IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TYRONE A. GOODWIN,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 2:17-CV-01537

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak

-vs.-

JANE MILLER, Region III

Field Office Director of

U.S. Dept. of Housing &

Urban Development, et. al.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

AND/OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiff Tyrone Goodwin, pro se, moves this Court to enjoin the U.S. Department

of Housing & Urban Development from its unlawful termination of the Housing

Assistance Payment contract at the Bethesda-Homewood Properties; and halt the

impending eviction of the Plaintiff from his 15-year home until the decision on the

merits.
 The BHP was sold to Joshua Pollard, Omicelo’s Chief Executive Officer by the

known-called “slumlord” receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies after the

unlawful (and perhaps criminal) termination of the HAP contract.

Mr. Pollard intends to rehabilitate the condemned properties with 141 units. Mr.

Pollard wants Plaintiff, and other low-income tenants, to vacate so he can begin the

rehabilitation process at the BHP, now called Esperanaza Homewood (Esperanza means

Hope in Spanish).

On the other hand, Aegis Realty Partners, the new mgmt. agent needs Plaintiff to

move from the “dangerous” housing conditions on the defendant Housing Authority of

City of Pittsburgh’s voucher, so building’s repair can begin.

Aegis Realty’s Heather Mitchell and the construction person knocked on my door,

yesterday, to tell me of the impending eviction process against me. For verification, this

Court may call 412-918-1769.

In this civil action, Plaintiff refuses to move on defendant’s Housing Choice

Voucher due to do the alleged unlawful (and perhaps criminal) termination of the HAP

contract by HUD officials and previous landlord. (Please see Brief in Support of

Motions).

Either way, Plaintiff is faced between forgoing his Constitutional rights for

redress of grievances by HUD’s actions and being evicted from his home with

“dangerous” and rat-invested conditions left by the former out-of-state, slumlord that got

a way with millions of dollars in federal subsidies (I have pictures of the dead mice and it

was reported to city’s building inspector).

 Therefore, Plaintiffs simply ask that this Federal Court to review his investigative-

type Brief in Support of Motion and make a determination of the claims, pursuant to Rule

65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Respectfully Submitted,
Digitally signed by Tyrone Goodwin

Tyrone Goodwin DN: cn=Tyrone Goodwin, o, ou,

email=tgoodwin7704@live.com, c=US
Date: 2018.06.15 09:29:58 -04'00'

Tyrone Goodwin

7704 Tioga Street

Apartment 6

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15208

Phone: 412-871-8869

Email: tgoodwin7704@live.com
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that June 15, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and/or Temporary Injunction, Brief in Support of Motions

and Affidavit with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of this filing to the attorneys of record and all registered participants.

Digitally signed by Tyrone Goodwin

Tyrone Goodwin DN: cn=Tyrone Goodwin, o, ou,

email=tgoodwin7704@live.com, c=US
Date: 2018.06.15 09:30:15 -04'00'

Tyrone Goodwin

7704 Tioga Street

Apartment 6

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15208

Phone: 412-871-8869

Email: tgoodwin7704@live.com
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-01537

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MARK R. HORNAK

TYRONE A. GOODWIN,

PLAINTIFF

vs.

JANE E. MILLER, Region III

Field Office Director, of
U.S. Dept. of Housing &
Urban Development, ET. AL.

DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Tyrone A. Goodwin
Plaintiff, Pro Se
7704 Tioga Street
Apartment #6
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15208
Phone: 412-871-8869
Email: tgoodwin7704@live.com
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 7

PARTIES....................................................................................................................................................... 8

PLAINTIFF ................................................................................................................................................... 8
DEFENDANT ............................................................................................................................................... 8
FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 9

THE SECTION 8 HOUSING PROGRAM. ...................................................................................................... 9

THE BHP FALLS INTO DISREPAIR........................................................................................................... 10
CDE PLAN’S ENFORCEMENT: RECEIVERSHIP TO TERMINATION ........................................................ 11
HUD WITHHELD NOTICE OF DEFAULT: MAYOR SIGNS ORDINANCE .................................................. 12
TERMINATION PROCEDURES MODIFIED ................................................................................................ 12
Termination Meeting Unscheduled: Use of Notice’s Caption for Relocation..................................... 13
NOTICE OF TENANTS’ MEETING: ITS PROBLEMS.................................................................................. 13
NOTICE OF ABATEMENT: NONE BY HUD AND LATE NOTICE BY AGENT ............................................. 15
THE BHP AFTERMATH: URA BLAMES HUD FOR DEAL WITH “SLUMLORD” ..................................... 15
Current Status of BHP and Tyrone A. Goodwin ................................................................................. 16
LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 16

LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................. 16

Plaintiff will Likely to Succeed on Merits ........................................................................................... 17
Plaintiff is Suffering Irreparable Harm .............................................................................................. 23
Injunctive Relief Will Not Result in Harm to HUD ............................................................................. 24
Public Interest Favors Such Relief...................................................................................................... 25
BOND SHOULD BE WAIVED................................................................................................................. 26

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................... 26
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) ................................................................. 21

Alms Residents Assoc., et. al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. .............................. 16

Anderson v. Alpharetta, 737 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1984) ................................................. 22

Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) ...................................................................... 20

Badri v. Mobile Housing Board, 2011 WL 3665340, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 22, 2011) ... 24

Bloodworth v. Oxford Village Townhouses, Inc., 377 F.Supp. 709 (D. Ga. 1974) ... 23, 24

Bolthouse v. Continental Wingate Co., Inc., 656 F.Supp. 620 (W.D. Mich. 1987) ......... 23

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................ 19

Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) ............................................... 20

Cole v. Lynn 389 F. Supp. 98, 105 (D.D.C. 1975) ........................................................... 24

Corby et al. v. Scranton Housing Authority et al., No. 04-2523 (M.D. Pa. 2006) ........... 24

Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm., 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir., 1985).................. 16

Davis v. Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, 751 F.2d 180, (6th Cir. 1984)...... 20

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, (1976) ............................................................................... 23

Forest Guardians v. Babbitti, 174 F. 3d 1178 (10th 1988) ................................................ 17

Gresham v. Windrush Partners, Ltd., 730 F.2d 1417 (11th Cir. 1984)............................. 23
Holbrook v. Pitt, 643 F.2d 1261 (7th Cir. 1981)............................................................... 20

Holmes v. New York City Hous. Auth., 398 F. 2d 262 (2d Cir. 1968) ............................ 21

HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, ................................................................................... 19, 20

Kos Pharma., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004)...................................... 16

Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) .............. 18, 19

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) ...................................................................... 20

McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 119 F. 3rd 453 (6th Cir. 1997) .. 16

Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 147 Fed Appx. 302, (3rd Cir. 2005) ............................. 17

NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987)................................................................ 22

Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) ............................................................................... 16

NLRB v. Welcome-American Fertiler Co., 443 F. 2d 19, 20 (9th Cir. 1971)................... 21

Owens v. Housing Authority of City of Stamford, 394 F.Supp. 1267 (D. Conn. 1975) .. 23

Regency Housing Partners LP v. Regency Park Residents Assoc. (07-20228), U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, Trenton Village. ....................................... 23

Roundtree v. HUD, No. 5:09-CV-234, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130633, at ** 17-18 (M.D.

