Need 80/20 Housing Help
January 25, 2008 4:25 PM Subscribe
Need help with an 80/20 housing issue gone mad.
(posted by proxy -- this is for a friend, not me. I will post responses to inquiries)
My being disabled is part of it -- not just that it created the hardship condition to begin with, 5% of these units are supposed to be reserved for the disabled anyway.
I've tried the following, in writing and in person:
Helpful suggestions? What approach or authority am I missing? I've done everything I can on my own.
(posted by proxy -- this is for a friend, not me. I will post responses to inquiries)
My being disabled is part of it -- not just that it created the hardship condition to begin with, 5% of these units are supposed to be reserved for the disabled anyway.
- I qualified for affordable housing in NYC last year
- the developer denied me solely because my evil boss filed me 1099 instead of W-2 (my income numbers are in the bracket either way). Not only did I lose the housing, I then had to give most of my savings to the IRS...
- developer then rejected two appeals, one following their instructions, one after getting the W-2 thing corrected.
I've tried the following, in writing and in person:
- appeal to the developer, like they tell ya. Waste of time.
- city council members from 3 districts (where the bldg. is, where I am meantime, and one I guess is pals w/the Speaker). No action.
- talked to Legal Aid, which says if you make the income to qualify for the building (/win the case), it's too much to qualify for the Legal Aid program
- never got through to anyone at Legal Services, but the numbers look similar
- city council policy analyst: thinks the appeal period is bull, talked to HUD and the dev. but says his committee is preservation, not 80/20 -- says that's State
- congressman: wrote letters to DHCR, HFA, and developer. They blew him off. This office now also says it's up to State
- state senator: says if IRS was involved, it's federal, so his hands are tied. (THE WHOLE (STATE-RUN) PROGRAM IS BASED ON FEDERAL TAX RETURNS.) Gives me the number for Legal Aid (see item 3 above) and a senior-citizen-only legal help center. I am not a senior citizen, but a youngish, formerly vibrant and productive member of society.
- assemblyman: tried calling HFA. Got a recording (that doesn't take a message).
Helpful suggestions? What approach or authority am I missing? I've done everything I can on my own.
Perhaps the Public Advocate can help? I haven't worked with them before but, just today, someone suggested that I call them about a different housing issue, so it might be worth a shot. Best of luck, NYC housing issues can be such a nightmare.
posted by otolith at 6:12 PM on January 25, 2008
posted by otolith at 6:12 PM on January 25, 2008
Might be worth trying Tenants and Neighbors, an NYC based group that works on these issues.
posted by cushie at 6:34 PM on January 25, 2008
posted by cushie at 6:34 PM on January 25, 2008
I don't exactly understand what the question is. Even if the guidelines are met, the units are probably still very competitive--just because someone meets the guidelines doesn't mean they automatically get the unit. Even with Section 8 landlords can screen and reject applicants. If this person is trying to buy the unit (not rent it), www.naca.com or ACORN might be able to help. They are both organizations that deal with housing advocacy issues and NACA does some of it's own mortgage lending.
posted by 45moore45 at 6:47 PM on January 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by 45moore45 at 6:47 PM on January 25, 2008 [1 favorite]
While I would like to help with this question, I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly occurred. And I feel a bit put off by the tone. Perhaps this is hindering your friend as s/he asks for help from various others?
As best I can figure out, your friend made the first cut in the lottery and then was rejected during the interviews on some basis related to 1099s vs. W2s. (I wouldn't imply the 1099 was some spiritual malevolence on the part of the employer. Your friend must have known their tax status from filling out the tax paperwork when beginning work.) And then this part confuses me: "Not only did I lose the housing, I then had to give most of my savings to the IRS..." So your friend was a contractor, hadn't filed or paid her taxes, owed employment taxes and/or suddenly may not have had enough for a down payment. Which of these (or for what other reason) was the specific reason the developers gave for rejecting the application?
My second question is -- does your friend's documentation now meet the developers' guidelines? I thought so from the bit about the W-2 now being corrected, but then this part confuses me -- he says if IRS was involved, it's federal, so his hands are tied. Is the IRS still involved? Is it an issue of wanting the developers to reconsider an application that now meets their guidelines, or is it an issue of still needing to alter your federal tax returns to meet the developer guidelines?
What I'd guess is that at the time the applications were being processed, your friend did not qualify under the guidelines of the developer. S/he then remedied that (fully? partially?) but it was somehow too late. If your friend was turned down by an impartial application of the guidelines (if s/he did not have the right documentation ready by the right date) then I would guess s/he's fighting a very uphill battle. Those units have almost definitely been given to someone else by now.
