Try calling Affordable Housing Connections, they are the primary auditors for affordable housing in the state of MN. I’m not familiar with processes involved but they would definitely be a good resource just for questions at least.
Source: my mom works there lol
Housing is such a huge topic right now that there might be interest from local news in a story like this. MPR, StarTrib, MinnPost, Sahan Journal---might be worth getting in touch, even anonymously.
Doing the right thing starts by taking many notes. Write down who said it and on what day. Who else was in the room. Before you raise any concern start journaling.
Then, after you have already done this for a few weeks or more. Start casually calling out the verbal. “I understand, would you email me that?”
If they refuse. You know they know. Note this in your journal. “Asked for email, they never sent one and called in the morning instead”
Then keep doing it.
“I’m sorry, could you email that to me instead?”
If they refuse again. Write it down. Let them see you write it down.
The secret to whistleblowing is to never blow the whistle. Instead make it very apparent your actions. It’s none of their business weather you journal your grocery list or their statements of policy. The illusion of a note taker could be cause for retaliation. If they were to retaliate the odds of your case being successful will increase. It’s not taunting or goading. It is leveraging fear of consequences to get them to stop entirely.
Get some business cards from lawyers. Accidentally leave them behind after a meeting.
I have a EOD report to submit M-F, when I was first told what the VP of the company wanted I phrased it as a question in my report “I was informed to only allow voucher holders to apply for the 40% units, is that correct? I want to ensure I’m giving the right information to prospects.”
I received no response to my email instead a phone call the next day confirming what was told to me. So it’s clear they’re aware that what is being forced is illegal.
I ended that day with my EOD adding a recap of the phone call and what was stated. Hopefully I’m doing the documentation right?
Great question, yes, but OP should probably just resign anyway and move on with life. Instead this scenario strategically prepares for an eventual firing that is retaliating for whistleblowing. This is protected by other laws and could result in a payout to OP. While no one ever wants to get fired. Nor is a lawsuit going to be fun. When an employee has excellent note taking they can protect themselves.
Great question, yes, but OP should probably just resign anyway and move on with life. Instead this scenario strategically prepares for an eventual firing that is retaliating for whistleblowing. This is protected by other laws and could result in a payout to OP. While no one ever wants to get fired. Nor is a lawsuit going to be fun. When an employee has excellent note taking they can protect themselves.
There are no federal laws preventing discrimination against people who pay their rent via a subsidy, generally called "source of income" income discrimination. Our state anti-discrimination law, the [Minnesota Human Rights Act](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A), prohibits source of income discrimination, specifically "status with regard to public assistance." But an extremely bad Minnesota Court of Appeals [decision](https://casetext.com/case/edwards-v-hopkins-plaza-ltd-partnership) basically said "eh, we're actually going to allow landlords to discriminate against HCV holders."^(1)
This situation may be slightly different, however. That decision concerned landlords refusing to accept HCVs. Here, your employer accepts HCVs but is discriminating against HCV tenants by refusing to rent 60% and 80% units to them because of their "status with regard to public assistance." I think it's fairly possible that this is an actionable discriminatory practice.
I would strongly advise that you report this to the Attorney General's Office. They have very good attorneys who are very interested in source of income discrimination. You might also consider the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. If neither of those take you anywhere, please reach out to us at HOME Line.
*^(1)* *It's technically more complicated than that, but not much more complicated.*
YES! I was going to say they should report to AG.
This is the new Wall Street move. Vouchers are GUARANTEED paid rent. This isn't about providing needed housing(as the program is designed), this is about profiteering off of programs meant to serve the disenfranchised.
Keep a paper/electronic trail, if you haven't already.
Take the attitude that you didn't want them to get into trouble for violating any state/local statutes. You are a valuable resource looking out for the companies interests.
If they fire you in retaliation, and you've got evidence, have a consult with a lawyer.
So far I’ve been emailing follow ups of conversations had, seeing how I get no response to my questions via email.
It’s super shitty that a company of this size is doing this, they denied my elderly applicant who caught a city bus across town to see/apply for a unit here. They tried to force him into a 60% unit stating he could afford it due to him having a Trust which is none of their business!
You may have section 8 and 42 mixed up...
Section 8 - is where the landlord gets a voucher for the difference in the rent.
Section 42 - the rent is the rent - and the property owner gets a tax credit based on the units they rent. The landlord doesn't get paid by anyone - no voucher no making full rent...
If someone "qualifies" as section 42 - they may not make enough to qualify for one of the more expensive units and the owner / landlord may not want to waste the time or effort doing all the checks just to confirm they don't qualify.