Fla. Aug. 28, 2009) ....................................................................................................... 20

Smith v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 702 (S.D. Ohio 2010) .............. 23

Solomon v. Housing Authority of City of Pgh., 6-1155 (W.D. Pa. 2006)........................ 16

The Nation Magazine v. Dept. of State, 805 F. Supp. 68 (D.D.C. 1982). ........................ 16

Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 27 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 1988) ................................ 21

 FEDERAL STATUTES
42 U.S.C. § 1437a(a)........................................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. § 1437c(h) .......................................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. § 1437f (a) .......................................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c) ........................................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(4) ...................................................................................................... 9

42 U.S.C. § 3608(e) (5)..................................................................................................... 22

5 U.S.C. § 101..................................................................................................................... 8

5 U.S.C. § 551(1) ................................................................................................................ 8

5 U.S.C. § 554................................................................................................................... 14

5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2) (A)...................................................................................................... 17

5 U.S.C. §§701-706 .......................................................................................................... 17

5 U.S.C. 706(1) ................................................................................................................. 17

Administrative Procedures Act ............................................................................... 8, 14, 17

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 ............................................................ 17, 18, 19

Pub. L. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 ............................................................................................. 17

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ........................................................................ 22

RULES
Fed. R.C.P. 65 ................................................................................................................... 16

REGULATIONS
24 C.F.R. § 200.855 ............................................................................................................ 9

24 C.F.R. § 200.857 ............................................................................................................ 9

24 C.F.R. § 5.703 ................................................................................................................ 9

24 C.F.R. §§ 5.705 .............................................................................................................. 9

49 CFR Section 24.207 (f) ................................................................................................ 22

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

U.S. Const. amend. V ........................................................................................................ 19

STATE STATUE
68 Pa. C.S.A. 250.501(c) .................................................................................................. 15

CITY ORDINANCES
City of Pittsburgh Legislation Details (File #2017-2041) .......................................... 12, 25
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, pro se, seeks Court to compel two discrete actions the U.S. Dept. of

Housing & Urban Development (“HUD”) was legally required to take at the Bethesda-

Homewood Properties (“BHP”): (1) maintain the Housing Assistance Payment (“HAP”)

contract at the site and (2) provide relocation assistance at the Uniform Relocation Act

level. Compelling these actions is required by law, prevents Plaintiff’s eviction or

homelessness, and supports the site’s rehabilitation plans.

Following HUD’s termination of the HAP Contract, the BHP was bought by

Omicelo with capital improvement plans for the site, now named Esperanaza Homewood

Properties.

HUD was required by law to consult with tenants and the local government at

various stages of the process in ending the HAP Contract. Due to HUD’s activities, the

City of Pittsburgh (“City”) passed an ordinance because HUD’s failure to inform them of

the poor housing conditions.

HUD was required, by law, to make a feasibility determination on maintaining the

rental assistance payments after the rehabilitation of the BHP, then, to consult with BHP

tenants and the City. HUD failed to do either of these.

HUD was required by law to provide the Plaintiff with a notice and opportunity to

be heard on ending the HAP Contract and the displacement. HUD failed to do this.

Based on the evidence, Plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits.

Plaintiff continues to suffer harm from HUD’s conduct, including the imminent eviction
relied by Aegis Realty Partner’s Tenant Coordinator Heather Mitchell1. There is no harm

to HUD as they will simply be required to follow the law and maintain the status quo.

Last, City of Pittsburgh officials, many nonprofit housing groups, and Omicelo supports

the preservation of this property and keeping it as an affordable housing resource.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

The BHP provided 141 subsidized units to low-income families in Pittsburgh’s

East End neighborhoods. Plaintiff, who is Black-American, has resided at the BHP for 14

years. Goodwin paid 30% of his income for a one-bedroom apartment. HUD paid a

utility allowance to the Owner and so this housing expense was included in the rent.

Goodwin’s lease will terminate automatically if the Section 8 contract ends for any

reason. See Lease at Ex. A; Owner’s Certificate at Ex. B.

Defendant

Defendant HUD is a federal agency of the U.S. government charged with the

administration, supervision and enforcement of all federal laws and contracts related to

the operation, rehabilitation, and disposition of federally-assisted, project-based Section 8

1
Aegis Realty Partners’ Tenant Coordinator Heather Mitchell, yesterday, explained to Plaintiff if he does
not move from the “dangerous” conditions of the property so construction firm can rehabilitate the
apartment building, the management agent would begin the eviction process. She can be reached at 412-
918-1769. Aegis Realty Partners Inc is located at 1301 Grandview Avenue, Trimont Plaza Suite 1136,
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15211.
housing, 5 U.S.C. § 101, 105, and is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, 5

U.S.C. § 551(1).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Section 8 Housing Program.

The Section 8 housing program was created to aid low-income families in

obtaining a decent place to live and to promote economically mixed housing. 42 U.S.C. §

1437f (a). Under this program, HUD subsidizes rent for low-income tenants by entering

into contracts with owners under which HUD pays the owner the difference between a

unit’s fair market rent and the qualifying tenant’s contribution under the Section 8

program. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c); 42 U.S.C. § 1437a (a). Owners are required to maintain

the property in “decent, safe, and sanitary” condition. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c) (4); 24 C.F.R.

§ 5.703.2

HUD enforces the “decent, safe and sanitary” requirement through inspections,

audits and other actions. 42 U.S.C. § 1437c (h); 24 C.F.R. §§ 200.855, 200.857. HUD’s

Real Estate Assessment Center (“REAC”) is responsible for inspecting Section 8

housing, and it assigns a numerical score for each inspection on a 100-point scale. 24

C.F.R. §§ 5.705, 200.857. A score below 60 is failing; properties scoring under 30 are

referred to the Departmental Enforcement Center.3 24 C.F.R. § 200.857.

2
“Decent, safe and sanitary” is defined at 24 C.F.R. § 5.703.

