TLS EXCLUSIVE: A sharp dispute has thrown the validity of the current LHA applications intake into turmoil. The rift was exposed in correspondence just obtained by TLS, and reproduced here. At the heart of the controversy is the question of whether adult children (18 and older) may file their own application at the LHA, and maintain it until their name is reached, while their parents file another application listing them as part of their household.
In email correspondence, Mary Jo Grauso, Executive Director of the LHA, has ruled they cannot. According to Ms. Grauso, if the parents receive rental assistance benefits from the LHA, their adult children have a stark choice: they must forfeit (“deactivate”) their own application; or be removed from consideration as part of the parents’ household. They cannot do both, says Grauso: they cannot receive HUD benefits as part of their parents’ household while simultaneously waiting their own turn for rental assistance.
Why not, asked Rabbi Meir Hertz, Executive Director of the Lakewood Township Rental Assistance Program (LTRAP). In extensive email correspondence with Grauso, Hertz complained that this denial is “arbitrary” and has no basis in HUD rules or regulations. Hertz points out that the LHA concedes that such adult children are free to file and maintain their own application with numerous other Section 8 agencies, while they continue to be part of their parents’ household and receive HUD from the LHA. Why then, would they not be able to maintain an application on file with the LHA itself, he asks. According to Hertz, forcing these adult children off the LHA Waiting List entangles the LHA in a questionable denial of property and civil rights.
It is estimated by Hertz that there are currently well over 5,000 Section-8 eligible adult children living at home with their parents in Lakewood. It is these more than 5,000 potential applications that hang in the balance until this issue is resolved.
“In this day and age, with very harsh economic conditions, families often double-up by taking-in their married children, or other relatives who have lost their homes. It makes no sense to deny them the opportunity to qualify for rental assistance and to go out and live on their own”, Hertz said. “Forcing them to forfeit their own application in order to continue to receive help with their parents is a denial of their basic rights. Such a denial is ill-conceived. It is unnecessary, unreasonable and unfounded”, he concluded. Hertz has urged the LHA to open applications’ intake widely, and allow adult children the freedom to file an application without artificially imposed restrictions..
The instructions on the LHA’s application form state:
“Only one application per applicant/household will be accepted. Any applicant/household submitting more than one application will be disqualified. That means that if you submit more than one application, all your applications will be disqualified.”
Yet, despite this language, Mary Jo Grauso, the LHA Executive Director wrote that adult children (one or more) may file their own application with LHA, while still being part of their parents’ household. They just cannot be LISTED as part of the parents’ household. Sounds confusing? Wait, there’s more. According to Ms. Grauso, (but not according to the publicized instructions), while adult children are allowed to file their own separate application to LHA, along with their parents’ separate application (not listing these adult children), they will have to cancel and forfeit their own application if and when their parents become entitled to receive HUD benefits. Either that, or they have to be removed from consideration for eligibility as part of their parents’ household. Still not confused? There’s more. While the adult children would have to forfeit (“deactivate”) their application to the LHA, they would NOT have to forfeit their application to any other Section 8 agency in the country, even while receiving Section 8 benefits as part of their parents’ household through the LHA. Anyone who can follow the logic here is invited to comment and share their views. Most people in Lakewood we spoke with are totally confounded.
As emerged at the LTO annual meeting, attended by some 75 people, there is much confusion on this. People just don’t know what is and what is not permissible. We hope the LHA issues a public full clarification and fully addresses the concerns expressed by the interested applicants.
Will it take a ruling from HUD-Newark to clarify and resolve this issue, or will the LHA reconsider and clarify on its own? That remains to be seen. Meanwhile the public is in the dark, and application time is fast running out.
