Roosevelt Island Housing Management (RIHMC) is working through problems in its execution of the plan under which it exited from New York State’s Mitchell-Lama affordable housing program, according to Doryne Isley.

For some years, Isley has managed Eastwood. For the past year, she and the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) have been dealing with the details of categorizing tenants into either a Federal Section 8 program, which DHCR administers, or a Landlord Assistance Program (LAP). Under Section 8, a tenant pays 30% of household income for an apartment, and the federal government makes up the difference; under LAP, those tenants not eligible for Section 8 are subject to limited increases over the rent they were paying before the building left Mitchell-Lama. Vacated apartments are rented at market rate, usually after renovation.

There have been problems getting tenants into the right category – but not that many, says Isley, characterizing the number as "way less than 50" in a building of 1,003 apartments where "there were close to 900 Section 8 families and, out of that, I think we’ve had maybe a couple of dozen problems – less than two dozen from beginning to end." She adds, "Personally, I think that’s a terrific record. But those couple of dozen need to be resolved."

The WIRE talked with Isley as a follow-up to a town meeting on housing held two weeks ago by State Senator José Serrano. At that session, a number of residents stood to describe problems they were experiencing in the course of the transition.

One longtime resident at that session described a chaotic series of rent invoices: "I ran into a problem where I got put into the Section 8 program, which had an income limit – I think it was like $85,000 – and I got put in there when I had $93,000 of income, so I was over the income at the time, and they specifically had a provision which stated that they weren’t going to do that – but they did it anyway. I’m still in that particular program. We’re right around the ceiling, or we’ve been over the ceiling a couple times. And I also was billed zero rent – they told me to come down to the office [to] sign an updated Mitchell-Lama [form]. I was billed zero rent for about six months, and then all of a sudden I asked them, ‘Why is my rent going up?’ It kept going up to like $1,300, then $1,800, then $2,100. Then it went up to $2,400. And then, I just got a rent bill for $4,000." The resident said he took his complaint to the Attorney General’s office, which sent it to DHCR. "They sent it back to me and said, ‘You should get a lawyer.’"

Isley characterized that case as falling into a category of a few where tenant status may have changed right around the time that the building left Mitchell-Lama. [Residents’ names are omitted here for privacy reasons.] She emphasized, "The program wasn’t meant to hurt anyone," and said, "There are people who were in Section 8 and maybe their income doesn’t allow them to be in Section 8. Maybe, in some instances, there may have been pay increases right before [departure from Mitchell-Lama] that weren’t reported to us. [When] DHCR comes in and does the paperwork, a couple of pennies does make a difference, so, in those instances, [where] DHCR has denied their eligibility for Section 8, they’re picked up for the LAP program."

Isley added, "You know, if you’re reporting your income accurately and, for some reason – we’re talking about days, sometimes weeks – there is a change – you get a pay raise – and that puts you over, it wasn’t meant to hurt you." She mentioned a case where a marriage changed household income and created a bump in the road for one tenant. "It’s being reviewed," she said, "and I’m sure all will be well in the end."

Even so, Isley said, in some of the cases – she emphasized there are very few compared to the size of the building – there may be fraud involved: "Prior to the buy-out, we had many public meetings. We sent out many notices requesting desperately for people to give us any change of household income or household composition, because we needed to report the information, as we knew it, to DHCR. A lot of people sat on the fence. As in any program, there are always those individuals who will find a way to go around the system in order to accomplish their goal. There are individuals who probably reported more [people] in their households as a way to keep larger apartments, and did not necessarily report their income because [those people] really didn’t exist and they only used the names in order to be able to get the larger apartments. We have had several of those. What happens is, in time, DHCR has the ability to check the tax records against the social security numbers, at which point they do come up – the income of all of those individuals reported to be in the household. That’s where the change comes, and that’s where a number of people were kicked out of the Section 8 program at the time that DHCR did a review and found their income to be above what was initially reported."

