Articles

United We Stand - Divided We Fall

CrimeFree Partners

Articles

Western Regional Chapter of the

International Crime Free Association

More Articles >>>>>

Subsidized Housing and the Right Thing To Do

Denny Dobbins

Any organization that receives tax payer subsidies for housing is required by federal law to adhere to the principles of HUD v. Rucker regarding the crime free addendum that was first developed for the public sector by Jack Kemp and passed by Congress in 1988. If a particular PHA agency is not adhering to the crime free addendum, then that agency is in violation of federal law. Some HUD and other PHA directors apparently chose to disregard the mandates and do what they want. When I was on the Maricopa County HUD commission, the director followed the law and even ran a criminal background check on each applicant. The crime free addendum was actually incorporated into every lease as was intended. In fact, at that time, there was concern by the director that not enough people were seeking government assistance for public housing and that some of the vouchers would be lost forever which in turn could result in lost jobs. They wanted to hire two marketing representatives to find more qualified applicants so as to not lose the vouchers and thereby secure the jobs. I believe that this is the bottom line for too many directors and employees that administer such programs. I assume that there are those directors and employees that also truly care about people that need housing subsidies and want to make things as easy on people that are down on their luck.

However, it is my experience and opinion having been involved with many many trials and situations involving housing authorities, and not the opinion of the International Crime Free Association, that although these entitlement programs were intended for and are needed for those you cannot take care of themselves and have no family to help them, that there is a great deal of abuse of the programs that takes place, there is failure to properly implement that occurs, and there is failure to follow through with the rules that results in some residents being involved in crime that could have been easily avoided.

Remember, in the subsidy arena there are additional rules, regulations and rights that a resident has, over and above those grant by the State. So, remind managers to follow the federal laws and State laws in dealing with government subsidized housing residents.

Furthermore, as officers who administrate the crime free programs the fact that a resident may be living in government subsidized housing is of no consequence. It does not matter where a person lives. As police agencies, it does not matter whether it is government subsidized or private; crime is crime. It only matters that the law is obeyed. We don't label anyone, unless and until they have proven that they will not obey the simple laws of the land. Then they label themselves. We should administer the crime free programs without any preconceived ideas or prejudices about anyone. If the public housing authorities are not going to do there jobs in a particular area, they are just making their jobs harder; making the jobs for the beat cop harder and costing our government and municipalities unnecessary expense in dealing with crime that does not need to exist. The crime free programs work anywhere and for everyone, when implemented. You know how it is. Not everyone will join the crime free programs. It is not just certain PHA's, but we have owners of multifamily and single family units that either refuse to be involved and fail to implement. Our beat officers have the same problems there. It is just that the PHA's should not have such issues, if they just followed the law. The whole idea that Jack Kemp saw was that if we, as a people, were going to subsidize housing, then those that were subsidized must agree to live a crime free life style and see that those to whom they give access to their home do the same.

That is not asking for too much.

Denny Dobbins

Attorney at Law

Executive Board of Directors

International Crime Free Association

Crime Free Platinum

Michael Jackson's Doctor Charged with Felony Manslaughter

CALIFORNIA V. CONRAD MURRAY

(Superior Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., Feb. 8, 2010) - Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's former personal physician, was charged with one felony count of involuntary manslaughter in Los Angeles criminal court today for the pop star's death. Read more...

FIRST STEPS AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR INJURY

(FindLaw) If you are involved in an accident or injury, the steps you take immediately after the incident are important to the success of any legal claim you may decide to pursue. From preserving evidence to contacting a lawyer, FindLaw offers helpful tips and information on what to do immediately following an accident or injury.

SURVEY: MANY CONSUMERS IGNORE FOOD RECALLS

(FindLaw's Common Law) Many U.S. consumers don't check their homes for products that have been recalled and linked to food contamination, despite the amount of media attention paid to recent high-profile food recalls that have been tied to a salmonella health scare. Read more...

REPORT: VERY SMALL CARS NOT BIG ON SAFETY

(FindLaw's Injured) In these shaky economic times, many Americans are adopting a "less is more" mindset, and in the vehicle market that means mammoth SUVs are out and smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles are in. But a new crash test study shows that owners of these smaller cars may be sacrificing safety for affordability. Read more...

Statute of Limitations for Fair Housing Violations

(Microsoft Word Format) (Acrobat Format)

The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) of 1988 prohibits the discrimination of individuals with disabilities in the sale and rental of residential housing. In addition, the FHAA requires covered multifamily housing be designed and constructed to meet minimum requirements to ensure such units are accessible or adaptable to individuals with disabilities. A recent decision in the Ninth Circuit held that under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a claim based on the design or construction of the multifamily housing must be brought within two years of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Garcia v. Brockway, ---F3d---, 2008 WL2024996 (9th Cir. May 13, 2008)(Nos. 05-35647, 06-15042).

The FHA requires that a civil action be brought within two years of the alleged discriminatory act. The court came together to clarify the interpretation of a discriminatory housing practice in the design and construction of a cover multifamily dwelling unit. In other words, to clarify the application of the two year window for which to file a suit against a defendant for failing to meet the physical design requirements outlined in the FHA.

Disability advocates argued that as long as the dwelling is noncompliant with the Fair Housing Act, the statute of limitations should not begin. However, proponents of the statute indicate that the lack of a clearly defined date would be exposing current and past owners of multifamily projects, as well as architects, engineers and contractors, to perpetual liability.

In a 9-2 decision, the court held that in housing design cases, the “discriminatory housing practice” is the design and the construction of the dwelling – not the sale or rental, or discovery of the defect by the plaintiff. Further, the court majority stated “If Congress had wanted to leave developers on the hook years after they cease having any association with a building, it could have phrased the statute to say so explicitly.”

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 12, 2009

Sullivan v. Oregon Ford, Inc., No. 08-3673

In a personal injury case based on a slip and fall, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiffs failed to show that Defendant was responsible for the alleged hazard and failed to produce evidence that the hazard existed for a sufficient time to provide constructive notice. Read more...

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 11, 2009

Martin v. Harris, No. 07-1610

In an admiralty action based on a slip and fall accident, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed in part, where there was sufficient evidence that Defendant created the dangerous condition, but reversed in part, where the District Court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on Plaintiff's Jones Act claim. Read more...

Cortez v. Abich, No. B210628

In a personal injury action arising from a construction accident, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's contention that the defendants were required to comply with OSHA requirements fails as a matter of law because they were not plaintiff's employer; and 2) to the extent plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable as homeowners on a concealed danger theory, defendants had no duty to inspect the roof for 'soft spots' in order to ensure the safety of the workers as a matter of law. Read more...

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 02, 2009

Decaro v. Hasbro, Inc , No. 09-1054

In an employment discrimination and breach of contract case, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in jury instructions with respect to SSDI as receipt of SSDI benefits creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job; 2) district court did not err in the accommodation instruction as in this case, an employer's duty to accommodate does not arise unless the employee is able to perform the essential functions of his job with an accommodation; and 3) district court did not commit procedural error as plaintiff failed to contemporaneously object when the district court implemented the challenged procedure, and under the 2003 amendments to FRCP 51 the district court is under no obligation to give the parties the full text of its intended instructions at any time before the jury is charged. Read more...