Hopefully some NYC planner will show up and say exactly whether there's a panel to appeal a developer's decision, but I'd guess you'd have heard about it by now. As a planner-type person from Cali, I can only tell you that many of these people your friend is calling up -- city council aides, etc. -- probably can help but do not have to. I'd recommend that s/he remember s/he is asking for help; be pleasant, professional, and organized; and not act like the problems are entirely someone else's fault.
As for who to call, it sounds like everyone is pointing to the State. This page that it's the State Housing Finance Agency or the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Why not try them?
(THE WHOLE (STATE-RUN) PROGRAM IS BASED ON FEDERAL TAX RETURNS)
That's actually fairly common everywhere.
Entering new 80/20 lotteries might be the easiest way to get affordable housing at this point. Hopefully your friend will make it past the interview stage now that his/her financial papers are in order. Many people I know in SF got bumped for paperwork reasons once, and then they realize what documentation they really need to have. Good luck.
posted by salvia at 11:26 PM on January 25, 2008 [2 favorites]
As best I can figure out, your friend made the first cut in the lottery and then was rejected during the interviews on some basis related to 1099s vs. W2s. (I wouldn't imply the 1099 was some spiritual malevolence on the part of the employer. Your friend must have known their tax status from filling out the tax paperwork when beginning work.) And then this part confuses me: "Not only did I lose the housing, I then had to give most of my savings to the IRS..." So your friend was a contractor, hadn't filed or paid her taxes, owed employment taxes and/or suddenly may not have had enough for a down payment. Which of these (or for what other reason) was the specific reason the developers gave for rejecting the application?
My second question is -- does your friend's documentation now meet the developers' guidelines? I thought so from the bit about the W-2 now being corrected, but then this part confuses me -- he says if IRS was involved, it's federal, so his hands are tied. Is the IRS still involved? Is it an issue of wanting the developers to reconsider an application that now meets their guidelines, or is it an issue of still needing to alter your federal tax returns to meet the developer guidelines?
What I'd guess is that at the time the applications were being processed, your friend did not qualify under the guidelines of the developer. S/he then remedied that (fully? partially?) but it was somehow too late. If your friend was turned down by an impartial application of the guidelines (if s/he did not have the right documentation ready by the right date) then I would guess s/he's fighting a very uphill battle. Those units have almost definitely been given to someone else by now.
Hopefully some NYC planner will show up and say exactly whether there's a panel to appeal a developer's decision, but I'd guess you'd have heard about it by now. As a planner-type person from Cali, I can only tell you that many of these people your friend is calling up -- city council aides, etc. -- probably can help but do not have to. I'd recommend that s/he remember s/he is asking for help; be pleasant, professional, and organized; and not act like the problems are entirely someone else's fault.
As for who to call, it sounds like everyone is pointing to the State. This page that it's the State Housing Finance Agency or the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. Why not try them?
(THE WHOLE (STATE-RUN) PROGRAM IS BASED ON FEDERAL TAX RETURNS)
That's actually fairly common everywhere.
Entering new 80/20 lotteries might be the easiest way to get affordable housing at this point. Hopefully your friend will make it past the interview stage now that his/her financial papers are in order. Many people I know in SF got bumped for paperwork reasons once, and then they realize what documentation they really need to have. Good luck.
posted by salvia at 11:26 PM on January 25, 2008 [2 favorites]
I can hardly add to salvia's excellent answer except to agree that maintaining a neutral tone can go a long way. Especially being careful of strong words like "evil" to describe a tax situation. Believe me, I know how intensely hard and crazy the housing mazes can be, but this only makes it more worth it to be aware of how your emotions can seep into conversations that are most effective when they stick to facts.
And definitely, keeping on with entering as many 80/20 lotteries as possible -- no reason not to, right! -- may well get your friend into another housing situation faster than contesting this selection process.
posted by lorimer at 2:07 AM on January 26, 2008
And definitely, keeping on with entering as many 80/20 lotteries as possible -- no reason not to, right! -- may well get your friend into another housing situation faster than contesting this selection process.
posted by lorimer at 2:07 AM on January 26, 2008
Response by poster: Answers to some questions:
My "tone" is short (=quick) only to save space on this board. I've spent a loooong time being nice. None of my apparent tone here has anything to do with how I approach agencies or gov't.
"Spiritual malevolence" is actually a good way of putting the other thing. I was NOT a contractor (ever). The employer was always sloppy about important paperwork, I filled out nothing at the start (and they "just never got around to" much of it later). All I can say about tax self-awareness is that when you're living hand-to-mouth and fighting other uphill battles it's not the first priority.
When asked (politely) to correct the error, the employer dithered, then refused. But employers don't actually have a choice about this. So they illegally kept me from having the correct paperwork, plus made me pay for the other half of SS/FICA I never shoulda... plus SE tax... it piles up.