But Isley emphasized that each case has to be handled individually. "Every case is different, and it’s hard to say whether people will automatically fall into one [program] or the other. There have been some outright cases in which people attempted to defraud us and the government. In those cases, they will not be allowed into the LAP program. People who just got caught up by a matter of a day or two or something, who didn’t initially intend to defraud or not give accurate information, and after the buy-out their household income or composition may have changed, or we may have made a mistake in reviewing their income and may have reported it improperly – they would not be penalized for any mistake we may have made."

At Senator Serrano’s meeting, a representative of Eviction Intervention Services (EIS), Lynne Strong-Shinozaki, told residents with problems that her organization had met (Thursday, February 8) with area public officials. "What came out of the meeting is they have collectively agreed to address the issues that the tenants are bringing to them. They are going to write letters collectively on behalf of the tenants of Eastwood addressing those issues. So hopefully we’ll be able to get copies of those letters, once that’s done, and provide them to the tenants in Eastwood." (The telephone number at EIS is 212-308-2210.) Strong-Shinozaki also made forms available for tenants to register concerns, promising follow-up.

Also at the Serrano housing meeting, other tenants expressed a variety of concerns, many specific to a personal situation or single building. Three of the more general concerns:

• Patrick Stewart, a resident of Island House who is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC), told Serrano that "this meeting would have far better served both you and us had it been conducted two or so years ago." He went on to criticize his own building’s committee: "My tenants’ association tells me that they are close to a deal. What kind of deal? The details of which are known to no one, as far as I can tell. I think, and although I can’t speak for Westview, I think pretty much the same situation is true there."

• Rivercross resident Roy Eaton expressed concern about movement toward privatization of his building: "I’ve been a long-term resident on the Island, first in Westview and now in Rivercross, and I am very grateful for what the State Legislature did in establishing this Mitchell-Lama program, and philosophically would like to see that these benefits remain in place for those who come after me. Unfortunately, in the situation right now in Rivercross, there is a technicality that seems to be leading towards the loss of this ability to transfer these benefits to others. Technically, you mentioned that the owner of the project, or the apartment development in Mitchell-Lama, has the right to opt out, to buy out. Technically, the owners, in the case of the Rivercross co-op, are the people who live there now. So what is the advantage, or why do we have to lose, or is it necessary for us to lose the protection that DHCR provides by the regulations of opting out of the program, even though [the building is over] twenty years old? Isn’t it possible to stay within the Mitchell-Lama umbrella even though it’s longer than twenty years?"

A DHCR representative responded, "Yes, absolutely it is. It’s the decision of the owner whether to opt out. In this case, it’s Rivercross, it’s the tenants who are represented by their Board [of Directors] and, in order to buy out, they would have to vote for it. So the tenants would have to want to buy out. If you don’t do that, you’ll stay in the Mitchell-Lama program. Our regulations actually provide for a series of three votes in the event of a Mitchell-Lama cooperative... One is for the initial expenditure of money, two is for the preparation of a plan, and three is for the actual vote for a dissolution."

• Rivercross resident Judith Berdy: "We have been going through hell in all our buildings. Luckily, I am in Rivercross now. One question is, what are the Mitchell-Lama rules for warehousing co-op apartments? Dozens of our apartments are empty. They are empty for years on end. They are not sub-leased, they are empty. What are the rules for occupancy for a Mitchell-Lama co-op like Rivercross?"

Elliot Ashrey of DHCR responded, "You have a Board of Directors, and that’s who you go to. There is no rule on that." Berdy came back with a question: "There is no rule for a person living in Mitchell-Lama-subsidized co-op housing that it has to be their primary residence?" Ashery responded, "That’s not what you asked. You didn’t ask that question." Berdy came back, "Now I’m asking, is there a rule that a person living in subsidized Mitchell-Lama co-op housing that their apartment must be their primary residence?" Ashrey responded, "Yes." Berdy said, "And we want enforcement."