a Papa Carlo to open this door for him, for a fee.