3
HUD’s Office of Inspector General stated that the DEC monitoring is, for the most part, contained in each
program office. OIG stated that the memorandums of understanding between the DEC and the program
offices, for the most part, limit DEC’s ability to monitor, report, and take action to end noncompliance. See
 Under the HAP Contract, the owner “agrees (1) to maintain and operate the

Contract Units and related facilities so as to provide Decent, Safe, and Sanitary housing,

and (2) to provide all the services, maintenance and utilities. If the Government

determines that the Owner is not meeting one or more of these obligations, the

Government shall have the right, in addition to its other rights and remedies under this

Contract, to abate housing assistance payments in whole or in part.” The HAP Contract

provides that “[i]f the Government notifies the Owner that he (sic) has failed to maintain

a dwelling unit in Decent, Safe, and Sanitary condition and the Owner fails to take

corrective action within the time prescribed in the notice, the Government may exercise

any of its rights or remedies under the Contract, including abatement of the housing

assistance payments, even if the Family continues to occupy the unit.” The HAP Contract

allows HUD to inspect the property at such times “as may be necessary to assure that the

Owner is meeting his obligations to maintain the units in decent, safe, and sanitary

condition and to provide the agreed upon utilities and other services.”

The BHP falls into disrepair.

The BHP was mismanaged by Homewood Residential LP, of Long Island, NY,

and the management agent, Aishel Real Estate, it chose to manage the properties, both of

them HUD approved. The BHP had failing REAC inspection scores of 52 in February

2013; 35 on April 9, 2014; and 9 on January 27, 2017. See REAC Inspection Scores at

Ex. C. Despite these significant drops, and even though HUD guidelines say a score of

Page 163 of HUD’s FY 2017 Agency Financial Report at

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/afr2017.pdf
79 or below should trigger annual inspections; there is a two-year inspection gap. See

Declining BHP Scores: Two-Year Inspection Gap.

CDE Plan’s Enforcement: Receivership to Termination

Around May 2017, HUD finally issued a Compliance, Disposition and

Enforcement (CDE) Plan.4 See CDE Plan at Ex. D. This CDE Plan required, inter alia,

that the owner engage a HUD-approved management agent to assume management

operations and fix all the physical deficiencies.

On July 25, 2017, the BHP failed the REAC inspection with a score of 15 on a

scale of 1 to 100. See Partial Inspection Report at Ex. E. This inspection found mold

and mildew in the building’s hallways and stairwells, missing exit signs and fire

extinguishers. At least one unit had roaches, exposed electrical wires and inoperable

windows that should serve as escape routes in case of fire. The building’s entryway door

didn’t lock or even latch properly. In the basement, there were clogged and broken

sanitary pipes causing a “sewer odor. There were 130 health and safety deficiencies;

twenty-eight were life-threatening.

This case (Inspection Report) was referred to the DEC. The program office

should have made this referral after the January 2017 inspection.5

4
HUD’s Notice H2015-02 Required Actions for Multifamily Housing Projects Receiving Failing Scores
from HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/15-
02HSGN.PDF

5
HUD’s Office of Inspector General stated that the DEC monitoring is, for the most part, contained in each
program office. OIG stated that the memorandums of understanding between the DEC and the program
offices, for the most part, limit DEC’s ability to monitor, report, and take action to end noncompliance. See
Page 163 of HUD’s FY 2017 Agency Financial Report at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/afr2017.pdf
 Declining BHP Scores:
2-Yr Inspection Gap

60
HUD’s Notice 52

R E A C S c o re s
50
HAP
40
35 contract
H2015-02 states, “The 30 suspended
20
15
Multifamily Housing 10 9
0
Account Executive must Feb,2013 April,2014 2015 2016 Jan,2017 July, 2017
DEC
Dates referral
request approval from

the Director, Business

Relationships and Special Initiatives Division to suspend, abate or terminate the HAP

contract.” 6 HUD suspended the HAP Contract.

HUD Withheld Notice of Default: Mayor Signs Ordinance

HUD withheld the Notice of Default, Notice of Enforcement Action, and

inspection reports from the Plaintiff, BHP residents, and the City. See Notice 2015-02.

As result, the Mayor signed a supplement to the Code’s Federally Subsidized Multifamily

Rental Subsidies. See City of Pittsburgh Legislation Details (File #2017-2041, Version

2) at Ex. F. This ordinance states, “WHEREAS, had the City been aware of the

deteriorating conditions that led to these failing scores [at the BHP] the City would have

been able to step in on behalf of the [BHP] residents before it became a crisis”. Id., at

page 2.

Termination Procedures Modified

6
See page 6 of HUD’s Notice H2015-02 at https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/15-
02HSGN.PDF
 After the July 2017 Inspection Report, HUD diverted from its termination

procedures. Initially HUD’s Property Disposition Center must make a recommendation

regarding the feasibility of continuing with the Section 8 contract and must conduct a

Peer Analysis and Comprehensive Repair Survey.7 HUD did not conduct this feasibility

analysis.

Termination Meeting Unscheduled: Use of Notice’s Caption for Relocation

HUD Project Based Section 8 HAP Contract Administration states, “Within

ninety (90) days prior to termination, the Field Office PIH must organize tenant meetings
8
related to upcoming termination.” HUD did not conduct the upcoming termination

meeting, but reserved the form’s caption for the voluntary relocation.

Notice of Tenants’ Meeting: Its Problems

Procedurally, when HUD abates and terminates a project-based Section 8

contract, tenants living at the property are given the opportunity to apply for a tenant

based voucher, which provide subsidies for tenants to live in any housing unit, in any

location, so long as the landlord accepts the voucher.

HUD Handbook 1378 requires that these tenants be given either a Notice of

Displacement or Notice of Nondisplacement.9 This handbook also state, “where a Notice

7
The Peer Analysis and Comprehensive Repair Survey consist of an analysis of the operating cost (Peer
Analysis) and the rehabilitation cost (Comprehensive Repair Survey).

8
See Page 5 of 5 at 2.1.9.3 (No. 2) of HUD’s DRAFT Processes and Procedures for Contract
Administration of Project-Based Section 8 Housing at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/CA_PROCESS.PDF

9
Handbook 1378 Handbook: Tenant Assistance, Relocation and Real Property (Chapter 1:Scope,
Definitions and General Policies at https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/310/hud-handbook-1378-
tenant-assistance-relocation-and-real-property-acquisition/
of Nondisplacement was not provided, HUD has taken the position that the person's

move was a permanent, involuntary move for the project since the person was not given

timely information essential to making an informed judgment about moving from the

project.” Id.

On September 29, 2017, HUD mailed a Notice of Tenants’ Meeting proposing a

voluntary relocation to BHP tenants that chose to move. See Notice of Tenants’ Meeting

at Ex. G.