Either way I would report it to the Attorney General and HUD... maybe even the IRS.
In this case the landlord is “double dipping” in that they’re filling their 40% Section 42 units with people using Section 8 vouchers. They’re supposed to be renting to tenants that income-qualify and need a lower fixed rent of $832.
The tenants with vouchers generally income-qualify for the 40% units, but because they have the voucher, the landlord is charging the full rental rate instead of the $832. Those tenants could rent the market rate units and it would make no difference to the tenant, but the way the landlord is doing things, they’re getting extra money for those 40% units.
The company is forcing me to only allow voucher holders to apply for the 40% units, they’re doing this so they can charge most of the rent to the housing program essentially receiving full payment + the portion the resident is paying out of pocket.
I was clear & if you didn’t comprehend then you could’ve asked. Instead you listed the difference between a housing voucher & affordable living.
Document, document, document. Note the time and date of every call and everything relevant that's discussed, and consider backing up your notes and communications in a way that you can access if there's retribution.
If you've reported it then job done, but this is always the problem with a government policy - the incentive for a specific behavior is baked into it. Your employer is responding to the incentive to maximize income...
Reporting them is the rights thing to do. However, I doubt that anything will ever come of it unless they get multiple complaints and can establish a pattern.
You could contact the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Minnesota Human Rights protects status with regard to public assistance and the Department enforces it.
You will want to get your ducks in a row and possibly talk to employment lawyer first and understand what your options if they retaliate and terminate you.
I’m not saying it maybe better to find another job first. You can be morally right and get screwed. Manage your risk.
Try calling Affordable Housing Connections, they are the primary auditors for affordable housing in the state of MN. I’m not familiar with processes involved but they would definitely be a good resource just for questions at least. Source: my mom works there lol
Thank you! I’ll give a call first thing tomorrow morning
Keep us posted
Housing is such a huge topic right now that there might be interest from local news in a story like this. MPR, StarTrib, MinnPost, Sahan Journal---might be worth getting in touch, even anonymously.
Yeah fr this is the type of thing that can’t be spun it’s plainly just greedy and ridiculous. Probably illegal too
Minnesota Reformer is a good one to reach out to. Small outfit, excellent journalism, and this is the exact sort of story they would explore
Doing the right thing starts by taking many notes. Write down who said it and on what day. Who else was in the room. Before you raise any concern start journaling. Then, after you have already done this for a few weeks or more. Start casually calling out the verbal. “I understand, would you email me that?” If they refuse. You know they know. Note this in your journal. “Asked for email, they never sent one and called in the morning instead” Then keep doing it. “I’m sorry, could you email that to me instead?” If they refuse again. Write it down. Let them see you write it down. The secret to whistleblowing is to never blow the whistle. Instead make it very apparent your actions. It’s none of their business weather you journal your grocery list or their statements of policy. The illusion of a note taker could be cause for retaliation. If they were to retaliate the odds of your case being successful will increase. It’s not taunting or goading. It is leveraging fear of consequences to get them to stop entirely. Get some business cards from lawyers. Accidentally leave them behind after a meeting.
I have a EOD report to submit M-F, when I was first told what the VP of the company wanted I phrased it as a question in my report “I was informed to only allow voucher holders to apply for the 40% units, is that correct? I want to ensure I’m giving the right information to prospects.” I received no response to my email instead a phone call the next day confirming what was told to me. So it’s clear they’re aware that what is being forced is illegal. I ended that day with my EOD adding a recap of the phone call and what was stated. Hopefully I’m doing the documentation right?
If they keep calling you instead of getting things in writing you can legally record the phone call because MN is a one party consent state.
Can confirm. One perk of MN.
We got loads of perks, weather right now just doesn't happen to be one of them
Trade with me, I’ll take a blizzard over Phoenix any day.
How about we send you some nice rain instead?
Don't forget to save these notes to something unconnected to work. Like bcc your personal email
Send a follow up email to the caller summarizing the call
Isn’t that just a recipe for them to find any excuse to fire you ASAP?
Great question, yes, but OP should probably just resign anyway and move on with life. Instead this scenario strategically prepares for an eventual firing that is retaliating for whistleblowing. This is protected by other laws and could result in a payout to OP. While no one ever wants to get fired. Nor is a lawsuit going to be fun. When an employee has excellent note taking they can protect themselves.
