My CIVIL RIGHTS are being violated!!

[CdwJava]

she wouldn't be breaking any lease. They cannot evict until the lease has (had) expired or with 30 days notice, whichever is greater. If they evict her before that time, they are setting themselves up for problems of their own. (based on the info deena provided) That is even with the changing circumstances.

Yes, but it seems that she is trying to demand to be allowed to stay - and, I imagine, to pay ONLY her half of the rent. The accommodation I see that she is asking for is to keep the apartment at the lower rate, not to use the second room for exercise equipment. If she pays the full rent (or gets social services to pay for it) then she can likely do with it as she pleases.

It is not a reasonable accommodation to force a property owner or landlord to take an ongoing financial loss. At least not in CA.

 

[justalayman]

It is not a reasonable accommodation to force a property owner or landlord to take an ongoing financial loss. At least not in CA.

I agree 100% but I think that is the crux of the problem. Housing owners will get the money for a 2 bedroom if the government accepts the 2nd bedroom as reasonable accomodation to the disability (I believe). If not, OP will be moving.

 

[DeenaCA]

It is not a reasonable accommodation to force a property owner or landlord to take an ongoing financial loss.

Just to clarify: the rental unit is federally subsidized. The landlord is receiving both USDA financing and a HUD subsidy ("rental assistance") for the unit. The tenant most likely pays about 30% of her income toward rent regardless of the unit size. HUD pays the difference between the tenant contribution and a standard rental amount (it's not market rent because of the USDA financing). It gets complicated.

Cdw, you're correct in that a private market landlord is not required to accept a reduced rent in order to accommodate a tenant with disabilities.

 

[CdwJava]

I agree 100% but I think that is the crux of the problem. Housing owners will get the money for a 2 bedroom if the government accepts the 2nd bedroom as reasonable accomodation to the disability (I believe). If not, OP will be moving.

AND the government agrees to compensate the landlord for the apartment. I doubt they would force the landlord to suck it up.

 

[justalayman]

Just to clarify: the rental unit is federally subsidized. The landlord is receiving both USDA financing and a HUD subsidy ("rental assistance") for the unit. The tenant most likely pays about 30% of her income toward rent regardless of the unit size. HUD pays the difference between the tenant contribution and a standard rental amount (it's not market rent because of the USDA financing). It gets complicated.

Cdw, you're correct in that a private market landlord is not required to accept a reduced rent in order to accommodate a tenant with disabilities.

I believe she is unemployed and on welfare. I do not believe there is any income of which to take 30%. Due to her medical condition she obviously would not be eligible for UI and obviously is not working at all.

 

[justalayman]

AND the government agrees to compensate the landlord for the apartment. I doubt they would force the landlord to suck it up.

I never said they would be required to. That is the point; if the gov aint coughing up the cash, apartment people do not have to allow her to stay and obviously are not going to.

I agree with ya Carl.

 

[CdwJava]

Sorry ... I am just so used to reading about people who seem to think the ADA laws are a magic pill to allow them to get something for nothing, or even to get a golden payday. We had two businesses in my small town shut down because some yo-yo in a wheelchair who made his living extorting money from small business managed to get them into court. They could no afford to stay open and make the renovations he demanded, and they refused to pay HIM the $5,000 he demanded, so they closed their doors instead. Ultimately, they would have almost certainly won their cases, but the cost of an attorney would have been greater than the cost of the renovations so they cut their losses.

Fortunately that guy was taken down a couple years ago by a new law that made these sorts o vexing lawsuits illegal.

But, too many people use the ADA as some sort of magic word thinking it grants them a great many things it does not.

 

[justalayman]

Sorry ... I am just so used to reading about people who seem to think the ADA laws are a magic pill to allow them to get something for nothing, or even to get a golden payday. We had two businesses in my small town shut down because some yo-yo in a wheelchair who made his living extorting money from small business managed to get them into court. They could no afford to stay open and make the renovations he demanded, and they refused to pay HIM the $5,000 he demanded, so they closed their doors instead. Ultimately, they would have almost certainly won their cases, but the cost of an attorney would have been greater than the cost of the renovations so they cut their losses.

Fortunately that guy was taken down a couple years ago by a new law that made these sorts o vexing lawsuits illegal.

But, too many people use the ADA as some sort of magic word thinking it grants them a great many things it does not.

that wasn't at a restaurant that got a write up in Reader's Digest was it? I remember reading something that sounds just like that. There were several stories like that and the guy suing was doing it to make a living with no real claim to start with.

 

[CdwJava]

that wasn't at a restaurant that got a write up in Reader's Digest was it? I remember reading something that sounds just like that. There were several stories like that and the guy suing was doing it to make a living with no real claim to start with.