Saying "evil" actually has been a great time-saver dealing with these agencies. It summarizes correctly. Otherwise the door opens again for debate on the issues (like thinking maybe you were 1099 for real.) Maybe my tone of actual voice on the phone doesn't sound harsh. When they get annoyed is when you take an hour trying to be polite about complex issues, which is more confusing. Seeing as my boss never corrected the tax status willingly, there's nothing I could have done in advance anyway. Starting an IRS investigation would just have gotten me fired.
The IRS is not involved any more; they make a determination and get out. In fact, if they can get out without making a statement, they will. They gave the employer a last chance to fix it and said that was that (as if the boss, after years of tax fraud, could now be trusted). Then I had to fight some more to get the forms, which the boss never sent me. Maybe you have to work for these jerks every day to know they really were trying to get away with something. IRS uses 22 points to make a determination, and on all 22 I was W-2.
>does your friend's documentation now meet the developers' guidelines?
Simple answer: yes. Real answer: if only we knew what that was! Either way my income was in the bracket, but they use a different formula for 1099 (going back years). This is the ONLY reason they denied me -- nothing, as you suggest elsewhere, to do with liquidity. (Down payment was never an issue, one just doesn't like losing that much money suddenly, esp. knowing the taxation is wrong.) I have an incredibly good credit score, too. The mere fact that the paperwork was 1099 sank me.
>Is the IRS still involved?
>...
>(THE WHOLE (STATE-RUN) PROGRAM IS BASED ON FEDERAL TAX RETURNS)
>That's actually fairly common everywhere.
Right, so I don't see how the State (who have charge) can say federal involvement at some point is grounds for them (State) backing away from oversight. This was a state gov't office talkin', not the developer. Confusing, right?
>Is it an issue of wanting the developers to reconsider an application that now meets their guidelines ... ?
Yes. In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview. I realize they couldn't just take my word for it, though, and this is why the employer's actions were so unilaterally damning.
>Hopefully some NYC planner will show up
Who are these "planners"? They might be the missing link here. (So far I have found no appeals panel.) As I said, DHCR and HFA have been unresponsive. I did try them -- a lot.
>I don't exactly understand what the question is. Even if the guidelines are met, the units are probably
Yes, nothing's technically guaranteed... and what is *your* question? If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape. Where's additional competition going to come from at that point? Milton Friedman can't just walk up and make an offer for your spot in the process.
I actually contacted the Public Advocate just before this post (no reply yet). Looked for tenant orgs but never came across the ones you suggested here -- thanks. OTOH, a lot of advocacy consists of basic education but no direct action. (I know more about the issues on the face of it than the finance agencies do now.) Orgs may get more involved once you're a tenant and then threatened with harassment, eviction, etc. -- all the stuff I only aspire to at this point. Given everything they have to help tenants with, I figured the fine points of my case are more the province of the government bodies running the actual programs.
Disability orgs do triage like anyone else, but you usually have to call and go through intake to find out these details anyway. (I have mobility obstacles.)
Tenants and Neighbors has a HUD locator! (Someone there is a friend of a friend -- who lost her number. So groovy.)
Reapplying's been suggested, and sounds like a dodge to me when it's coming from the agency, but, even if it isn't, the liabilities are:
-correcting the original error should be quicker (debatable, at this point)
-you go to the end of the line, behind everyone, instead of ahead like you were before... and that's only IF you get past the next thing:
-it's still a lottery, so there's still only a slim chance you'll even get called (slimmer with every passing day/additional applicant)
That chance is so rare (1 in 20,000?), it seemed stronger to reassert instead of reapply.
(Also I wonder if there's some lawyerly angle where reapplying constitutes automatic forfeit of your original claim or something.)
That said, I have applied to (the few) other developments with the appropriate bracket. But it's still only a chance. The time they called me in was the real shot.
posted by plinth at 1:17 PM on January 29, 2008
My "tone" is short (=quick) only to save space on this board. I've spent a loooong time being nice. None of my apparent tone here has anything to do with how I approach agencies or gov't.
"Spiritual malevolence" is actually a good way of putting the other thing. I was NOT a contractor (ever). The employer was always sloppy about important paperwork, I filled out nothing at the start (and they "just never got around to" much of it later). All I can say about tax self-awareness is that when you're living hand-to-mouth and fighting other uphill battles it's not the first priority.
When asked (politely) to correct the error, the employer dithered, then refused. But employers don't actually have a choice about this. So they illegally kept me from having the correct paperwork, plus made me pay for the other half of SS/FICA I never shoulda... plus SE tax... it piles up.
Saying "evil" actually has been a great time-saver dealing with these agencies. It summarizes correctly. Otherwise the door opens again for debate on the issues (like thinking maybe you were 1099 for real.) Maybe my tone of actual voice on the phone doesn't sound harsh. When they get annoyed is when you take an hour trying to be polite about complex issues, which is more confusing. Seeing as my boss never corrected the tax status willingly, there's nothing I could have done in advance anyway. Starting an IRS investigation would just have gotten me fired.