This meeting notice has quite a few problems. First, and more troubling, this

notice’s caption was required to be titled either a Notice of Displacement or Notice of

Nondisplacement10. This determines the status of the BHP tenants as a “displaced

person” under the Uniform Act. Second, HUD unlawfully proposed that BHP tenants

waive their rights to relocation assistance and benefits under the Uniform Act; Third,

HUD failed to disclose the choice of remaining at the BHP without the rental subsidy and

pay the full market rent. Fourth, this notice does not reveal the status of HAP contract,

itself. Fifth, this notice does not discuss the life-threatening hazards in the July 2017

Inspection Report, which means the relocation, was not for health, safety, and security

reasons. Sixth, the author refers any questions regarding Notice to another person, Adron

Parker; Seventh, the agency authoring the notice was required to conduct the Peer

Analysis and Comprehensive Repair Survey and consult with BHP tenants and City of

Pittsburgh; As a final point, this Notice fails to comply with the Administrative

Procedures Act’s notice-requirements, 5 U.S.C. § 554. Id.

10
Notice of Nondisplacement. A HUD term for notice provided to persons who will not be permanently
displaced for a HUD-assisted project. …While this notice is not required by the URA, HUD policy requires
that such notice be provided to adequately inform those persons within the project who will not be
permanently displaced but who may be impacted as a result of the project. Id.
Notice of Abatement: None by HUD and Late Notice by Agent

HUD did not abide by its Section 8 Renewal Policy. It states, in relevant part:

“The Regional Center or Satellite Office shall notify, in writing, all

tenants in a project who are receiving Section 8 assistance, of HUD’s
decision not to renew the project’s Section 8 contract.”11

Roughly three days to termination (of subsidy and therefore lease), October 27,

2017, Aishel Real Estate notified tenants of HUD’s choice to end the rental subsidy, eff.

Nov. 1, 2017. See Notice to All Residents at Ex. H. Under Pa. law, tenants are required

to be given at least 30 days notice of termination. 68 Pa. C.S.A. 250.501(c) (2001).

The BHP Aftermath: URA blames HUD for Deal with “Slumlord”

The Pgh Post-Gazette reported, “The city supports efforts by residents and their

legal counsel to address the conditions of these properties and keep them in place if

possible…” 12

On December 14, 2017, the Urban Redevelopment Authority (“URA”) approved

a $500,000 conditional loan for the Bethesda Homewood Redevelop.13 At this “heated”

board meeting, URA member Jim Ferlo partially blamed HUD for making deals with

owners without input from the city. Id. On December 21, 2017, the URA issued a

11
See Page 13-4 of Section 8 Renewal Policy at
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/508FIN_CONSOL_GUIDE6_8_17.PDF
12
See “Facing displacement, Homewood tenants seek Mayor’s help with feds” located at http://www.post-
gazette.com/local/city/2017/11/20/Bethesda-Homewood-Properties-Pittsburgh-HUD-Mayor-
Peduto/stories/201711200185.

13
See “ELDI will purchase troubled East End properties” at
https://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2017/12/21/eldi-will-purchasetroubled-east-end-properties
Request for Proposal, on behalf of the City, to transfer the subsidy to other rental

properties so that the affordable resource can be preserved in the City.14

Current Status of BHP and Tyrone A. Goodwin

Again, the BHP was sold to Omicelo, with a new name, Esperanza Homewood

LLC and property manager, Aegis Realty Partners. See New Management Notice at Ex.

I. Led by Joshua Pollard, C.E.O., Omicelo is a mission-driven real estate investment firm.

Aegis Realty requires Plaintiff to relocate due to “dangerous” housing conditions and/or

face eviction, so Omicelo can rehabilitate apartment building where Plaintiff’s reside.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Legal Standards

Plaintiff must prove: (1) A likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that plaintiff

will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied; (3) that granting preliminary

injunction will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) that the

public interest favors such relief. Fed. R.C.P. 65.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the first two factors of the traditional standard

are the most critical. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009). Moreover, a U.S. District

Court, in a similar case to Plaintiff’s case, said, “These four considerations are factors to

be balanced, not prerequisite that must be met”. Alms Residents Assoc., et. al. v. U.S.

Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., Case No. 1:17-CV-0065 (S.D., Ohio Oct. 12, 2017) (Order

14
See Urban Redevelopment Authority’s Request for Proposal at
http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/1248_URA_BH_Project_Based_Section_8_RFP_Final_12.21.2
017_gs.pdf.
granting motion for a preliminary injunction). Quoting McPherson v. Michigan High Sch.

Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 119 F. 3rd 453, 459 (6th Cir. 1997).

Relief may be granted “with either a high probability of success and some injury,

or vice verse.” Solomon v. Housing Authority of City of Pgh., 6-1155 (W.D. Pa. 2006)

quoting Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm., 772 F.2d 972, 974 (D.C. Cir.,

1985)(per curiam). See The Nation Magazine v. Dept. of State, 805 F. Supp. 68, 72

(D.D.C. 1982).

Plaintiff will Likely to Succeed on Merits

The APA authorizes a reviewing court to hold unlawful and set aside agency

action... found to be...arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law [or] contrary to constitutional right. 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2) (A) and (B)

(2003). See also 5 U.S.C. §§701-706.

Once a Court determines that an agency unlawfully withheld action, the APA

requires the Court to compel agency action. Forest Guardians v. Babbitti, 174 F. 3d

1178, 1187 (10th 1988) (use of the word “shall” in Section 706 (1) means courts “must

compel agency action unlawfully withheld”); accord Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

147 Fed Appx. 302, 307 (3rd Cir. 2005) (“the Supreme Court has articulated the

mandatory nature of the word “shall””).

Plaintiff seeks to compel, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 706(1) discrete agency actions

HUD was legally required to take by Section 223 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act

of 2017, Public Law 115-31, 131 Stat. 785. As demonstrated below, HUD cannot
establish a rational connection between the facts of this case and its choice to terminate

the HAP contract and relocate residents at the BHP.

HUD Violated Section 223 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017

Section 223 imposes discrete procedural and substantive standards on HUD’s

actions to maintain, or abate the project-based Section 8 contract.

Section 223 provides HUD with enforcement authority in the event a housing

project with a Section 8 contract fails inspection and the owner fails to correct the

property’s deficiencies. Under such circumstances, Section 223 requires HUD to take

steps to preserve distressed, project-based housing like the BHP. These preservation

options include, but not limited to, abating rental assistance to individual units were

deficiencies are present, requiring immediate replacement of management, imposing

monetary penalties, abatement, including partial abatement, transferring the HAP contract

to another project; or seek judicial appointment of a receiver. Section 223 (c) (2).

Despite the receiver in the CDE Plan, HUD moved straight to the termination of the HAP

Contract.

Section 223 further requires HUD to make a determination, in consultation with

the affected tenants and the local government, that the property is “not feasible” for

continued rental assistance payments. Section 223 states, in relevant part:

(d) The Secretary shall also take appropriate steps to ensure

that project-based contracts remain in effect, subject to the exercise
of contractual abatement remedies to assist relocation of tenants
for major threats to health and safety after written notice to the
affected tenants. To the extent the Secretary determines, in consultation
with the tenants and the local government, that the
property is not feasible for continued rental assistance payments
under such section 8 or other programs, based on consideration
of—
(1) the costs of rehabilitating and operating the property
 and all available Federal, State, and local resources, including
rent adjustments under section 524 of the Multifamily Assisted
Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (‘‘MAHRAA’’);
and
(2) environmental conditions that cannot be remedied in
a cost-effective fashion, the Secretary may contract for project based
rental assistance payments with an owner or owners
of other existing housing properties, or provide other rental
assistance.