“It is beyond me,” Hertz said, “why the LHA would encourage a family to deliberately misrepresent the household composition and income by omitting from its application adult children in the household. Additionally, encouraging a household to reduce its reported family size by not listing the adult children, reduces the eligibility income for that household. The federal income limits as printed on the application are based on household size. If a family removes adult children from the application it is consequently reducing the appropriate income limit for that household. Simply put, the family may be deemed ineligible, when it is in fact eligible.“
As reported to the Lakewood Tenants Organization (LTO), by numerous LHA applicants, Mary Jo Grauso has repeatedly been quoted as saying that she cannot make any changes to the application rules, which have already been advertised.
Based on all the ambiguities and issues arising from the way the Executive Director has interpreted the ill-conceived and poorly drafted “one application per household” rule, and the fact that many applications may have already been filed “wrong”, since the households were not aware of her interpretation, it seems that at this point, the LHA will have no choice but to abandon this application intake, clarify the issues, and start the applications intake process from scratch. “I can see no other way to clean-up this mess except starting the process all over again with clearly spelled out guidelines”, Rabbi Hertz told TLS.
For the full correspondence between LTRAP and the LHA, click here.
Yes. A care – less mistake.
This is just unbelievable.
How do I get help on this? Who do I call? HUD? LHA? Mayor Langert? Please post contact info. Thanks Scoopie!
I read all the correspondence. Grauso never answers Hertz’s questions. Why are they doing this? There’s got to be more to it. What’s going on? Ask her.
OK Am I missing something here reading this article i would have to say that Mary Jo Grauso ruling is correct.Why should families living in the same household double dip. Thats why this country is in trouble .In my eyes people are abusing the system
To # 3. What’s going on? Same old, same old. Discrimination.
To # 4: You are certainly missing something – – the point.
No one is talking about double dipping and one household getting two subsidies. That’s illegal. LHA ruled that TWO households can never get TWO subsidies, if they happen to be members of the same household at time of application. THAT’S INCORRECT AND PROBABLY ALSO ILLEGAL. Now please re-read the article.
This is why r taxes r so high.
I agree that there is no sense in what Grauso is saying. But please, Mr. Hertz, do not make things up. There are no or very very few frum families in Lakewood that have taken in their married children due to them being unable to afford rent.
That is a completely irrelevent fact.
Sounds like politics between the 2 agencies which aren’t known to love each other.
Hertz did NOT say there are 5,000 frum families in Lakewood who took in their married children. He said there are over 5,000 eligible adult children in Lakewood. Most, if not all, as we know, are single. If he made an error, it’s estimating on the low side.
I believe he also correctly stated that anyone who took in homeless relatives would be similarly negatively impacted; frum or not frum has nothing to do with it.
Why mix-up the these 2 distinct but equally valid points?
#7. Mr. Hertz represents more than just “frum” families in his advocacy.
it never made sense that parents apply for HUD for their chldren the day they are born. You cannot get hud based on having a child, and then also have that child apply on their own. Applying for something implies you are eligible at the time for that benefit. an infant is not eligible for his own HUD if his parents are claiming him. This is a total scam, and it makes it much harder for people who legitimately need this help when they are competing with teenagers who are on the waiting since since they were conceived. about time someone noticed this and i hope they do something about it ASAP
Maybe pay Ms. Grauso 300k a year and she will be more informed
The whole rental assistance system here is beyond me.
If someone needs rental assistance now give it tp them now.
What nonsense, a waiting list?
Don’t people hope that in 5 years time they will be better off & not need it?
Isn’t the government meant to encourage employment not hand-outs & entitlements.?
Wouldn’t it be better to put all needy on the program, & bump those who have been on more than a certain amount of time.
This way is obsurd, it is like telling people stay poor 5 years & we will bail you out for life.
The way it is run now IMHO it is a waste of taxpayer money, the better you are at claiming you win, like a lottery, not the most needy.
I am sure it is riddled with fraud, & half the money goes to beurocracy.
Scrap it & start all over.
to # 7 and #10:
“In this day and age, with very harsh economic conditions, families often double-up by taking-in their married children, or other relatives who have lost their homes. It makes no sense to deny them the opportunity to qualify for rental assistance and to go out and live on their own”, Hertz said.”