The IRS is not involved any more; they make a determination and get out. In fact, if they can get out without making a statement, they will. They gave the employer a last chance to fix it and said that was that (as if the boss, after years of tax fraud, could now be trusted). Then I had to fight some more to get the forms, which the boss never sent me. Maybe you have to work for these jerks every day to know they really were trying to get away with something. IRS uses 22 points to make a determination, and on all 22 I was W-2.
>does your friend's documentation now meet the developers' guidelines?
Simple answer: yes. Real answer: if only we knew what that was! Either way my income was in the bracket, but they use a different formula for 1099 (going back years). This is the ONLY reason they denied me -- nothing, as you suggest elsewhere, to do with liquidity. (Down payment was never an issue, one just doesn't like losing that much money suddenly, esp. knowing the taxation is wrong.) I have an incredibly good credit score, too. The mere fact that the paperwork was 1099 sank me.
>Is the IRS still involved?
>...
>(THE WHOLE (STATE-RUN) PROGRAM IS BASED ON FEDERAL TAX RETURNS)
>That's actually fairly common everywhere.
Right, so I don't see how the State (who have charge) can say federal involvement at some point is grounds for them (State) backing away from oversight. This was a state gov't office talkin', not the developer. Confusing, right?
>Is it an issue of wanting the developers to reconsider an application that now meets their guidelines ... ?
Yes. In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview. I realize they couldn't just take my word for it, though, and this is why the employer's actions were so unilaterally damning.
>Hopefully some NYC planner will show up
Who are these "planners"? They might be the missing link here. (So far I have found no appeals panel.) As I said, DHCR and HFA have been unresponsive. I did try them -- a lot.
>I don't exactly understand what the question is. Even if the guidelines are met, the units are probably
Yes, nothing's technically guaranteed... and what is *your* question? If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape. Where's additional competition going to come from at that point? Milton Friedman can't just walk up and make an offer for your spot in the process.
I actually contacted the Public Advocate just before this post (no reply yet). Looked for tenant orgs but never came across the ones you suggested here -- thanks. OTOH, a lot of advocacy consists of basic education but no direct action. (I know more about the issues on the face of it than the finance agencies do now.) Orgs may get more involved once you're a tenant and then threatened with harassment, eviction, etc. -- all the stuff I only aspire to at this point. Given everything they have to help tenants with, I figured the fine points of my case are more the province of the government bodies running the actual programs.
Disability orgs do triage like anyone else, but you usually have to call and go through intake to find out these details anyway. (I have mobility obstacles.)
Tenants and Neighbors has a HUD locator! (Someone there is a friend of a friend -- who lost her number. So groovy.)
Reapplying's been suggested, and sounds like a dodge to me when it's coming from the agency, but, even if it isn't, the liabilities are:
-correcting the original error should be quicker (debatable, at this point)
-you go to the end of the line, behind everyone, instead of ahead like you were before... and that's only IF you get past the next thing:
-it's still a lottery, so there's still only a slim chance you'll even get called (slimmer with every passing day/additional applicant)
That chance is so rare (1 in 20,000?), it seemed stronger to reassert instead of reapply.
(Also I wonder if there's some lawyerly angle where reapplying constitutes automatic forfeit of your original claim or something.)
That said, I have applied to (the few) other developments with the appropriate bracket. But it's still only a chance. The time they called me in was the real shot.
posted by plinth at 1:17 PM on January 29, 2008
if it's a lottery, then what difference does "place in line" mean? is it weighted somehow?
posted by moxiedoll at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2008
posted by moxiedoll at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2008
It sounds like you really did have an evil employer and went through a bureaucratic hell to get it all straightened out. My sympathies. Now I see why you chose that word.
Here is the issue related to 80/20: the state cannot compel the developer to compensate you for troubles you incurred as a result of your employer's evil. The developers are a private business and (as you point out) cannot be expected to take people's words or be omniscient. The state has some oversight because they are giving them low-interest loans (if I understand the program right). But if the developer correctly applied the rules to the information that was available back in the decision-making period, the state cannot accuse the developer of breaking any rules. The fact that you still had a 1099 (for reasons not your fault) during the interview period does not mean that the developer has to stop the process and wait while things get straightened out; it's not their fault, either. The developer was losing money while that apartment was unleased or that condo unsold (are we talking about rental or purchase property here anyway?). My guess is that they already sold that to someone else and that the state would support that decision.
What I've dug up about how this works (you may know all this already) is that HFA is the agency that administers the 80/20 program. The developers apply up front and compete (?) to be part of this program. The selection process is where the HFA has the greatest power, so I'm not sure what HFA does if there is a violation. But developers do "continue receiving benefits" over time so in extreme cases, I suppose HFA could pull their loan. (I imagine that would turn into a huge legal battle between the developer's lawyers and HFA's lawyers since the developer would stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars; I am now deep into terrain I really don't know, but I want you to have some sense of what power the different actors have over one another).
