HUD Stricked Guidelines Are Ignored On Long Island

[Feds ain't Doin Their job]

This is a growing scandal. One which should have been nipped in the bud long ago.

It appears now that some areas of Long Island receive HUD funding for their area. This money gets dispursed through town's housing authority.

Housing authority is supposed to have these houses inspected and properly maintained which includes the people who live in these dwellings.

Federal guidelines are that any invidual who lives in these establishments who are guilty of criminal and/or gang activity the owner of said property will be sanctioned and even expelled from the program.

This is not happening to the detriment of the surrounding local community. In Huntington it is most severe but it does occur in other towns also. But housing funds going to house criminals, gangs and even illegal aliens is way over the bounds of decency and reason to keep it occurring.

The millions if not billions of our tax dollars to feed the pockets of slumlords and taxcheats is revolting in epic proportions.

[pop]

Funny you should bring this up. Its coming

[patiently waiting]

we've been waiting for the white knight over 12 years now

Funny you should bring this up. Its coming




Will there be a proper investigation?

[size does count]

maybe forces are gathering to get to the truth

I know their running scared in Huntington Housing Authority and town supervisor's office

[Hey coward]

maybe forces are gathering to get to the truth

I know their running scared in Huntington Housing Authority and town supervisor's office

Give the specifics and sign your name or shut up.

[quote

Give the specifics and sign your name or shut up.[/quote]


Whoa A Tough Guy or gal--Whats your name?

from working in town everyone knows the federal rating for the authority is dismal why is that you COWARD FOR REAL?

[timing is everything]

maybe forces are gathering to get to the truth

I know their running scared in Huntington Housing Authority and town supervisor's office

Give the specifics and sign your name or shut up.



Spota's Probe Extends Into Huntington

According to today's Newsday.

Here is also what was stated: If the investigation shifts the balance of power, Spota said it's not intentional -- and it doesn't really matter to him.

"Remember this," he said. "If there is a change in the political landscape in a particular municipality as a result of this investigation, the other party better start toeing the line."

Federal guidelines are that any invidual who lives in these establishments who are guilty of criminal and/or gang activity the owner of said property will be sanctioned and even expelled from the program.



Wrong, wrong, wrong... the Bush Administration COULDNT get the "federal guidelines" changed from the HUD bar against DRUG CONVICTIONS WHILE IN THE HOUSING. (1988)

So a person might have a record and still be eligible UN LESS there was a conviction OF DRUG DEALING IN THE HUD PROPERTY.

But, don't you worry, the Bush Administration got around this little problem. They're just going out of the Housing Business altogether. Yep, so that's why these piddly-small dollars amounts are making their tardy way to those "local communities."

Net gain: Bushies 1, "Those People, 0"

[Wow thats it blame Bush]

if you ask me the media's lack of response on this issue just shows how corrupt and deep it must be

nobody is against helping people afford housing

but to help people who are living in houses where criminals and gang members and illegal aliens live is just not right to them or to the taxpayers

no taxpayer money should go to landlords who house criminals and gang members and illegal aliens

the honest people who have their rent subsidised shouldn't have to live with this type of injustice either plus they are in no position to complain to anyone

[One strike]

In response to a nationwide crime problem in section 8 housing Congress passed, and the top court in the land, upheld, the so called "one strike" regs permit any Housing Authority to terminate section 8 rent assistance if the tenant or any member of his'her family are involved in a criminal or drug activity. Note you do not have to be convicted, rather if the "preponderence of proof" supports the fact that the tenant is involved in criminal or drug activty, they are outta there.

Of course the liberals went nuts fought this all way to the US Supreme Court. but the to court said, Congress was clear that the one strike were enacted to provide safe housing for the poor, not for the criminals...

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 00-1770. Argued February 19, 2002--Decided March 26, 2002*
Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6) provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases ... provid[ing] that ... any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Respondents are four such tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of their leases obligates them to "assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in ... any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises." Pursuant to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations authorizing local public housing authorities to evict for drug-related activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations of lease paragraph 9(m) by a member of each tenant's household or a guest. Respondents filed federal actions against HUD, OHA, and OHA's director, arguing that §1437d(l)(6) does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of so-called "innocent" tenants, and, in the alternative, that if it does, the statute is unconstitutional. The District Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against OHA was affirmed by the en banc Ninth Circuit, which held that HUD's interpretation permitting the eviction of so-called "innocent" tenants is inconsistent with congressional

[very interesting very]

In response to a nationwide crime problem in section 8 housing Congress passed, and the top court in the land, upheld, the so called "one strike" regs permit any Housing Authority to terminate section 8 rent assistance if the tenant or any member of his'her family are involved in a criminal or drug activity. Note you do not have to be convicted, rather if the "preponderence of proof" supports the fact that the tenant is involved in criminal or drug activty, they are outta there.