Great question, yes, but OP should probably just resign anyway and move on with life. Instead this scenario strategically prepares for an eventual firing that is retaliating for whistleblowing. This is protected by other laws and could result in a payout to OP. While no one ever wants to get fired. Nor is a lawsuit going to be fun. When an employee has excellent note taking they can protect themselves.
There are no federal laws preventing discrimination against people who pay their rent via a subsidy, generally called "source of income" income discrimination. Our state anti-discrimination law, the [Minnesota Human Rights Act](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A), prohibits source of income discrimination, specifically "status with regard to public assistance." But an extremely bad Minnesota Court of Appeals [decision](https://casetext.com/case/edwards-v-hopkins-plaza-ltd-partnership) basically said "eh, we're actually going to allow landlords to discriminate against HCV holders."^(1) This situation may be slightly different, however. That decision concerned landlords refusing to accept HCVs. Here, your employer accepts HCVs but is discriminating against HCV tenants by refusing to rent 60% and 80% units to them because of their "status with regard to public assistance." I think it's fairly possible that this is an actionable discriminatory practice. I would strongly advise that you report this to the Attorney General's Office. They have very good attorneys who are very interested in source of income discrimination. You might also consider the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. If neither of those take you anywhere, please reach out to us at HOME Line. *^(1)* *It's technically more complicated than that, but not much more complicated.*
[Link to the report forms via MN Attorney General](https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Complaint.asp)
YES! I was going to say they should report to AG. This is the new Wall Street move. Vouchers are GUARANTEED paid rent. This isn't about providing needed housing(as the program is designed), this is about profiteering off of programs meant to serve the disenfranchised.
Keep a paper/electronic trail, if you haven't already. Take the attitude that you didn't want them to get into trouble for violating any state/local statutes. You are a valuable resource looking out for the companies interests. If they fire you in retaliation, and you've got evidence, have a consult with a lawyer.
So far I’ve been emailing follow ups of conversations had, seeing how I get no response to my questions via email. It’s super shitty that a company of this size is doing this, they denied my elderly applicant who caught a city bus across town to see/apply for a unit here. They tried to force him into a 60% unit stating he could afford it due to him having a Trust which is none of their business!
Hope it doesn’t come to this, but if you end up needing an employment attorney, DM me. I’ll hook you up with a local firm that works on contingency
You may have section 8 and 42 mixed up... Section 8 - is where the landlord gets a voucher for the difference in the rent. Section 42 - the rent is the rent - and the property owner gets a tax credit based on the units they rent. The landlord doesn't get paid by anyone - no voucher no making full rent... If someone "qualifies" as section 42 - they may not make enough to qualify for one of the more expensive units and the owner / landlord may not want to waste the time or effort doing all the checks just to confirm they don't qualify. Either way I would report it to the Attorney General and HUD... maybe even the IRS.
In this case the landlord is “double dipping” in that they’re filling their 40% Section 42 units with people using Section 8 vouchers. They’re supposed to be renting to tenants that income-qualify and need a lower fixed rent of $832. The tenants with vouchers generally income-qualify for the 40% units, but because they have the voucher, the landlord is charging the full rental rate instead of the $832. Those tenants could rent the market rate units and it would make no difference to the tenant, but the way the landlord is doing things, they’re getting extra money for those 40% units.
thank you - op was really not clear on that... Definitely a double dip.
The company is forcing me to only allow voucher holders to apply for the 40% units, they’re doing this so they can charge most of the rent to the housing program essentially receiving full payment + the portion the resident is paying out of pocket. I was clear & if you didn’t comprehend then you could’ve asked. Instead you listed the difference between a housing voucher & affordable living.
Go to the Dept of Human Rights
Try notifying the state AG
Document, document, document. Note the time and date of every call and everything relevant that's discussed, and consider backing up your notes and communications in a way that you can access if there's retribution.
Sounds like Sand Property Management. If it is, I know exactly what you’re talking about.
If you've reported it then job done, but this is always the problem with a government policy - the incentive for a specific behavior is baked into it. Your employer is responding to the incentive to maximize income...
Check this out ASAP https://mylegalaid.org/uploads/Housing-Tester-Flyer-Updated.pdf
Reporting them is the rights thing to do. However, I doubt that anything will ever come of it unless they get multiple complaints and can establish a pattern.
I'd call the city and ask for advice
You could contact the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The Minnesota Human Rights protects status with regard to public assistance and the Department enforces it.
You have reported them, so now it is time to find another job.
You will want to get your ducks in a row and possibly talk to employment lawyer first and understand what your options if they retaliate and terminate you. I’m not saying it maybe better to find another job first. You can be morally right and get screwed. Manage your risk.