HUD has failed to make such an “infeasibility” determination for the BHP, and

has failed to consult with the tenants and the City about infeasibility as mandated by

Section 223. See Massie v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 620 F.3d 340, 354 (3d Cir.

2010) (Internal citations omitted).

As noted above, the City has expressed its support for the project’s feasibility.

In Massie, the Third Circuit found that HUD failed to make a determination of

non-feasibility before threatening to displace tenants. Id. at 354-56. Yet in Massie, HUD

took many more steps to evaluate the potential of the property and its HAP contract than

has occurred in the instant case. In Massie, HUD completed an “economic feasibility

analysis (Peer Analysis and Comprehensive Repair Survey), including a survey of needed

repairs.” Id. at 355. In this case, HUD neither conducted the economic feasibility study

nor consulted with the affected tenants and City on this feasibility determination.

Section 223 also requires HUD give notice to the affected tenants. In Massie, the

Third Circuit noted even though HUD provided some notice and opportunity to provide

comments, HUD had failed to give tenants any adequate voice in the process and

enjoined HUD from forcing them to relocate. Id. Unlike the tenants in Massie, tenants in

the instant case received no written notice or voice in the process from HUD.

Under the first step of Chevron analysis, HUD’s actions do not fall within the

plain meaning of the Section 223, and so are unlawful. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. at 842-843 (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that

is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the

unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”).

HUD Deprived Plaintiff of Protected Property Interest without Due Process

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person shall “be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [.]”

U.S. Const. amend. V.

Plaintiff has a protected property interest in his lease. See HUD v. Rucker, 535

U.S. 125, 135 (stating it is “undoubtedly true” that tenants “have a property interest in

their leasehold”); see also Davis v. Mansfield Metropolitan Housing Authority, 751 F.2d

180, 184 (6th Cir. 1984). Furthermore, residents in federally subsidized housing, such as

Plaintiff, have a property interest in their tenancies that is protected by the due process

clause. See HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 135 (2002) (unanimous Court stating that it is

“undoubtedly true” that tenants “have a property interest in their leasehold interest”).

Plaintiff’s lease will end automatically if HUD ends subsidy. See Roundtree v.

HUD, No. 5:09-CV-234, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130633, at ** 17-18 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 28,

2009) (finding termination of a housing assistance contract implicated plaintiff’s

Constitutionally-protected property rights).

Courts have recognized a protected property interests in continued housing

assistance under the project-based Section 8 contract derives from this contract, to which

Plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary. Holbrook v. Pitt, 643 F.2d 1261 (7th Cir. 1981) (as

third-party beneficiaries of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contract, certified

tenants have protected property interest in receiving benefits); Lynch v. United States;

accord Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).

Once there is a property interest, then it is entirely for the Courts under the U.S.

Constitution to decide what due process requires. Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill,

470 U.S. 532 (1985) at 541.15 "The fundamental requirement of due process is the

opportunity to be heard `at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Mathews v.

Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552

(1965)). See also Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. at 267-271. In Goldberg, the U.S.

Supreme Court stated procedural safeguards come in many forms, including, inter alia,

“timely and adequate notice,” pretermination hearings, the opportunity to present written

and oral arguments, and the ability to confront adverse witnesses. Id. HUD failed to

provide any notice, hearing, or anything else in both of its termination and relocation.

Additionally, HUD’s failure to adhere to its own regulations violates due process.

HUD did not comply with Section 8 Renewal Policy (written notice); Notice 2015-02

(DEC’s Enforcement Referral); Resident Rights & Responsibilities (Tenant

Participation); HUD’s DRAFT Processes and Procedures for Contract Administration of

Project Based Section 8 Housing (upcoming termination meeting); HUD Handbook

1378: (Notice of Nondisplacement), et. al. Courts have ruled that failure to follow own

regulations in of itself constituted a violation of due process. Service v. Dulles, U.S. ex.

Rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954); Wilkinson v. Legal Servs. Corp., 27 F.

Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 1988); NLRB v. Welcome-American Fertiler Co., 443 F. 2d 19, 20

(9th Cir. 1971); accord Holmes v. New York City Hous. Auth., 398 F. 2d 262, 265 (2d Cir.

15
Erwin Chemerinsky, Procedural Due Process Claims, April 2016, Touro Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 3,
Art. 12, p. 890.
1968) (in finding that an agency’s failure to adhere to written policies violates the

element of due process that requires ascertainable standards, the Second Circuit Court

said: it hardly need to be said that the existence of an absolute and uncontrolled discretion

in an agency of government vested with the administration of a vast program, such as

public housing, would be intolerable invitation to abuse. (emphasis mine). Without

following its own policies, HUD provided no process whatsoever to protect against the

erroneous deprivation of Plaintiff’s protected property interest in lease or relocation

benefits.

HUD Failed to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Rights of BHP Tenant

Under the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), also known as Title VIII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1968, HUD has a duty “to administer the programs and activities

relating to housing and urban development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair

housing”. 42 U.S.C. § 3608(e) (5). Under HUD’s duty to affirmatively further fair

housing it must do more than refrain from discriminating. NAACP v. HUD, 817 F.2d 149,

154 (1st Cir. 1987). HUD must “take account of the effect of their funding decisions

upon the racial and socioeconomic composition of affected areas.” Anderson v.

Alpharetta, 737 F.2d 1530, 1535 (11th Cir. 1984). HUD violates its duty to affirmatively

further fair housing when it makes financial decisions “without considering its effects on

the racial and socio-economic composition of the surrounding area.” Id. at 1537.

Prior to the displacement, HUD failed to take into account its own research,

which stated that the rental housing market in the Pittsburgh is “slightly soft”.16 HUD

16
Office of Policy Development and Research’s Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis: Pittsburgh, PA
(July 1, 2016) at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/pdf//PittsburghPA-comp-17.pdf.
also did not consider the city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy to preserve existing housing

and protect residents.17 Besides, the vouchers are not a guaranteed to finding a suitable

home because landlords are not required to accept them.

HUD also violated the law by proposing a waiver of rights to relocation assistance

and benefits this voluntary relocation, See Uniform Act, 49 CFR Section 24.207 (f).

Plaintiff is Suffering Irreparable Harm

HUD has deprived Plaintiff of his due process rights in the termination of the

HAP Contract. A finding of irreparable injury is mandated if it is found that a

constitutional right is being threatened or impaired when reviewing a motion for a

preliminary injunction. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).

