AUBURN, Maine — A local woman with multiple disabilities complained to a state agency that Auburn Housing Authority wrongly denied her funding for a spare room she used for exercising.
Pamela Grant, who suffers from multiple physical and mental impairments, told the Maine Human Rights Commission that AHA declined her request for a two-bedroom Section 8 voucher at her apartment at Northern Avenue Heights where she lived since 2008, according to MHRC documents.
On June 11, AHA issued a notice that ended the practice of subsidizing a single-person household at the rate for a two-bedroom subsidy if the additional bedroom was used for exercise equipment.
Grant’s attorney, Patricia M. Ender, sought from AHA a “reasonable accommodation” for Grant’s multiple medical conditions.
The Authority denied her request. Grant claims the denial was a violation of the Maine Human Rights Act.
Barbara Lelli, an investigator at MHRC, concluded there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that AHA denied Grant reasonable accommodation and recommended “conciliation.”
The Commission is set to meet Monday to vote on the case.
Grant had included in her accommodation request a letter from her doctor. Grant needed to use a treadmill and a stationary bike daily “to prevent leg weakness and to maintain her ability to walk” due to weakness and pain in her lower extremities, her doctor wrote. “Please be advised that Ms. Grant has multiple medical illness issues which include chronic pain and neuropathy. She has a condition [affecting] both hips as well.”
Her doctor wrote that all of her exercise equipment won’t fit in a single room.
Grant included in her AHA request photos and a floor plan to help explain her need for the additional room.
In its response to Grant’s complaint, AHA said she had no basis for a claim because she didn’t seek an informal hearing within 14 days of the disputed decision about her subsidy and because she failed to exhaust local administrative remedies before filing a complaint with MHRC.
The local housing authority also said Grant surrendered her Section 8 voucher and subsidized apartment before the rent increase was due to take effect, rendering her complaint “moot and without legal basis.”
The Authority’s Reasonable Accommodation Committee that responds to reasonable accommodation requests met in mid-October to discuss Grant’s request. The committee discussed the availability of space in Grant’s apartment to use the equipment as well as the administrative plan for the Section 8 program, according to the investigator’s report.
Committee members felt that more information was needed and voted to deny Grant’s request and offer her an informal hearing to review AHA’s decision. At that hearing, Grant would have a chance to provide AHA with additional information, the report said.
In response to her request for a two-bedroom apartment voucher, a letter to Grant said, “This does not meet the required elements for a reasonable accommodation as the guidelines for determining voucher size states that for a two-bedroom, the minimum number of persons in the household needs to be two.”
The letter included three alternative suggestions: stay in the two-bedroom apartment and receive a voucher that would pay for a single bedroom unit, move, or seek an informal hearing to review the AHA’s decision.
The Authority argued it might have come up with a satisfactory alternative remedy had Grant decided to seek the informal review, but the AHA never had that opportunity because Grant didn’t ask for that review, AHA said.
Grant was served a notice by her landlord at the end of October that she violated the terms of her lease by “unnecessarily disturbing other tenants in the building.” The notice advised Grant to move out by Dec. 1. Grant moved out on Nov. 30.
If the board were to support the investigator’s recommendation, an out-of-court agreement is encouraged. If the two sides are unable to agree, the board would look to the legal department to recommend whether to take legal action before taking a final vote.
To see more from the Sun Journal, visit sunjournal.com.
One bedroom should work fine. Put exercise machines in larger room and use smaller room as living room. Daybed instead of regular bed. I had a client in a one bedroom subsidized unit. It wouldn’t be Better Homes and Gardens style, but workable and the price is right!
You assessment reminds me of ten pounds in a five pound bag. Sort of like the living space you so cheerily advocate for your “clients” “Day bed instead of regular bed” “It wouldn’t be Better Homes and Gardens style” In other words as long as its not you, you’ve got no problem with it. Your clients really hit the jackpot when they drew you.
Are you advocating that everyone should get a 2 bedroom unit for themselves, subsidized by the government?