I don't think so. I recall it was a real estate organization that finally took off after him and those like him ... I think. Or a restaurant organization. One of the ladies in Rotary was involved in the case, and I think the one that did that guy in was an incident in Napa. I'd have to ask her. This guy was all over - and others like him - so it might have had a RD write-up.

The owner of one of the restaurants was a feisty old guy from Tennessee. He had a rib joint, was a Vietnam Special Forces veteran, and had been a truck driver for about 30 years. This guy came in to his place and complained about the bathrooms then said he wouldn't sue if he got $5,000. Well, the owner came around the counter, told him to get the F out of his place, and pushed him out the door - wheelchair and all - and into the parking lot, then threatened to have him arrested for trespassing. He found that the renovations to his bathroom were going to cost a minimum of $12,000 that he did not have so he played legal tag for a couple of years and then finally closed. Sad, really. Now he's back to driving a truck.

 

[Bonnie1964]

Didn'T mean to create such an uproar!

In the state of Oregon I CANT GET ANY WELFARE!! There is no general assistance like there is in CA, WA and AZ. ECT. In fact there is no help anywhere for me right now! I have worked all of my life owned my own business (cafe that was not handicap acces.) So, am sorry about any small business that some jerk wants to sue!! This is NOT small business we are talking about!
This whole thing is turning into a landlord tenant issue also. The problem with the rules ad regs here is there is so many different answers to the same question! The rules are differ
This whole issue really got off track, but there is several issues involved . One thing The owners get the same amount of rent for this place with just me living here Or 5 people! Yes it is 30% of your income!! If you don't have ANY income the rent is zero. So when i moved in here i was working and supporting my daughter and her baby! Then i broke my leg! Had three surgeries, looking forward to another one next month. I'm just trying to prevent living in my car while recovering!
But thanks to everyone for looking into all of this!
Back to the REAL QUESTION: Does my property manager have the right to say " Just because you broke your leg, doesn't mean you are disabled"???
I haven worked in almost one year, broken tibia(which is on the list from SSI being disabling) verification from my MD stating that I am ambulating on crutches, and I had displacement of the bones requiring surgery and plating.
Happy Weekend to all!

 

[justalayman]

Yes it is 30% of your income!! If you don't have ANY income the rent is zero

.so, you do get welfare. Welfare doesn't have to be food stamps or bill money. A housing subsidy is welfare but I understand your use of the term to mean food stamps or cash subsidies.

Back to the REAL QUESTION: Does my property manager have the right to say " Just because you broke your leg, doesn't mean you are disabled"???

yes, unless you can provide legally acceptable support that you are disabled. You have to provide it to whomever is in control of making a decision based on that info as well.

I haven worked in almost one year, broken tibia(which is on the list from SSI being disabling) verification from my MD stating that I am ambulating on crutches, and I had displacement of the bones requiring surgery and plating.

Not trying to restrain anybody from standing up for their rights but realistically, what is the problem with a 1 bedroom. This looks more like an argument because you might be able to make the argument rather than a true need.


sometimes you have to choose your battles and if winning a battle provides you no real gain, sometimes it is better to lay it aside and prepare for the next one.

 

[Bonnie1964]

Battles!

I guess im chosing this battle. The one that says that I need a place to live!
There is NO one bedrooms at this property and have never been offered on elsewhere!
I'm off to court!

 

[justalayman]

I guess im chosing this battle. The one that says that I need a place to live!
There is NO one bedrooms at this property and have never been offered on elsewhere!
I'm off to court!

have you asked because I guessing you are going to lose in court. better a 1 bedroom than a 4 door apartment with panoramic views.

 

[CdwJava]

So ... you are going to court to say that you should be allowed to live in a 2 bedroom apartment for 1/2 its going rate because of your "disability?"

If that is the crux of your argument, yes, I am afraid you will lose.

Like I said, a "reasonable" accommodation would be to provide you an available apartment in the complex within your price range. The owner does not have to subsidize you and no court is going to compel that.

 

[Bonnie1964]

They are all the same price!

No that is NOT the only reason that i will go to court! Its all the factors involved.
1) Failure to accommodate. HUD.Gov says that i can ask for more time also.

2) The new lease amendment that I signed in Dec 09 (original signed in Jan. 09) That states " The term of this lease has been renewed or revised for ONE YEAR beginning Dec. 1 09. Keep in mind that Usda rules and regs are if my apartment becomes OVERHOUSED i would have to move in 30 days OR at the end of my lease whichever is GREATER. So, i signed the NEW LEASE amendment stated that they agreed to rent a 2 bdrm apt. to JUST me. And that I was eligible for RA. (this was all when I was re-certified which they do once per year). Doesn't the word term mean the length of time?

3)There is someone else living here that has been here for quite a while ( a man) that is Not disabled, elderly nor does he have anyone else living with him. Which HUD now knows about.
If I lose I lose...But NO GUTS NO GLORY!!!