Likewise, “Actions that negatively impact upon a party’s housing condition,

especially if it leads to loss of housing, have frequently been found to cause irreparable

harm. Regency Housing Partners LP v. Regency Park Residents Assoc. (07-20228), U.S.

Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, Trenton Village.

The termination of the HAP contract ended Plaintiff’s lease. There is a realistic

possibility that Plaintiff will become homeless because landlords are not required to

accept housing vouchers and there is already a 17,000 unit shortage of affordable

housing.

Moreover numerous courts have found that the potential loss of subsidized

housing is an irreparable harm for which injunctive relief is appropriate. See e.g.

17
Affordable Housing Task Force Findings and Recommendations to Mayor William Peduto and
Pittsburgh City Council (May 2016) at
http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayorpeduto/FinalReport_5_31_16.pdf.
Gresham v. Windrush Partners, Ltd., 730 F.2d 1417, 1424 (11th Cir. 1984); Bolthouse v.

Continental Wingate Co., Inc., 656 F.Supp. 620, 628-29 (W.D. Mich. 1987); Bloodworth

v. Oxford Village Townhouses, Inc., 377 F.Supp. 709, 719 (D. Ga. 1974); Owens v.

Housing Authority of City of Stamford, 394 F.Supp. 1267, 1271 (D. Conn. 1975); See

also, See Smith v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 737 F. Supp. 2d 702, 714 (S.D. Ohio

2010) (Court found Plaintiffs satisfied irreparable harm prong by offering affidavit

support for their claim that they were unable to afford alternate housing for a two month

period). A reduction in public benefits to impoverished citizens constitutes a clear,

irreparable injury to them. Badri v. Mobile Housing Board, 2011 WL 3665340, at *3

(S.D. Ala. Aug. 22, 2011) (citations omitted).

Injunctive Relief Will Not Result in Harm to HUD

HUD will not be harmed because of their notice, which failed to disclose tenants

can remain at the BHP without the rental subsidy and pay the full rent. Granting of relief

will not harm HUD; it will merely restore the status quo. HUD will continue to pay a

similar amount on behalf of Plaintiff.

The harm to Plaintiff, therefore, greatly outweighs any potential hardship that

may be claimed by HUD. See Cole v. Lynn 389 F. Supp. 98, 105 (D.D.C. 1975)

(granting injunctive relief when faced with balancing hardships of tenants facing eviction,

versus any alleged harm to the Public Housing Authority). See also Bloodworth v.

Oxford Village Townhouses, Inc., 377 F. Supp. 709 (N.D. Ga. 1974).
Public Interest Favors Such Relief

There is a strong public interest is providing protection against relocation from

one’s home, particularly when the affected population is composed of low-income

individuals who rely on government services to provide affordable, safe housing. See

Corby et al. v. Scranton Housing Authority et al., No. 04-2523 (M.D. Pa. 2006). (Judge

Caputo’s memorandum granting a temporary injunction). The public interest is always

served when parties are required to comply with the laws. Id.

“[Mayor] Peduto said his administration is also working with housing advocates

and community organizations to obtain the properties, return them to a suitable condition,

and place them back into the affordable housing market”.18

The URA approved a $500,000 conditional loan for the Bethesda Homewood

Redevelop.19 The URA also issued a Request for Proposal, on behalf of the City, to

transfer the subsidy to other rental properties so that the affordable resource can be

preserved in the City.20

The city’s Affordable Housing Task Force (“AHTF”) has an Inclusionary

Housing Policy. This City policy supports the preservation of existing affordable

18
See “Facing displacement, Homewood tenants seek Mayor’s help with feds” located at http://www.post-
gazette.com/local/city/2017/11/20/Bethesda-Homewood-Properties-Pittsburgh-HUD-Mayor-
Peduto/stories/201711200185
19
See “ELDI will purchase troubled East End properties” at
https://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2017/12/21/eldi-will-purchasetroubled-east-end-properties

20
See RFP at
http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/redtail/images/1248_URA_BH_Project_Based_Section_8_RFP_Final_12.21.2
017_gs.pdf.
housing and protects tenants.21 In addition, the city’s ordinance affirms, “WHEREAS,

the residents of low-income housing in the City deserve every protection the City can

provide for them”. This ordinance, sponsored by Rev. Ricky Burgess, city council in the

6th District, where Plaintiff resides, was written because of the events at the BHP.

BOND SHOULD BE WAIVED

It is well-established that the Court may waive security required by FRCP 65 (c)

for any injunctive relief it grants. The Court requiring the Plaintiff - proceeding in forma

paupers (see Docket 2) and beneficiary of HUD’s federal housing subsidy - to post a

bond would be a substantial hardship. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court

to waive security for any injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION

As the foregoing demonstrates, Plaintiff has met the standards for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests

that the Court enjoin HUD from terminating the Section 8 housing assistance payment in

violation of constitutional and statutory laws.

Respectfully submitted,

21
Affordable Housing Task Force Findings and Recommendations to Mayor William Peduto and
Pittsburgh City Council (May 2016) at http://apps.pittsburghpa.gov/mayorpeduto/FinalReport_5_31_16.pdf
 Tyrone A. Goodwin, Pro Se

7704 Tioga Street, Apartment 6

Pittsburgh, PA 15208

Tgoodwin7704@live.com
EXHIBIT A
PENNSYLVANIA Inspection Scores Release Dates Grouped By City Thursday, November 09, 2017

state_name_text Property Name REMS Inspection Release Inspection Release Inspection Release
Property ID Score1 Date 1 Score2 Date 2 Score3 Date 3

City BETHESDA-HOMEWOOD 800018236 15c* 7/25/2017 9c* 1/27/2017 35c* 4/9/2014

PROPERTIES

City BETHESDA 800018237 93b 7/10/2015 93c* 2/1/2012 52c* 6/2/2010

WILKINSBURG

City BETHOME 800018241 93b 6/16/2015 83c* 1/9/2013 83c 8/29/2007

City BRINTON 800018257 95b 11/30/2015 75b 10/15/2014 82b 11/15/2012

TOWERS

City BRY MARD APTS. 800018268 69c 10/6/2016 79b 7/17/2015 74c 11/15/2012

City CARSON 800018281 93b 10/29/2014 85c 11/28/2012 88b 12/20/2007

TOWERS

City CENTRAL HILL 800018293 99a* 12/9/2014 93b 12/21/2011 74c* 10/20/2010

City CHURCHVIEW GARDEN 800018305 92c* 9/4/2015 91c* 3/14/2012 86c* 4/7/2010
APTS.

City CORA STREET 800018333 35c* 7/11/2002 57c 1/11/2001 82c 4/1/1999
APTS.

City DERAUD STREET 800018357 83b 11/5/2015 71b* 9/30/2014 82b 6/22/2011
APTS.