And about the fact that he doesn’t just represent frum ppl: Those who do have more than one family living together are usually not legal situations. Enough said.
This is Fed level not tiny Lkaewood.
I don’t understand why pple are making such a big deal, out of the thousands of Applicants very few will actually get HUD, I assume there are very limited openings.
#4 either you cant read or I dont know what…..
noone is talking about double dipping rather teh issue is when someone is on their parents can they be on a WAITING list for their own!!!! NOT be on their own and their parents
It may be beyond Mr Hertz, but i think Ms Grauso point is quite simple. HUD was never intended to be a generational program. If i was making the rules i would exclude all the children whose parents were on the program from participating.
to #5
to me this is double dipping there is no other way of taking this , this is a perfect example of why our country is in trouble and the debt of both State & Federal Gov is out of control
“They cannot do both, says Grauso: they cannot receive HUD benefits as part of their parents’ household while simultaneously waiting their own turn for rental assistance.”
again I agree with Grauso ruling here its one way or the other not both
The rule of not being eligible for a benefit that you are already benefiting from, seems perfectly logical. That is double dipping. Suggesting that you not list the people living with you sounds like fraud. If we have to pay rent for 5,000 more Lakewood residents, our taxes will go thru the roof.
The only question is whether federal regulations controlling this limited federal program (not paid from State or local taxes) allow this disqualification of adult children or not. That’s the only issue.
If yes, no problem. If not, this is discrimination.
It would be very helpful if someone (LRRC?) could give some instructions for how to fill out for an adult child. Do we just project that he’ll be his own head of household? If he’s currently a student we just put zero income? It seems kind of bizarre but I guess it’s worth submitting just in case…
Yes, it is as simple as it is illegal.
#13 well said
hertz always looks good on the scoop
what about countless couples taking in thier parents and inlaws who lost thier jobs. i know some that moved into their children and are applying for hud.
what the rule with that?
dont we pay her salary? Lets replace her
Pls help: I`m a single bochur and my parents don`t recieve HUD bec they earn too much. Can i apply for HUD? and if I get approved while I`m single what do they give me? $300 to pay my parents for my room, Or my whole families rent?
to”wtvr says:
October 27, 2010 at 5:47 pm
dont we pay her salary? Lets replace her’
evertime you disagree with a rulling the solution is not replace that person, like they say don’t shoot the messinger she is just applying the rule as written she is just carring out it the way it was intended to be
#25, replace her just because you don’t like what she has to say. If that were the case, we should be able to replace anyone that says something that we don’t like or agree with. Here in Lakewood, we could have a field day doing that.
#16 and all those who don’t seem to understand how the application system works: This application process is not only about who will be accepted for the few slots now; this is a rare opportunity to get on the waiting list. So, in essence, the adult children are not all expecting to receive HUD independently now, but wish to at least get on the waiting list. This should not be in conflict with their parents receiving HUD or getting on the waiting list as well. Double dipping does not apply here.
Quote “It is estimated by Hertz that there are currently well over 5,000 Section-8 eligible adult children living at home with their parents in Lakewood.”
thats really scarry in itself?
stop taking goverment money!!!!
So maybe we should replace Hertz- hey I don’t like that (moderated). Scoop must have a personal agenda that he always makes him look good along with his puppets in the BOE. Perhaps Hertz bumped up your HUD application-huh?
It’s now or in another 15 years, when these 10,000 applications are depleted.
why is it that when i check the waiting list at LTRAP it says:
Waiting list was last updated on April 28, 2010 9:31:21 AM
Dont you think it should be updated more often??
OK Am I missing something here reading this article i would have to say that Mary Jo Grauso ruling is correct.Why should families living in the same household double dip. Thats why this country is in trouble .In my eyes people are abusing the system
Well said
I see that you will not print the truth thats why you will not post my posting.