>>>>
But because she needs an additional bedroom, additional funds are diverted to her and in all likelihood, someone who needs help as well is missing out due to budget constraints.
Yep. There could be a single mom in a homeless shelter waiting for an apartment to open up. We just have so many resources to go around and the need keeps growing.
>>>>
I agree with you, that mentality is pretty disgusting. At the same time though, it understandable why some might be upset about this woman’s complaints. It’s not like her heat is being shut off — she’s just unable to have an exercise room. I think there must be better and more cost-effective solutions for her problem.
>>>>
The ‘worst’ has happened to me (to a degree), but with a mortgage I didn’t thinking about a handout and put my exercise equipment (which was donated by friends) in my living room.
Friends understand the ‘less than’ decor when they visit. Besides, my one and only TV is there near my kitchen.
No unreasonable handout requests will get my sympathy!
What is annoying is the complete and utter abuse of the taxpayer
funds for these social programs. Now I’m not against them in principal,
I’m against the abuse of them. It sounds as though this woman is a prime
candidate for receiving aid and I’m fine with that. If she’s in need of
exercise equipment for medical treatment and the space to house it, AND
she’s willing to USE it, then so be it!
This “they are living off my dime” mentality is NOT a sickness, it is the cold hard truth!!
That’s not true……if she was eligible for a 2 bedroom unit, then the funding is there, regardless as to she has the subsidy or someone else. If the money wasn’t being used to assist her, then the same funds would be used to assist another eligible applicant, there’s no “savings”; it doesn’t matter WHO is being subsidized. The Housing Authority simply refused to allow her to utilize the voucher funds in accordance to HUD regs. The case is clear and quite simple. Voucher’s are much different than certificates, their funding is at a max, if the tenant is wants to pay more towards the rent for a better place, then they are allowed to do so, up to a point. For example: instead of paying no more than 1/3rd of the income (such as certificates), a voucher holder can pay…say…33 or 35%, and get a better, safer…..and in this case, a much more acommodating place.
*Exactly*
I’m relieved to see at least one other person who isn’t totally stupid on here.
She’s entitled, due to the Maine Human Rights Act *as well as* The Americans With Disabilities Act.
Some of you are functionally illiterate, I swear.
Reasonable accommodation: the Auburn Housing Authority MUST provide a 2BR unit (if available)–for the 1BR unit price (it’s part of federal policy, revenue streaming, & HUD mandates).
The Lewiston Housing Authority is keenly aware of it, too.
Period. Read. The. Statutes.
You’re going to tell me I’m illiterate? My comment has nothing to do with the legality of her claims. That obviously wasn’t my point. Next time, keep the condescension to yourself.
I’ll play devil’s advocate here: If someone has a compulsion to hoard stuff, should that person be granted a second room on the public’s dole?
>>>>
No…..because once a year, HUD requires an inspection. Inspectors would notice the hoarding, and note that corrections need to be made. If it is unsafe, unsanitary, and compromising the property, and the re-inspect concludes that nothing has changed, then the housing authority can evict for lease and program violations.
There are many people out there who could really use 2 bedrooms who only have one (whether they are disabled or not).
No absolutely not. Saying everybody should have a two bedroom unit makes no more sense than saying there are no circumstances where two bedrooms units are justified by individual needs of the “Client”. I can easily imagine the needs under certain circumstances. Some, make that many, of these places are like closets on steroids.
Agreed!! If she was issued a 2 bedroom voucher, then she was, due to her disability,was eligible and in need of it. THEY (the housing authority (or the issuing agency) determined that she was eligible for it, due to her disabilities)…….they, the housing authority cannot say how she uses her 2nd bedroom, which was for exercise equipment.
>>>>
Apparently you read words I didn’t write. I’m simply suggesting a way for this woman to make do with what she has.
For many years I had a treadmill in one corner of the bedroom and a sewing machine in a corner of the living room. Would I have liked a room designated for exercise and another for sewing/crafting? Absolutely. But I culdn’t afford to add on to my house. So I made do with what I had until my oldest went off to college. That’s all I’m suggesting for this woman.