Of course the liberals went nuts fought this all way to the US Supreme Court. but the to court said, Congress was clear that the one strike were enacted to provide safe housing for the poor, not for the criminals...

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 00-1770. Argued February 19, 2002--Decided March 26, 2002*
Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6) provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases ... provid[ing] that ... any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Respondents are four such tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of their leases obligates them to "assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in ... any drug-related criminal activity on or near the premises." Pursuant to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations authorizing local public housing authorities to evict for drug-related activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants, OHA instituted state-court eviction proceedings against respondents, alleging violations of lease paragraph 9(m) by a member of each tenant's household or a guest. Respondents filed federal actions against HUD, OHA, and OHA's director, arguing that §1437d(l)(6) does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of so-called "innocent" tenants, and, in the alternative, that if it does, the statute is unconstitutional. The District Court's issuance of a preliminary injunction against OHA was affirmed by the en banc Ninth Circuit, which held that HUD's interpretation permitting the eviction of so-called "innocent" tenants is inconsistent with congressional

this should be posted on the walls of the Huntington Housing Authority :idea:

[Federally]

Hogwash

Hogwash

Spoken like A slumlord or Housing Authority worker :roll:

[One Tower]

Newsday writes about the violence at One Tower Street, Huntington Station, a notious crime ridden section 8 property, only because Democrat "Jonnie Boy" Copper, has a news conference acting like the white knight saving the community by pissing away 400K to buy Don Pius' One Tower Street tenament.

The real story is how for years Steve Israel, the Huntington Town Board, and HUD allow our section 8 tax dollars to be paid to Pius, to subsidize the criminals living in One Tower? Everybody agrees this section 8 house has terrorized the neighborhood , yet the solution is to reward the landlord with 400K of our county tax dollars???



BY CHRISTIAN MURRAY
STAFF WRITER

November 17, 2004
There is a Huntington Station address that police know all too well. It's been the scene of shootings, assaults, domestic disputes, robberies and, most recently, arrests as part of gang-related sweeps.

But peace could soon be restored at 1 Tower St. as Suffolk County moves ahead to buy and convert the property into a neighborhood center.

The acquisition of the dilapidated wood-shingled cape - located just across the street from Huntington Intermediate School - would mark the first time the county purchased a property for community use, said Legis. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor), yesterday during a news conference at the house.

Cooper ticked off a list of 35 incidents over the past year and Suffolk County Police Insp. Robert Cassagne said that in 2003 1 Tower was "the number one location in the Huntington Station community where the police would be called."

Terms of the deal have yet to be negotiated with the property's owner, Donald Pius, principal owner of Northport-based Catco Associates, which holds title to about 100 rental properties in Huntington Station. The purchase cannot be completed until the now-vacant property is independently appraised. The process would take several months and is likely to cost the county between $350,000 and $400,000, according to Cooper.

In an interview, Pius said he most likely will sell, but demands "market value." It was the tenants who were the problem, not the house, and the tenants no longer live there, Pius said.

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy supports the plan, a spokesman said. Cooper said he intends to introduce legislation today for the county to acquire the property. Cooper expects the measure to pass the full legislature in the next month.

The purchase of other distressed properties will be considered on a case-by-case basis, said Deputy County Executive Paul Sabatino. Suffolk purchased property for a Babylon veterans center in 2001 and for an Islip senior citizens center in 1999.

Cooper said he started working on the proposal after parents considered removing their children from the school after a March 2003 shooting. Since that incident, the school has closed its fourth-grade playground, located directly across the street.

John Finello, superintendent of the Huntington School District, also said parents questioned the safety of picking up and dropping off their children.

Should the Suffolk legislature approve the purchase, the town board would then consider covering the cost of transforming the property into a facility for youth, social services and employment programs, said Huntington Town Supervisor Frank Petrone.

"This would be part of Huntington Station's revitalization program," Petrone said, adding that he believes the board will approve the project.

"The revitalization is a priority of this town, and this is just one step in elevating the quality of life in the community and providing the necessary programs in need," Petrone said.

[mymoney]

het do i pay for this?

that article is over a year ago? November 17, 2004

that article is over a year ago? November 17, 2004


Rich McGrath was vilified for saying the exact samething Democrat Liberal Cooper is now saying and doing.

Only difference between Rich McGrath and Jon Cooper is McGrath is a Republican.

When Mr. McGrath was attacked verbally and physically by the Democrats Newsday got on the band wagon.

Newsday is at the height of hypocrisy when it comes to reporting only good things about liberal Democrats and when the same items and agenda are proposed by a Republican they call him vile names and slander his family.

Newsday and the Huntington Democrats have been protecting corruption in Huntington for a long long time. Just call it affordable housing then rip off the public to the tune of millions of dollars. Say everybody is a racist for stating the obvious unless your a Democrat then get praise for your actions.

Newsday should fold. They can't any longer report fairly or accurately on many issues cause they have become to tainted politically and with their business procedures.