It sounds like these may be the only people who monitor the applicant selection process. And their only purview appears to be preventing discrimination. But they might know someone else to call.
Here are instructions for managers of 80/20 buildings. It says:
But remember, it does not sound to me that the developers broke any rules. And it's not like it's the HFA's burden to ensure you in particular get housing, unfortunately, so even if the developers "broke the rules," it doesn't mean HFA has to put you in some other housing -- it might just mean they slap the developer with a demerit or something.
Here's what I see as your best option. Find the right person (the compliance person, or maybe the person who sends out the CDs to would-be HFA developers, (on this page), or maybe it's the person who puts together that PDF listing the upcoming lotteries). Then, tell them a sob story. Ask them if there is a way they can find -- almost as a personal favor to you, due to the bad luck you had as a result of an evil employer -- to let you skip that lottery drawing and go directly to the point where your name had been drawn from the hat but you hadn't been interviewed yet. (Maybe the "favor" approach isn't the only one, but it's the one I can see clearly.)
Their concern is going to be "what about the other 600,000 people in the city who need housing, is this fair to them, to let you stay at the front of the line instead of going back in the pool? Of that 600,000 surely 500 people have a similar bad luck story where they got disqualified midway through the process because of something arbitrary. Are we going to start letting all of them stay at the front of the line while they resolve paperwork issues?" In other words, they have to administer a program that affects tons of people, so they're going to be worried about the larger implications of cutting you a break. I'd emphasize that the IRS ruled against your employer; that indicates how much your issue results from someone else's illegal actions; they could always point to that.
In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview.
At the time, you held in your hand a 1099. The rules said "if 1099, then ___." They applied that standard. The developer could not have been asked to know that your 1099 was going to be overturned. However, I do think this is how you could justify them letting you cut in line, that now that your situation has been retroactively corrected, you technically should have been able to move forward, and could they help get you back in that position again?
Oh yeah, and obviously, don't do this until all your paperwork related to the W2 are perfectly in order (sounds like it is already?).
Who are these "planners"? They might be the missing link here. (So far I have found no appeals panel.)
I only meant someone who lives in NY and has gone to school to learn about city planning and housing, or who works in the field. I am (sort of) a planner, but in California. Someone who knows NY rules and agencies the way my coworkers & I know California would be a better person to be helping you here (they'd know these answers, whereas I'm googling them).
If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape. Where's additional competition going to come from at that point?
Is that true? My understanding was that they interviewed many more people than actual units available. They draw 20 times the # of units available when they draw the lottery, and it sounds like they sort them, start at the top, and interview moving down the list until they fill the spot. Some of my answers change if the original spots at that building are still available, but my guess (from your description I can only imagine how long the IRS process took) is that someone else has signed a lease already.
Good luck, hope this helps!
posted by salvia at 2:23 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Here is the issue related to 80/20: the state cannot compel the developer to compensate you for troubles you incurred as a result of your employer's evil. The developers are a private business and (as you point out) cannot be expected to take people's words or be omniscient. The state has some oversight because they are giving them low-interest loans (if I understand the program right). But if the developer correctly applied the rules to the information that was available back in the decision-making period, the state cannot accuse the developer of breaking any rules. The fact that you still had a 1099 (for reasons not your fault) during the interview period does not mean that the developer has to stop the process and wait while things get straightened out; it's not their fault, either. The developer was losing money while that apartment was unleased or that condo unsold (are we talking about rental or purchase property here anyway?). My guess is that they already sold that to someone else and that the state would support that decision.
What I've dug up about how this works (you may know all this already) is that HFA is the agency that administers the 80/20 program. The developers apply up front and compete (?) to be part of this program. The selection process is where the HFA has the greatest power, so I'm not sure what HFA does if there is a violation. But developers do "continue receiving benefits" over time so in extreme cases, I suppose HFA could pull their loan. (I imagine that would turn into a huge legal battle between the developer's lawyers and HFA's lawyers since the developer would stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars; I am now deep into terrain I really don't know, but I want you to have some sense of what power the different actors have over one another).
It sounds like these may be the only people who monitor the applicant selection process. And their only purview appears to be preventing discrimination. But they might know someone else to call.
