Proposed change. Grant enhanced voucher protection to residents, still in their original apartments, of properties whose owners opted out of Section 8 before Congress extended enhanced vouchers to opt-out properties. These residents received a regular voucher and in many cases are now rent-burdened and at risk of losing their housing. The hardships of these residents moved Congress to extend enhanced vouchers to opt-out properties, yet these families and individuals are ineligible for this benefit under current statutory interpretation.

Background. Congress has recently recognized that, when an owner opts out of a Section 8 contract, the resident needs to be protected with an enhanced voucher (whose subsidy payment standard is set at true market rent for their property rather than the artificial standard of the FMR). In FY 2000, Congress authorized enhanced vouchers in all future opt-outs.

The problem. Regular vouchers, generally capped at FMR, may be inadequate to protect residents in place when an owner opts out. In 1997 there were only a few opt-outs because only a few contracts had expired. Volume tripled in 1998 and remained high through 1999, when Congress stepped in to protect these residents. Congress's action in extending enhanced vouchers to opt-outs was rightly hailed by housing advocates and elected officials alike as an important tool to balance resident protections and owners’ contractual rights.

Unfortunately, HUD's statutory review concluded that Congress had granted authority for enhanced vouchers only for new opt-outs, not those that had occurred in previous years. Yet many residents in these properties are still in place, paying more than 30% of their income for rent. They do not want to move and may have severely limited housing choices if they do move. Thus, the very residents whose plight led Congress to expand enhanced voucher eligibility are blocked from receiving that benefit designed with them in mind … and they continue to be at risk of losing their apartments.

The legislative solution: upgrade old regular vouchers to enhanced. The inequity can be easily remedied by amending Section 8(t)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to provide for "voucher upgrade" by extending enhanced voucher eligibility to all residents who occupied an eligible property that opted out before FY 00 (that is, between 9/30/97 and 9/30/99), are still living in the opt-out property, and meet current income eligibility requirements for enhanced vouchers. The upgrade from a regular voucher to an enhanced voucher would occur upon lease expiration and renewal.

Conclusion. The plight of these residents moved Congress to act – yet they are the only ones not protected with enhanced vouchers. This inadvertent inequity should be corrected as quickly as possible so these residents need no longer endure rent hardship or fear losing their quality housing.