Fraud? Rosenberg Building Project Based 8 Flyer & City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority

[Cin]

Greetings Community:

RE: Rosenberg Building & City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (HAP contracts)
SUB: Questionable Business Practices

In September the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (CSRHA) sent out flyers notifying those on the Section 8 wait list would be eligible for Project Based 8, and portable after a year of residing at the Rosenberg Building at 306 Mendocino/4th St., downtown Santa Rosa. The owners of this building and the CSRHA have a HAP contract, to house those of Section 8, and Project Based 8 income levels. From what I know they are soliciting people from outside Sonoma county, perhaps other Public Housing Authorities as well.

The on-site management/agent for/of owners have been and concurrently charging $20.00 cash for a credit report. Further, they are refusing receipts for this transaction, and refusing a copy of the credit report upon request. We don't know if they actually have units available!

What's very odd about this is that there are very specific landlord screening guidelines related to California Law (your credit report), as well HUD rules and reg's. For example:

1. California Civil Code 1950.6
(f) if an application screening fee has been paid by the applicant and if requested by the applicant, the landlord or his or her agent shall provide a copy of the consumer credit report to the applicant who is the subject of that report.

2. 24-CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) - HUD (Housing and Urban Development) are strict related to screening fees in that they are DISALLOWED if a property is subsidized by HUD or USDA. Any screening fees are to come from their operating expense account, not the applicant's pocket; the disabled (invisible and visible), the very low income, etc.

This is abuse. It's fraud. When the management of the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority was contacted regarding this matter, they ignored it. When the City Attorney's office was contacted, they ignored the citizen concerns for our community. Their silence is suspect, otherwise irresponsible.

If you, or anyone you know received this solicitation and experienced the same, please contact me.

Thanks for letting your voice be heard. It does make a difference!

[dustyfilly]

HI,
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT THE MANAGEMENT AT ROSENBERG SINCE JAN 2011. THEY HAVE EITHER HAD NO WAY TO LEAVE A MESSAGE, OR NOT RETURNED MESSAGES I LEFT.
I AM DISABLED AND HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PAY 85 % OF MY $850 A MONTH IN HOUSING. IT IS HORRRENDOUS AND NERVEWRACKING!! I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO GIVE UP ON THIS OPTION, BUT I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO...
THANKS FOR BRINGING YOUR EXPERIENCE TO LIGHT.


RE: Rosenberg Building & City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (HAP contracts)
SUB: Questionable Business Practices

In September the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (CSRHA) sent out flyers notifying those on the Section 8 wait list would be eligible for Project Based 8, and portable after a year of residing at the Rosenberg Building at 306 Mendocino/4th St., downtown Santa Rosa. The owners of this building and the CSRHA have a HAP contract, to house those of Section 8, and Project Based 8 income levels. From what I know they are soliciting people from outside Sonoma county, perhaps other Public Housing Authorities as well.

The on-site management/agent for/of owners have been and concurrently charging $20.00 cash for a credit report. Further, they are refusing receipts for this transaction, and refusing a copy of the credit report upon request. We don't know if they actually have units available!

What's very odd about this is that there are very specific landlord screening guidelines related to California Law (your credit report), as well HUD rules and reg's. For example:

1. California Civil Code 1950.6
(f) if an application screening fee has been paid by the applicant and if requested by the applicant, the landlord or his or her agent shall provide a copy of the consumer credit report to the applicant who is the subject of that report.

2. 24-CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) - HUD (Housing and Urban Development) are strict related to screening fees in that they are DISALLOWED if a property is subsidized by HUD or USDA. Any screening fees are to come from their operating expense account, not the applicant's pocket; the disabled (invisible and visible), the very low income, etc.

This is abuse. It's fraud. When the management of the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority was contacted regarding this matter, they ignored it. When the City Attorney's office was contacted, they ignored the citizen concerns for our community. Their silence is suspect, otherwise irresponsible.

If you, or anyone you know received this solicitation and experienced the same, please contact me.

Thanks for letting your voice be heard. It does make a difference![/QUOTE]

[eattherich]

I recently walked past the rosenburg bldg. I fount it to be a beautiful old building. i was curious about it. i though maybe it was a hotel. When i got home my research informed me this was a low income building. What a shame. Such a beautiful historic building. Anyway to perhaps convert it to high income housing? I think it would contribute greatly to the downtown area to convert it to high end luxury apts.


HI,
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONTACT THE MANAGEMENT AT ROSENBERG SINCE JAN 2011. THEY HAVE EITHER HAD NO WAY TO LEAVE A MESSAGE, OR NOT RETURNED MESSAGES I LEFT.
I AM DISABLED AND HAVE BEEN FORCED TO PAY 85 % OF MY $850 A MONTH IN HOUSING. IT IS HORRRENDOUS AND NERVEWRACKING!! I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO GIVE UP ON THIS OPTION, BUT I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO...
THANKS FOR BRINGING YOUR EXPERIENCE TO LIGHT.


RE: Rosenberg Building & City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (HAP contracts)
SUB: Questionable Business Practices

In September the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority (CSRHA) sent out flyers notifying those on the Section 8 wait list would be eligible for Project Based 8, and portable after a year of residing at the Rosenberg Building at 306 Mendocino/4th St., downtown Santa Rosa. The owners of this building and the CSRHA have a HAP contract, to house those of Section 8, and Project Based 8 income levels. From what I know they are soliciting people from outside Sonoma county, perhaps other Public Housing Authorities as well.

The on-site management/agent for/of owners have been and concurrently charging $20.00 cash for a credit report. Further, they are refusing receipts for this transaction, and refusing a copy of the credit report upon request. We don't know if they actually have units available!