Here are instructions for managers of 80/20 buildings. It says:
Monitoring for the “80/20” program ensures compliance with New York State Housing Finance Agency rules, Regulatory and Deed Restrictions, and the IRS Code. The Agency monitors these units to protect the tax-exempt status of the bonds.So, it sounds like the Agency is largely monitoring for the purpose of protecting their tax-exempt status, which has to do with making sure 20% of the residents are lower-income... but how much concern do they devote to the procedural issues of how one lower-income person vs. another is chosen? Probably not much. (Unfortunate, since it has such a huge impact on real people's lives.) However, they say they monitor to ensure compliance with their "rules," so I'd try to find if there are specific HFA rules so you know what they care about, and then I'd try to find out who monitors them. This might be a question for some receptionist there.
But remember, it does not sound to me that the developers broke any rules. And it's not like it's the HFA's burden to ensure you in particular get housing, unfortunately, so even if the developers "broke the rules," it doesn't mean HFA has to put you in some other housing -- it might just mean they slap the developer with a demerit or something.
Here's what I see as your best option. Find the right person (the compliance person, or maybe the person who sends out the CDs to would-be HFA developers, (on this page), or maybe it's the person who puts together that PDF listing the upcoming lotteries). Then, tell them a sob story. Ask them if there is a way they can find -- almost as a personal favor to you, due to the bad luck you had as a result of an evil employer -- to let you skip that lottery drawing and go directly to the point where your name had been drawn from the hat but you hadn't been interviewed yet. (Maybe the "favor" approach isn't the only one, but it's the one I can see clearly.)
Their concern is going to be "what about the other 600,000 people in the city who need housing, is this fair to them, to let you stay at the front of the line instead of going back in the pool? Of that 600,000 surely 500 people have a similar bad luck story where they got disqualified midway through the process because of something arbitrary. Are we going to start letting all of them stay at the front of the line while they resolve paperwork issues?" In other words, they have to administer a program that affects tons of people, so they're going to be worried about the larger implications of cutting you a break. I'd emphasize that the IRS ruled against your employer; that indicates how much your issue results from someone else's illegal actions; they could always point to that.
In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview.
At the time, you held in your hand a 1099. The rules said "if 1099, then ___." They applied that standard. The developer could not have been asked to know that your 1099 was going to be overturned. However, I do think this is how you could justify them letting you cut in line, that now that your situation has been retroactively corrected, you technically should have been able to move forward, and could they help get you back in that position again?
Oh yeah, and obviously, don't do this until all your paperwork related to the W2 are perfectly in order (sounds like it is already?).
Who are these "planners"? They might be the missing link here. (So far I have found no appeals panel.)
I only meant someone who lives in NY and has gone to school to learn about city planning and housing, or who works in the field. I am (sort of) a planner, but in California. Someone who knows NY rules and agencies the way my coworkers & I know California would be a better person to be helping you here (they'd know these answers, whereas I'm googling them).
If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape. Where's additional competition going to come from at that point?
Is that true? My understanding was that they interviewed many more people than actual units available. They draw 20 times the # of units available when they draw the lottery, and it sounds like they sort them, start at the top, and interview moving down the list until they fill the spot. Some of my answers change if the original spots at that building are still available, but my guess (from your description I can only imagine how long the IRS process took) is that someone else has signed a lease already.
Good luck, hope this helps!
posted by salvia at 2:23 AM on January 31, 2008 [1 favorite]
Ask them if there is a way they can find -- almost as a personal favor to you, due to the bad luck you had as a result of an evil employer -- to let you skip that lottery drawing and go directly to the point where your name had been drawn from the hat but you hadn't been interviewed yet.
I meant to point out -- before calling, you should find another building that is having a lottery and make your request about that building's lottery. Again, I'm guessing your originally desired building is now filled.
posted by salvia at 2:28 AM on January 31, 2008
I meant to point out -- before calling, you should find another building that is having a lottery and make your request about that building's lottery. Again, I'm guessing your originally desired building is now filled.
posted by salvia at 2:28 AM on January 31, 2008
Ah, I see that HFA has been unresponsive. So, either it's a lost cause, or I wonder if your message has gone to the wrong person. The thing to know is that these agencies are notoriously understaffed and a lot of the staff there is probably busy setting policies that affect all the units built under the program next year (ie, tens of thousands of people) and wouldn't view their job as looking closely at how the rules as applied by one developer affected one person whose problem was largely caused by an external situation (bad employer messing up the paperwork), since they just don't have the staff to do that. But it sounds like they are the ones who need to be convinced if you're going to get somewhere.
Unless I'm missing something, which I really might be. Maybe call some teacher that teaches affordable housing development or housing law or city planning and housing policies, with a focus on NY state, and ask them.
posted by salvia at 7:30 AM on January 31, 2008
Unless I'm missing something, which I really might be. Maybe call some teacher that teaches affordable housing development or housing law or city planning and housing policies, with a focus on NY state, and ask them.
posted by salvia at 7:30 AM on January 31, 2008
Response by poster: The fact that you still had a 1099 (for reasons not your fault) during the interview period does not mean that the developer has to stop the process and wait while things get straightened out; it's not their fault, either. The developer was losing money while that apartment was unleased
Right, I never asked them to wait -- or maybe I did, but obviously they didn't wait... I'd have known it was a longshot, but what's to lose by asking? They didn't lose any money. The funny thing is that when I called months later and HFA was unresponsive, they did tell me the building wasn't filled yet. By now it probably is, of course. But maybe the luxe people they're courting for the other 80% don't like the neighborhood or something.
