Talking points for protecting DD individual housing choices

These talking points are found on the website of the Wisconsin Council for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. They are in defense of a senior housing project in Arizona called Apache ASL Trails, a project specially designed for seniors who are deaf and use American Sign Language to communicate. The housing project received a complaint from the U.S. Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that they were discriminating against people who were not deaf and therefore in violation of HUD anti-discrimination policies. HUD finally backed down and withdrew its complaint.

This case parallels in many ways the plight of people with disabilities who live in or wish to live in congregate housing and planned communities that are freely chosen by the individuals or their  legal guardians, and meet the unique needs of the people living in these settings.

Many federally-funded advocacy organizations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have insisted that funding through Medicaid waivers and state plan services to people with developmental and other disabilities may be restricted if the settings in which people live are too "institutional" and not  "community" enough as defined by the CMS. [CMS is the federal agency that regulates Medicare and Medicaid.] Influential advocacy groups and the National Council on Disability have gone as far as defining as "institutional" any setting where more than 3 people with disabilities live or receive services together.

Final rules issued by the CMS on Home and Community Based services and settings in January 2014 were modified from earlier versions to answer criticisms from many groups [See the Community Choice Coalition] and individuals who believe that there are many ways of living in a community. Congregate settings are not inherently discriminatory and do not violate the often misinterpreted 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision .

Even facilities that are explicitly defined as institutions (Intermediate Care Facilities for people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,  nursing homes, mental hospitals, and other hospital settings) were not considered inherently discriminatory by the Supreme Court in the Olmstead decision when they are  necessary for people who cannot successfully live in community settings. Individuals may not be removed from institutional care to community care if they do not agree to it. 

The legal underpinning for the talking points on Apache ASL Trails is section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any  program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency. . ."  29 U.S.C. 794 

HUD rules regarding housing discrimination do not justify disqualifying projects such as Apache ASL Trails:

• 24 C.F.R. 8.4(b)(1)(iv) allows recipients of Federal funds to provide different or separate housing to individuals with handicaps, or to any class of individuals with handicaps, if such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with handicaps with housing that is as effective as the housing that is provided to others. 
• 24 C.F.R. 8.27 requires that accessible units be marketed to individuals who need the accessibility features of the units, and that the accessible units first be offered to individuals who need the accessibility features of the unit. 
• 24 C.F.R. 8.22(c) allows HUD to approve a higher percentage of accessible units than the minimum percentages required by the regulations. This approval can be based on any available current data or evidence of a need for a higher percentage, and the regulations do not prohibit a property from making all of its units accessible to individuals with hearing or vision impairments.

According to the Talking Points:

• HUD’s insistence upon an arbitrary 25% limit on the number of accessible units that can be rented to people with disabilities who need the accessible features has no basis in Section 504 or its implementing regulations and would in fact be a violation of 24 C.F.R. 8.27. 
• Any quota, by definition, violates 24 C.F.R. 8.27 and discriminates against individuals with disabilities. The protections of federal disability rights laws are not first come, first served.

CMS and other federal agencies are also subject to Section 504 anti-discrimination rules, regardless of an agency's attempts to use anti-discrimination law to limit access to benefits and housing choices that the agencies and many advocacy groups would like to eliminate.

Old News is Good News for Disability Housing Choices

I missed this story in January, but it is an important one. 

Remember the foofaraw in April of 2013 when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) decided that a housing project for deaf seniors in Arizona was discriminating against the non-deaf by allowing too many deaf people to live there? It even made the New York Times in an article entitled "A Haven for the Deaf Draws Federal Scrutiny Over Potential Discrimination" by Fernanda Santos, 4/28/13. The project called  Apache ASL [American Sign Language] Trails is specifically designed to meet the needs of people who are deaf and use American Sign Language as their mode of communication.

These are excerpts from a press release from the Arizona Department of Housing dated 1/24/14: 

STANDOFF WITH HUD OVER DEAF HOUSING COMMUNITY ENDS

Tempe, Ariz. – Ending a two-year legal standoff over the award-winning Apache ASL Trails community, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) today announced that it has withdrawn its Letter of Findings and closed the investigation involving Apache ASL Trails. In a letter to Director Michael Trailor of the Arizona Department of Housing, HUD concluded that Section 504 does permit Apache ASL Trails to give priority in rental to those individuals who need the accessibility features of the units.

Today’s resolution comes with a promise from HUD that it will permit Apache ASL Trails to continue offering priority to applicants who need the unique accessibility features provided at the community.

Trailor, who has long championed the rights of deaf Arizonians to have full and equal opportunity to access the housing of their choice, applauded today’s resolution, saying, “All citizens have the right to be a vibrant part of their community, to choose where they want to live.”