What's very odd about this is that there are very specific landlord screening guidelines related to California Law (your credit report), as well HUD rules and reg's. For example:

1. California Civil Code 1950.6
(f) if an application screening fee has been paid by the applicant and if requested by the applicant, the landlord or his or her agent shall provide a copy of the consumer credit report to the applicant who is the subject of that report.

2. 24-CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) - HUD (Housing and Urban Development) are strict related to screening fees in that they are DISALLOWED if a property is subsidized by HUD or USDA. Any screening fees are to come from their operating expense account, not the applicant's pocket; the disabled (invisible and visible), the very low income, etc.

This is abuse. It's fraud. When the management of the City of Santa Rosa Housing Authority was contacted regarding this matter, they ignored it. When the City Attorney's office was contacted, they ignored the citizen concerns for our community. Their silence is suspect, otherwise irresponsible.

If you, or anyone you know received this solicitation and experienced the same, please contact me.

Thanks for letting your voice be heard. It does make a difference![/QUOTE]

[Karen Wintman]

The person who said the fact that low income people live in the Rosenberg building was "a shame" must be crazy. What do you want to do with the disabled people, shoot them?

[podfish]

I recently walked past the rosenburg bldg. I fount it to be a beautiful old building. i was curious about it. i though maybe it was a hotel. When i got home my research informed me this was a low income building. What a shame. Such a beautiful historic building. Anyway to perhaps convert it to high income housing? I think it would contribute greatly to the downtown area to convert it to high end luxury apts.

ironic posts like this are pretty rare; I appreciate it though.

[dustyfilly]

Thank you podfish, I like your choice word of, "Ironic". It is perfect. The manager's of the building are responsible for the upkeep and retention of the historic architecture of the building. I am low-income and disabled and have a Juris Doctorate degree (passed bar exam too). This is not to brag but to let people know you don't have to be rich to be well educated and involved in caring for the community and it's upkeep. There are ALREADY many high rent choices in downtown SR. In fact, as far as I know this is the ONLY low income housing apt housing available so directly on top of downtown. Why should low income and disabled folks be removed from downtown?? This is like going back to the 1960's housing battles that refused access to people of color, et al, in certain neighborhoods. Let us hope we have evolved passed that era!

As far as the Rosenberg building following local, state and federal laws, I doubt highly that they are. Time is overdue for an investigation to improve access and maintain the integrity of such a fine historic building - maybe a local journalist or legal advocate can start the ball rolling??.......


ironic posts like this are pretty rare; I appreciate it though.

[eattherich]

It appears I have stirred up controversy. In response:


Thank you podfish, I like your choice word of, "Ironic". It is perfect. The manager's of the building are responsible for the upkeep and retention of the historic architecture of the building. I am low-income and disabled and have a Juris Doctorate degree (passed bar exam too). This is not to brag but to let people know you don't have to be rich to be well educated and involved in caring for the community and it's upkeep.....

To Dustyfilly, It is clear you have the intelligence to earn an income. You have a degree. You have writing skills. Perhaps you could parlay those skills into income so others do not have to subsidize your rent.


ironic posts like this are pretty rare; I appreciate it though.
To Podfish, Thank you. I'm glad you recognized the irony. and lastely,


The person who said the fact that low income people live in the Rosenberg building was "a shame" must be crazy. What do you want to do with the disabled people, shoot them?
To Moofury, Are you crazy? You cannot just shoot at people, regardless of there physical condition. I think maybe you should be checked out by the ATF. I think you are dangerous.https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif


.

[Sara S]

OK, posts like this remind me that I would so love it if we could have maybe just two or three other options to express our perhaps more nuanced appreciation for them.....Barry? Are you there? (And, BTW, I don't mean emoticons....)


It appears I have stirred up controversy. In response:



To Dustyfilly, It is clear you have the intelligence to earn an income. You have a degree. You have writing skills. Perhaps you could parlay those skills into income so others do not have to subsidize your rent.


To Podfish, Thank you. I'm glad you recognized the irony. and lastely,


To Moofury, Are you crazy? You cannot just shoot at people, regardless of there physical condition. I think maybe you should be checked out by the ATF. I think you are dangerous.https://mail.google.com/mail/images/cleardot.gif


.

[dustyfilly]

Thank you Sara for some level-headedness. This post has become unfocused and personally offensive. Opposite of what I expect from the Wacco community. I would rather never be involved in another posting than deal with a person like this. I would appreciate Barry's reflection on this post. I started it years ago and all of a sudden it has become active.


OK, posts like this remind me that I would so love it if we could have maybe just two or three other options to express our perhaps more nuanced appreciation for them.....Barry? Are you there? (And, BTW, I don't mean emoticons....)

[Barry]

Thank you Sara for some level-headedness. This post has become unfocused and personally offensive. Opposite of what I expect from the Wacco community. I would rather never be involved in another posting than deal with a person like this. I would appreciate Barry's reflection on this post. I started it years ago and all of a sudden it has become active.

eattherich (there's some irony!) recently joined. I allowed his post in the interest of free expression, but it seems his values may not be consistent with ours. I'll keep an eye on him.

[Sara S]

Whoa! What I meant to say was that I would like to be able to express something a little more specifically ("nuanced") appreciative than simply "Gratitude", but easily, like clicking on the "Gratitude" button; sorry I wasn't clear.

It had nothing to do with your personal feelings of inadequacy or sensitivity to offense.

I haven't been able to read all of the posts on this thread, but I don't usually get offended...such a waste of time, don't you know.

Sara




Thank you Sara for some level-headedness. This post has become unfocused and personally offensive. Opposite of what I expect from the Wacco community. I would rather never be involved in another posting than deal with a person like this. I would appreciate Barry's reflection on this post. I started it years ago and all of a sudden it has become active.