I stand corrected
I wonder….. If this is suppose to be a Federally run program, why is everyone angry at Ms. Grauso? I’m sure there are rules put in place that she must follow or the Government would not allow it. Shouldn’t those parties objecting the application rules blamming her when they should be upset with Washington?
I once was in a situation where I lost my job and needed help. However, I earned too much on unemployment (by $0.75 mind you) and was denied the help I as looking for. Was I upset, yes. Did I complain and say it was unfair or I was being discriminated against, no. Because the rules are the rules!
People should be appreciative that there are pograms like this in place for when it is needed and not taken advantage of.
This is just my opinion, but this seems to be a personal attack against Ms. Grauso and the LHA if you ask me.
That’s the allegation. That the LHA is not abiding by the rules.
Would a Lakewood Housing Authority application be published that HUD would not approve?
Why are people choosing not to apply?
Why isn’t Hertz/LTRAP opening up their own waiting list using their own criteria?
Why is no one commenting on how unethical and unprofessional it was for Hertz to publish personal and professional correspondence between two colleagues?
Why would anyone go to the LRRC for information regarding LHA policy when they are not administering the Section 8 assistance and are not affiliated with LHA? Isn’t it common sense to go to the source for the correct information?
Why are we not hearing these same complaints and allegations of discrimination from other members of the community?
Bottom Line: If people are choosing not to apply, why is the agency that is reaching out to help the community being blasted for not catering to the whims of individuals that are seeking assistance in the future instead of the present?
Considering the assistance is administered by an agency for the community and not individuals of that community, why would anyone think policy should be dictated by those individuals and not the agency who is assisting the community as a whole?
What I can’t seem to get over, is as a parent why you wouldn’t strive to instill a strong work ethic and to teach your children to achieve things through hard work as opposed to something being handed to them.
Rental Assistance is not an entitlement!
If I’m not mistaken Section 8 Rental Assistance was created to help families temporarily. It was not made for families to pass it down generation after generation. There are so many families (notice I said families) that are awaiting assistance and are unable to recieve any due to funding. Why should an 18 year old recieve assistance if they are able to go out and work for a living? Some families work two jobs so they won’t need assistance.
Personally, I feel there is no shame in needing assistance but if your not teaching your child to want something more, then shame on you.
If the “allegations” that Rabbi Meir has broght to the table turn out to be false and the application process was approved by HUD, will all the families that are not applying because of what he stated miss out on this opportunity? Will they the be blaming him for their loss?
I’m not willing to take that chance. I sent in my application!
The program it’s called Rental Assistance for a reason: it is an assistance, not an entitlement.
Before posting comments and arguing whats wrong and who is rigth, educate yourself about the program rules and regulations, as well as what you are entitled to.
Rental Assistance is not for single people who are living with mom and dad. Rental Assiatence is to help people with low income to be back on their own feet. Clearly, the program is being abused and taken advantage of big time, but who are we to make such accussations and blame people for the way they are running the program, while thousands and thousand are leaving on a free ride? lets keep in mind that this is not the only Federal Program people are takin advantage of, but nobosy is complainig about anything else, are they?
If you are young, and healthy and have the opportunity to go and find a job, you should do it!
Nothing in this world is free and we need to get out of that mind setting and set an example for the generations to come.
And remember, “If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make a change”.
You wrote, “Isn’t it common sense to go to the source for the correct information?”
You also wrote, “Would a Lakewood Housing Authority application be published that HUD would not approve?”
Why don’t you follow your own advice, go to the source, HUD, and ask them: (1) if they gave the LHA approval to seek applications that deliberately misrepresent the household size by leaving out adult children, when these children wish to file their own applications. Also, (2) if they (HUD) approved the LHA’s denial of adult children filing their own applications and staying on the waiting list, while simultaneously listed in their parents’, assisted or waiting-listed, household.
After you get the answers, please have the decency to come back and post it here, along with your apology.
Booyah,
I don’t know who released the correspondence to TLS, I know it was shared with many before it was posted on TLS, (I saw the actual emails, including all the CCs). Regardless, i really hope you are not suggesting that it would be ‘ethical’ for Meir Hertz to remain silent, cover-up, and enable this perceived widespread discrimination, out of ‘professional courtesy’.