After receiving approval from HUD in 2008 to build the low income apartment complex to provide accessible housing to individuals who were deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind, the 75 unit apartment complex in Tempe, Ariz., called “Apache ASL Trails” opened its doors and quickly became a thriving, barrier free, and vibrant community. In June of 2011, Apache ASL Trails won the prestigious Charles Edson Tax Credit Excellence Award for Accessible Design. Days later, HUD issued a Letter of Findings that placed a cloud over the successful community, saying that too many deaf people lived at Apache ASL Trails. The State of Arizona, in support of Apache ASL Trails challenged the Letter of Findings and the two-year standoff began. In February of 2013, HUD issued a letter directing the City of Tempe to terminate the Section 8 vouchers that had been promised.....

Perhaps more important than the physical features is the embracing of culture and language that allows residents to communicate in American Sign Language with the manager, their neighbors and with the hairdresser, doctor, and other service providers who have offices on the first floor. Hearing residents are provided interpreters so that they too can participate in the active social life at Apache ASL Trails. The motto of this wonderful and accessible housing is “Banish Extreme Loneliness.”.......

This resolution comes as a great relief to the residents, who have eloquently asserted their rights to be a part of their community and to have housing that is both safe and barrier free....

******************************
Excerpts from the letter to HUD from the National Association of the Deaf, 4/25/13 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(29 U.S.C. § 701)

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States,... shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Development Disabilities Act of 1978..."

HUD: Housing for hearing-impaired has too many deaf residents

"It's nice to have a life that's equivalent to other people that are not deaf," said resident Linda Russell. "This building is designed for deaf people, by deaf people, and we know what is best for our needs. And people that don't understand our needs, should not be putting themselves in decision-making positions for us." Resident of Apache ASL Trails senior housing project.

According to a report from FoxNews.com, 10/21/13, "Feds try to eliminate housing for the deaf -- at complex built for hearing-impaired", the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is telling Apache ASL Trails in Arizona, a housing project for deaf seniors, that they are discriminating against the non-deaf.

A memo from HUD on the housing project says, "A preference or priority based on a particular diagnosis or disability and excluding others with different disabilities is explicitly prohibited by HUD's Section 504 regulations…There is no legal authority contained in any of Apache Trails funding to permit such a priority or preference." 

Even though HUD approved the apartment building project in 2008 and helped fund it,  HUD is now "…threatening to pull all federal housing aid to Arizona unless it limits the number of hearing-impaired residents to 18 people." 

According to the report, "All 74 units at Apache ASL Trails accommodate wheelchairs. Blinking lights signal when the doorbell rings and when utilities like the garbage disposal and air conditioning are running. A video phone lets residents 'talk' with friends." Ninety-percent of the units are currently occupied by deaf and deaf-blind seniors, but HUD wants to impose a quota of only 25% hearing-impaired residents.

The dispute over the Apache senior housing project is a continuation of HUD complaints covered in an article on April 28, 2013 in the New York Times:  "A Haven for the Deaf Draws Federal Scrutiny Over Potential Discrimination". 

One rationale used by HUD in claiming discrimination by the Arizona housing project is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act .

According to the HUD website on people with disabilities:
 
"Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states: No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States. . .shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program, service or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. (29 U.S.C. 794). This means that Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program or activity that receives financial assistance from any federal agency, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as in programs conducted by federal agencies including HUD."

On the website explaining the jurisdiction of HUD in answering complaints of housing discrimination there is an example of when a specific disability may be an eligibility requirement of participation in a program:

"HUD considers several factors in determining if it has jurisdiction to investigate the complaint. … the Department must determine whether the individual, or the person the individual represents, is a person with a disability as defined by Section 504. The Department also must determine if the individual is "otherwise qualified" for the program or activity alleged to have discriminated. …In some cases, disability may also be an eligibility factor. For example, if a housing program is set up under the Department's Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program, and the complainant's only disability is a visual impairment, the person would not be qualified for the HOPWA project because that project is designed to meet the needs of persons with AIDS. [emphasis added] Therefore, HUD would lack jurisdiction to process this complaint under Section 504."

Under some circumstances, a specific disability is a criteria for eligibility for a federally funded program and people with other disabilities may be excluded. 

Other ironies abound: This is a senior housing project, but apparently there is no charge that younger people are being discriminated against. Although 90% of the residents at Apache are hearing-impaired, 10% are not, . How can the claim be made that non-deaf people are excluded? No actual person has claimed that they have been discriminated against by the project. It appears that only HUD has gone through the mental contortions necessary to justify a charge that actual discrimination is occurring at Apache ASL Trails housing project.

What's next? Hospitals discriminate against the non-sick? Jails discriminate against non-criminals? High Schools discriminate against 5-year-olds? Soccer leagues discriminate against the soccer-impaired?