But developers do "continue receiving benefits" over time so in extreme cases, I suppose HFA could pull their loan. (I imagine that would turn into a huge legal battle
Right -- they've interpreted the guidelines stringently because they're desperate to keep their 25-yr tax break, and now we're in messy legal territory. Kind of like the way hospitals follow CYA procedures that lead to bad medicine and therefore lawsuits -- getting in this kind of trouble by the very thing designed to prevent it.
Nice point, though (corporate welfare).
It sounds like these may be the only people who monitor the applicant selection process
Oh, wow, DHR. They're the first people HFA sent me to. And yes, the guy there said they only handle discrimination (and he had no other clues). But on your link it reads "requirements of all applicable ... fair housing AND/OR anti-discrimination laws"... I wonder if the first half of that is something!
The reality is that no one wants the hot potato. If you keep at it you might turn up someone to do the job, but the longer that takes, the less chance remaining. I can't believe I was maybe at the right agency way back when... but maybe not. Maybe this is for when you sue. (As I say, I know of at least one lawsuit already against a developer just over the selection process. That questions the procedure itself, not just whether they followed one.)
So, it sounds like the Agency is largely monitoring
Amazing. They haven't been monitoring anything. I just found out they DO have offices for this stuff! (At least, they're supposed to follow a procedure for disputes.)
let you skip that lottery drawing and go directly to the point where your name had been drawn from the hat but you hadn't been interviewed yet
For a new building? For the old building it seems to me like not really a favor, but even I wouldn't expect anyone to skip me ahead in a new application. (This is why I say new leads are nice but only a slim chance at a place, usually in a worse location.)
In the original case, I'd already reached the interview and been told everything looked A-OK. So to be restored to that point (post-interview, pre-lease) didn't seem like a stretch to me.
"what about the other 600,000 people in the city who need housing... surely 500 people... got disqualified midway through the process because of something arbitrary. Are we going to start letting all of them stay at the front of the line while they resolve paperwork issues?"
The question is "whose paperwork?" Again, for a new app I wouldn't expect it (although I do sometimes meet people who feel an injustice was done, and offer a substitute). For the old, I'd stress the specific issue. Someone can get knocked out for bad credit or debt, which is semi-arbitrary, or not having their stuff in order, which is more their responsibility, but that's not what happened in my case. A specific third-party tax crime derailing one's ability to comply, is my angle.
"The universe is a practical joke of the general at the expense of the particular." -- Aleister Crowley
>In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview.
At the time, you held in your hand a 1099.... However, I do think this is how you could justify them letting you cut in line, that now that your situation has been retroactively corrected, you technically should have been able to move forward,
This has been my approach. I don't consider it "cutting" since I had that place in line to begin with... and gently pointing out that a court of law would see it as status-at-the-time might light a fire under someone to avoid both court and law.
In fact, I recently had a hearing on ANOTHER piece of fallout from this 1099 disaster (& used the same "shoulda" argument). The opposition tried to suggest that just by going through the "business"-side web portal instead of the "applicant" one, the information I found to support my case wasn't usable or relevant or something! I wonder if they'd try that if I approached your CD person, above.
Oh yeah, and obviously, don't do this until all your paperwork related to the W2 are perfectly in order (sounds like it is already?).
Again... I say yes, but there's never an ironclad answer. *In* year 2007 there's no such thing as tax records *for* year 2007. So while they correct you for 05-06, how can you prove 07? (I got a letter from the company's power-of-attorney guy for 07, but you can see how it's not as good as having them do it right in the first place.) But yes, I went through that whole process, if you can call it "whole."
>If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape.
Is that true? My understanding was that they interviewed many more people than actual units available. They draw 20 times the # of units available when they draw the lottery, and it sounds like they sort them, start at the top, and interview moving down the list until they fill the spot.
I don't know if they interview more. They draw 20x in the lottery but don't open them all... maybe open way more envelopes than they'll eventually lease to or interview. I don't imagine they'd waste resources (not to mention getting people's hopes up) on the whole interview process just to toss 95% later. Couldn't be sure, but it sounds like way more effort than they're willing to do, especially given my efforts to get them to make an effort.
Given those numbers, you can see why I fought like damn to get the first one back.