On the contrary, it seems clear from the correspondence and the timing of the publication a week later, that only after the LHA took no corrective action on its own, and time was fast running out, that this matter was publicized, as a last resort.
I don’t know about Booyah, but before I sent in my application I used my brain and decided to contact HUD myself. I thought that would be better instead of listening to hearsay.
What did HUD have to say?
They stated that the LHA did not violate ANY rules or regulations!
That was enough for me. My application was mailed in within the allotment of time.
#45 – Did you call HUD and ask questions to see if the LHA has violated any rules or if they were discriminating?
I think not!
Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
To #45: I’m a little confused. You want me to apologize for asking questions? You want me to get answers from HUD for questions that you need answers for? Why is there such a problem with adult children applying on their own? Is it because you want to increase your family’s chances of being called in by submitting as many applications for your household as you possibly can? Maybe that’s exactly what the problem is. Not the fact that the application wasn’t approved by HUD but the fact that it isn’t approved by you (do you truly believe that in this community any agency would really be able to get away with that) .
In reading the application and the public notice attached to the application, nowhere did i find it to encourage applicants to “deliberately misrepresent their household size” nor “deny adult children filing their own applications and staying on the waiting list, while simultaneously listed in their parents’, assisted or waiting-listed, household.” Seems to me that that might be what someone would interrupt if they could not increase their odds of being called in by submitting multiple applications.
In speaking about decency, the decent thing to do is respect someone else’s opinion and not expect or demand an apology if that opinion doesn’t coincide with yours.
You know what they say about opinions….everybody has one!
And to #46: You don’t know who released the correspondence to TLS? Considering it was between two people i would think it was either one of them. And to think that the correspondence was shared and read by many even before being published by TLS reinforces my opinion that it was unethical and unprofessional to do so by whoever it was. It’s unfortunate that people believe they are being discriminated against when it is infact, they who are creating the discrimination by not submitting applications.
Again, that is just my opinion.
Back to #45…I will not apologize for stating my opinion, but i do feel sorry that you feel that i should.
I commend Ms. Grauso for applying and enforcing the HUD rules and regulations and making this fair accross the board for ALL FAMILIES…my application is in !!!!
Seems folks are missing the point. The LHA application form is not the problem. HUD could and should approve it. The LHA “interpretation” that adult children should not be listed on their parents’ application IS A BIG problem.
1. Deliberately misrepresenting the household size and income (if the children have income) can be considered as fraud. Did HUD approve this misrepresentation?
2. Can the LHA force the adult child OFF the LHA waiting list, if his name was not reached but the parents name was reached, or in a case where the parents are already receiving HUD?
3. Why can that adult child keep his name on every other waiting list in the USA even while listed as part of his parents’ LHA-assisted household, but not on the LHA’s own waiting list?
Now that you understand that the issues are the LHA policy interpretations, not the application form, kindly check again with HUD.
And BTW, from what Ray Coles reports here on TLS, it sure seems like the LHA is beginning to finally “get it” after the brouhaha. Hope it’s not too little too late.
the CCs went to responsible officials who stepped in and took steps to correct the problem. See the latest TLS story. Unethical? To remain silent in face of injustice is unethical. Try to find your lost moral compass. Just my opinion.
“do you truly believe that in this community any agency would really be able to get away with that?”
Only time will tell.
To 51:
I just read the e-mails AGAIN and I do not see and CC to anyone. Is there someting you see that I can’t?
Just wondering….
The CCs were all omitted here to protect the innocent, and their privacy. Many were openly copied-in on all these emails, (CCs, not BCCs). The main correspondents knew from day one this mail was widely shared and will likely end up in the public domain, as well it should. It affects the public at large, and they have a right to know. Both sides were fine with that, as each believed they were in the right, and certainly didn’t try to hide anything.