INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Section 8

Citation
Section 8
Parent Document
Theodore Hayes v. Philip Harvey, 874 F.3d 98 (2017)
Effective Date
2017-10-18
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4435296/theodore-hayes-v-philip-harvey/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (260)

Full Text

1,083 chars 
5
         The dissent suggests, grounding its argument in what
Congress “might . . . have perceived” or what it “might well
have weighed,” that because the “set of landlords affected [by
the enhanced voucher provision] is small and, more
importantly, relatively fixed . . . there is less need to encourage
landlord participation” in the program. Dissenting Op. at 10–
11. We disagree. We find no reason that Congress would
encourage property owner participation in project-based
programs to any lesser extent than it encourages participation
in the voucher programs. Although by the time owners are
actually affected by the enhanced voucher provision their
numbers are “relatively fixed,” an owner can today decide to
participate in a project-based program, and later, to opt out.
Thus, the number of prospective participants in project-based
programs is not necessarily fixed. Encouraging participation in
both assistance programs, in part by avoiding tying the hands
of property owners upon the expiration of rental agreements, is
required to realize section 8’s explicit purpose.