Oh yeah, good teacher idea. I would never have thought of that.
posted by plinth at 5:42 AM on February 1, 2008
Right, I never asked them to wait -- or maybe I did, but obviously they didn't wait... I'd have known it was a longshot, but what's to lose by asking? They didn't lose any money. The funny thing is that when I called months later and HFA was unresponsive, they did tell me the building wasn't filled yet. By now it probably is, of course. But maybe the luxe people they're courting for the other 80% don't like the neighborhood or something.
But developers do "continue receiving benefits" over time so in extreme cases, I suppose HFA could pull their loan. (I imagine that would turn into a huge legal battle
Right -- they've interpreted the guidelines stringently because they're desperate to keep their 25-yr tax break, and now we're in messy legal territory. Kind of like the way hospitals follow CYA procedures that lead to bad medicine and therefore lawsuits -- getting in this kind of trouble by the very thing designed to prevent it.
Nice point, though (corporate welfare).
It sounds like these may be the only people who monitor the applicant selection process
Oh, wow, DHR. They're the first people HFA sent me to. And yes, the guy there said they only handle discrimination (and he had no other clues). But on your link it reads "requirements of all applicable ... fair housing AND/OR anti-discrimination laws"... I wonder if the first half of that is something!
The reality is that no one wants the hot potato. If you keep at it you might turn up someone to do the job, but the longer that takes, the less chance remaining. I can't believe I was maybe at the right agency way back when... but maybe not. Maybe this is for when you sue. (As I say, I know of at least one lawsuit already against a developer just over the selection process. That questions the procedure itself, not just whether they followed one.)
So, it sounds like the Agency is largely monitoring
Amazing. They haven't been monitoring anything. I just found out they DO have offices for this stuff! (At least, they're supposed to follow a procedure for disputes.)
let you skip that lottery drawing and go directly to the point where your name had been drawn from the hat but you hadn't been interviewed yet
For a new building? For the old building it seems to me like not really a favor, but even I wouldn't expect anyone to skip me ahead in a new application. (This is why I say new leads are nice but only a slim chance at a place, usually in a worse location.)
In the original case, I'd already reached the interview and been told everything looked A-OK. So to be restored to that point (post-interview, pre-lease) didn't seem like a stretch to me.
"what about the other 600,000 people in the city who need housing... surely 500 people... got disqualified midway through the process because of something arbitrary. Are we going to start letting all of them stay at the front of the line while they resolve paperwork issues?"
The question is "whose paperwork?" Again, for a new app I wouldn't expect it (although I do sometimes meet people who feel an injustice was done, and offer a substitute). For the old, I'd stress the specific issue. Someone can get knocked out for bad credit or debt, which is semi-arbitrary, or not having their stuff in order, which is more their responsibility, but that's not what happened in my case. A specific third-party tax crime derailing one's ability to comply, is my angle.
"The universe is a practical joke of the general at the expense of the particular." -- Aleister Crowley
>In fact, legally it means I met their guidelines at the first interview.
At the time, you held in your hand a 1099.... However, I do think this is how you could justify them letting you cut in line, that now that your situation has been retroactively corrected, you technically should have been able to move forward,
This has been my approach. I don't consider it "cutting" since I had that place in line to begin with... and gently pointing out that a court of law would see it as status-at-the-time might light a fire under someone to avoid both court and law.
In fact, I recently had a hearing on ANOTHER piece of fallout from this 1099 disaster (& used the same "shoulda" argument). The opposition tried to suggest that just by going through the "business"-side web portal instead of the "applicant" one, the information I found to support my case wasn't usable or relevant or something! I wonder if they'd try that if I approached your CD person, above.
Oh yeah, and obviously, don't do this until all your paperwork related to the W2 are perfectly in order (sounds like it is already?).
Again... I say yes, but there's never an ironclad answer. *In* year 2007 there's no such thing as tax records *for* year 2007. So while they correct you for 05-06, how can you prove 07? (I got a letter from the company's power-of-attorney guy for 07, but you can see how it's not as good as having them do it right in the first place.) But yes, I went through that whole process, if you can call it "whole."
>If an applicant gets past the lottery and the interview (where I was eligible), s/he's in good shape.
Is that true? My understanding was that they interviewed many more people than actual units available. They draw 20 times the # of units available when they draw the lottery, and it sounds like they sort them, start at the top, and interview moving down the list until they fill the spot.
I don't know if they interview more. They draw 20x in the lottery but don't open them all... maybe open way more envelopes than they'll eventually lease to or interview. I don't imagine they'd waste resources (not to mention getting people's hopes up) on the whole interview process just to toss 95% later. Couldn't be sure, but it sounds like way more effort than they're willing to do, especially given my efforts to get them to make an effort.
Given those numbers, you can see why I fought like damn to get the first one back.
Oh yeah, good teacher idea. I would never have thought of that.
posted by plinth at 5:42 AM on February 1, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:43 PM on January 25, 2008