City DOUGLAS PLAZA 800018367 93c 5/29/2014 87b* 3/7/2012 79c 3/3/2011
APTS.

City DUFF MANOR 800018368 98a 8/18/2016 96c 5/22/2013 92b 3/11/2010

City MAPLE RIDGE 800018374 92c 10/5/2016 89c* 9/9/2014 82c 6/15/2011
APTS.

City EAST LIBERTY 800018375 51c* 6/12/2015 85b* 1/16/2013 85c* 12/9/2009
GARDENS

City NEGLEY 800018376 68c 11/22/2016 96b 12/5/2013 94b 5/19/2010

COMMONS

City EAST MALL 800018377 43c* 9/4/2003 17c 8/22/2002 31c* 5/17/2001
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, DC 20410-0100

07/13/2017

REAL ESTATE ASSESSMENT CENTER

605362 / 800018236

BETHESDA-HOMEWOOD PROPERTIES
224 Penn Ave
Suite 3B
Wilkinsburg, PA 15221 -____

Dear Owner:

This letter transmits by electronic file the most recent physical inspection summary report for your property.
This inspection was performed by an inspector certified by HUD in the use of the inspection protocol and was
performed pursuant to HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 5 and Part 200. These regulations may be viewed on the
REAC website at http://www.hud.gov/offices/reac. This site provides information about REAC and the physical
inspection process and allows you to download a free copy of the inspection software and view deficiency
definitions. Also enclosed is a short description of the elements of the report to assist you in interpretation.

If the inspector noted any exigent health and safety (EH&S) deficiencies at the time of the inspection, you or
your representative received a report listing those deficiencies. You are required to correct all EH&S deficiencies
at your property, not only those deficiencies noted by the inspector. You must repair or mitigate all EH&S items
immediately, and you must file a written report with the local field office using your letterhead, certifying to the
repairs or mitigation of the EH&S items within three (3) business days of the date of the inspection. The attached
certification language must be included in your statement of completion. If your property is assigned to a
Performance-Based Contract Administrator (PB-CA), your certification should be sent to the PB-CA and not to
the local HUD office. If the loan is under the 232 program, your certification should be sent to the Account
Executive with the Office of Healthcare Programs (OHP). Do not send your report to REAC.

Because your property received a score of less than 31, the inspection has been referred to the Departmental
Enforcement Center for enforcement action. HUD may suspend the administrative procedure described in 24
CFR 200 Subpart P when HUD determines it necessary to protect HUD's financial interests and to protect the
residents as provided by 24 CFR 200.857(i)(4). Properties scoring below 31 have physical deficiencies that do
not meet the contractual obligations to HUD. Residents of such properties are not receiving the quality of housing
to which they are entitled. Accordingly, HUD is making a determination that it may proceed to enforcement action
as authorized by existing statutes, regulations, contracts or other documents.

You will be contacted by the Enforcement Center to set up a meeting or discussion on the compliance needs
of your property. However, you should not delay the commencement of repairs to your property pending such a
meeting. You should complete a survey of the physical needs of your entire property. While the REAC inspection
may provide baseline information, be advised that all property repair needs must be corrected. This survey
should be provided to the Departmental Enforcement Center upon your prompt completion.

If you fail to correct the physical deficiencies, fail to correct the EH&S violations, or, fail to provide HUD with
the required certification within the required timeframes, or falsely certify to repairs made, these noncompliance
issues may adversely affect your eligibility for participation in HUD programs. Under HUD's Previous
Participation Review and Clearance Procedure, these noncompliance issues constitute a standard for
disapproval pursuant to 24 CFR Section 200.230(c)(3) and HUD Handbook 4065.1 REV-1, paragraph
2-1(D)(1)(b). Under these circumstances, a flag (disqualifying entry) will be placed in the Active Partner
Performance Systems (APPS) in accordance with the textual "NOTE" at the conclusion of paragraph 2-1(D)(1) of
the above referenced handbook. This letter is the only notice that you will receive of the placing of a flag in the
APPS for noncompliance.

If the mortgage of the property is insured by HUD/FHA, please provide copies of all correspondence
regarding this inspection to your mortgagee.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

SAMUEL TUFFOUR
PROGRAM MANAGER, PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
SUBSYSTEM
Real Estate Assessment Center
Enclosures
Inspection Summary Report (POA) for Inspection #605362

Inspection Snapshot

Inspection ID: 605362 Inspection Time: 08:38 AM - 04:17 PM

Inspection Start Inspection End
Date: 07/11/2017 Date: 07/13/2017
Property ID: 800018236 Property Type: Multifamily
Property Name: BETHESDA-HOMEWOOD PROPERTIES
Inspection State: Successful Score: 15c*

Report generation date/time: 07/13/2017 06:35 PM Score Version: 1 Page: 1 of 143

Report template version: 04/15/2011 Note: The report generation date/time does not reflect the inspection release date/time.
Inspection Summary Report (POA) for Inspection #605362

Property Profile

Property Name: BETHESDA-HOMEWOOD PROPERTIES

Scattered Site? Yes Multiple Site? Yes
Address Line 1: 224 Penn Ave
Address Line 2: Suite 3B
City: Wilkinsburg State: PA
ZIP: 15221 Extension: ____
Phone: (412) 421-4663 Extension:
Fax: (412) 451-2013 Email: rich@aishel.com
Building Units
Type Expected Actual Sampled Expected Actual Sampled
Residential 29 28 23 141 141 23
Common 0 - - -
Total 29 28 23 141 141 23

Occupancy Information
No. of Occupied Units Occupancy Rate Inspect Vacant Units
109 77% Yes

Bed bugs unit 400 N Aiken, 536 Brushton apt 4 & 11, 7371 Hamilton apt C & D. TAC
#2614820. Property has no active HUD loan TAC #2614186. Profile change TAC #2614813.
Comments Letter from local HUD office to exclude 16 units from inspection TAC #2614828.