BTW, the client I spoke of used a well known line of cosmetics that I sold many years ago.
Hey, I would like to have a seperate room for equipment but can’t afford one so I don’t get to have one. That’s life without entitlements and the idea that someone has it coming.
I can understand the need to exercise, but get a gym membership, works for most folks.
Good idea. If the person is broke and the state won’t foot the bill; the needy person can always go out an inherit a supermarket chain. Free market is always better than the golden rule. Less danger of being crucified as a bleeding heart eh’ bunky.
Tough luck. Reasonable accomodations are fine, like ramps, larger bathrooms, etc. But go down to any college campus and see the size of the rooms that 2 and 3 kids pile into. Some help is fine, but luxaries shouldn’t be provided — there are some losing out on any kind of help because of these things like exercise rooms.
And they’re leaving those rooms after four years on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars!
hmmm a treadmill and an exercise bike… put them in the living room like I do.
Absolutely! Or walk around the block. Or join the YMCA. There are many answers that don’t require me paying for an extra bedroom!
In these days of budget cuts, we’ll be seeing more stories like this.
yes we will
Reminds me of the couple in Bangor years ago, that was living in a 3 bedroom with nice basement and she applied for a 4 bedroom with a garage, two baths, said sleeping with her husband was stressful, yep she got it, set her backyard pool up, nice car, you name it , neither one worked,even though he was an archeteq ,they since have moved to Florida,wonder how?,maybe that is a thing of the past ?
I do not think anyone who gets FREE housing needs more than one room.
>>>>
If a person has nothing except SSI, or some other type of welfare it means FREE to me.
Also I liked you by accident.
>>>>
OK…..Let’s take, for instance, your Grammy. She recently had a heart attack, but not that bad. However, she lives in senior housing. She now needs another room in order to do what the doctors instructed her to do, walk at least 15 minutes a day, but yet; she doesn’t walk that well….so instead she uses a treadmill in order to get her exercise and strengthen her heart, muscles and bones……According to you, she shouldn’t have a 2 bedroom apt?…….
I’d pay to make sure my Grammy had what she needed.
Some of these people have no one, or no one that cares about them. And are essentially abandoned by, or have outlived family and friends; who are or were in a position to help them. This situation is by no means uncommon anywhere. These folks may be said to be dependent on the compassion and largess of the “community” in Federal, State and Local programs. Examine some of the posts herein and you will see just what a tenuous link so many folks have to the concept of the golden rule or collective responsibility. Dogmatic, axiomatic, fiscal policy is cruelty that will throw the baby out with the bath water. Many, so called flag waving, pinch penny “Americans” profess themselves eager to do just that. Care of the helpless and needy goes back to the very beginnings of the foundations of these United States. By the 18th century care of helpless was a commonly established program everywhere in New England cities and towns. You are to be commended for standing by Grammy but don’t suppose that will rescue others from the desolating meanspiritedness so proudly displayed by so many selfish spiritually impoverished people.
Hey Meplyydog
If it were up to you I get the impression needy folks would get squat! Packing crates are good enough for people to live in; if you have to pay for any part of it. In this life there are many different kinds of poverty and don’t ever imagine that you are not one of the most desperately impoverished souls in your community. You too can be perceived as a burden to those in your community.
Does Auburn give other single tenants 2 bed room units??? Thats the issue here.
before you judge the woman you should personally see her
For cryin’ out loud- she should get out and walk and quit wasting resources. There are any number of ways that she could exercise without needing a second bedroom and any occupational or physical therapist could help her set it up.
>>>>
Good point, us tax payers should foot the bill so she can have body guards and chauffers also. But a normal car probably wouldnt suffice, so it should be a nice stretch limo, and I’m sure she will be thirsty, and regular water wont cut it so it should be imported mineral water.
Wow imagine that, another person not happy with their free handout.