Report generation date/time: 07/13/2017 06:35 PM Score Version: 1 Page: 2 of 143

Report template version: 04/15/2011 Note: The report generation date/time does not reflect the inspection release date/time.
Inspection Summary Report (POA) for Inspection #605362

Participant Profile

Management Agent [Primary Contact / Present During Inspection]

Name (F, MI, L): Richard Smith
Organization: Western PA Realty LP dba Aishel Real Es
Address Line 1: 224 Penn Avenue
Address Line 2: Suite 3B
City: Wilkinsburg State: PA
ZIP: 15221 Extension:
Phone: (412) 421-4663 Extension:
Fax: (412) 451-2013 Email: rich@aishel.com
Owner [Not Present During Inspection]
Name (F, MI, L): Michael Lehrer
Organization: Homewood Residential, LP
Address Line 1: 551 5th Ave
Address Line 2: Suite 2500
City: New York State: NY
ZIP: 10176 Extension:
Phone: (212) 433-1121 Extension:
Fax: Email: mlehrer@kochingroup.com
Site Manager [Present During Inspection]
Name (F, MI, L): Richard Smith
Organization: Aishel Real Estate
Address Line 1: 224 Penn Avenue
Address Line 2: Suite 3B
City: Wilkinsburg State: PA
ZIP: 15221 Extension:
Phone: (412) 421-4663 Extension: 210
Fax: (412) 451-2013 Email: rich@aishel.com
Other [Present During Inspection]
Name (F, MI, L): Eric Jiggetts
Organization: Aishel Real Estate
Address Line 1: 224 Penn Ave
Address Line 2: Suite 3B
City: Wilkinsburg State: PA
ZIP: 15221 Extension:
Phone: (412) 421-4663 Extension:
Fax: (412) 451-2013 Email: ejiggetts43@gmail.com

Report generation date/time: 07/13/2017 06:35 PM Score Version: 1 Page: 3 of 143

Report template version: 04/15/2011 Note: The report generation date/time does not reflect the inspection release date/time.
Inspection Summary Report (POA) for Inspection #605362

Score Summary

Possible Deductions(Excluding Pre H&S H&S

Area Final Points
Points H&S) Points Deductions
Site 17.89 14.82 3.08 3.08 0.00
Building Exterior 18.90 17.40 1.50 0.49 1.01
Building Systems 16.16 3.68 12.48 4.30 8.18
Common Area 1.76 1.11 0.65 0.29 0.36
Unit 45.29 26.80 18.49 12.67 5.82
Total 100.00 63.80 36.20 20.82 15.38

Score Version: 1 Score Date: 07/13/2017 Final Score: 15c*

Report generation date/time: 07/13/2017 06:35 PM Score Version: 1 Page: 4 of 143

Report template version: 04/15/2011 Note: The report generation date/time does not reflect the inspection release date/time.
Inspection Summary Report (POA) for Inspection #605362

Health & Safety Summary

Site Buildings Units Total Health and Safety Narrative

1 site, 23 buildings and 23 units were inspected.
Non-Life Threatening (NLT)
Actual 10 18 50 78 130 health and safety deficiencies(HSD) were
observed.
Projected 10 22 307 338
Percentage Inspected:
Life Threatening (LT)
Site (PIS): 100%
Actual 0 9 19 28 Building (PIB): 82%
Unit (PIU): 16%
Projected 0 11 116 127
Smoke Detectors (SD) Projected HSD:
Site = (Actual HSDS) / PIS
Actual 0 0 24 24
Building = (Actual HSDB) / PIB
Projected 0 0 147 147 Unit = (Actual HSDU) / PIU
Overall If all buildings and units were inspected, it is
Actual 10 27 93 130 projected that a total of 613 health and safety
deficiencies would apply to the property.
Projected 10 33 570 613

Report generation date/time: 07/13/2017 06:35 PM Score Version: 1 Page: 5 of 143

Report template version: 04/15/2011 Note: The report generation date/time does not reflect the inspection release date/time.
 City of Pittsburgh
510 City-County Building
414 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Legislation Details (With Text)

File #: 2017-2041 Version: 2

Type: Ordinance Status: Passed Finally
File created: 10/24/2017 In control: Committee on Land Use and Economic
Development
On agenda: 10/24/2017 Final action: 11/6/2017
Enactment date: 11/6/2017 Enactment #: 42
Effective date: 11/21/2017
Title: Ordinance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title Ten - Building, by adding a new
Chapter, Chapter 1005: Federally Subsidized Multifamily Rental Properties.
Sponsors: Reverend Ricky V. Burgess
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:

Date Ver. Action By Action Result

11/21/2017 2 Mayor Signed by the Mayor

11/6/2017 2 City Council Passed Finally, As Amended Pass
11/6/2017 2 City Council AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTE Pass
11/1/2017 1 Standing Committee Affirmatively Recommended Pass
10/24/2017 1 City Council Read and referred
Ordinance supplementing the Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title Ten - Building, by adding a new Chapter,
Chapter 1005: Federally Subsidized Multifamily Rental Properties.

WHEREAS, all Pittsburgh residents deserve affordable, clean, decent and safe rental housing; and,

WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) spends billions of
dollars, annually, subsidizing rental units in order that low-income, very low-income and extremely low-income
families have a place to call home; and,

WHEREAS, HUD created the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) in 1998 to provide for a uniform system
of physical inspections and financial assessments of subsidized multifamily housing and the Departmental
Enforcement Center to ensure compliance; and,

WHEREAS, all HUD-subsidized multifamily properties are inspected on a schedule based upon their most
recent REAC scores on a scale of 0-100, with properties scoring 90 and above re-inspected once every three
years, properties scoring between 80 and 89 once every two years and properties scoring 79 and below
annually; and,

WHEREAS, When a property scores below a 60, the property has failed its inspection and as per HUD policy,
federal regulations and federal law, corrective steps must be taken, including but not limited to, suspension or
termination of the federal subsidy; and,

City of Pittsburgh Page 1 of 2 Printed on 3/4/2018

powered by Legistar™
File #: 2017-2041, Version: 2

WHEREAS, the Bethesda-Homewood Properties, located in Homewood, Garfield and Larimer, failed its
inspection in 2013 with a score of 52, failed its inspection in 2014 with a score of 35 and failed its most recent
inspection with a score of 9; and

WHEREAS, had the City been aware of the deteriorating conditions that led to these failing scores the City
would have been able to step in on behalf of the residents before it became a crisis; and

WHEREAS, the residents of low-income housing in the City deserve every protection the City can provide for
them; and

WHEREAS, Council desires, on a consistent, ongoing basis, information on the physical and financial
condition of federally-subsidized multifamily housing in the City of Pittsburgh.

Be it therefore resolved that the Council of the City of Pittsburgh does hereby enact as follows:

Section 1. The Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title Ten, is hereby supplemented as follows:

1005. - Federally Subsidized Multifamily Properties.

The Director of the Department of Permits, Licenses and Inspections on behalf of the City of Pittsburgh shall
request that the local Field Office Director of the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, no less than semi-annually, obtain updated Real Estate Assessment Center (“REAC”) or Uniform
Physical Conditions Standards ("UPCS") Inspection Scores on all HUD subsidized Multifamily Properties and
submit them to the Mayor, Council, and the Department of Permits, Licenses and Inspections, a report on any
properties with a REAC or UPCS score lower than 70.

The Director of the Department of Permits, Licenses and Inspections shall also request that the local Field
Office Director of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development establish a process in
coordination with the Office of the Mayor to provide notice to the Mayor, Council, and the Department of
Permits, Licenses and Inspections, any time a property receives a REAC or UPCS score lower than 70.

City of Pittsburgh Page 2 of 2 Printed on 3/4/2018

powered by Legistar™