Guest MINDSETTER™ Schoos: Burdened Tenants, Evictions, & Still No Access to Justice Commission in RI

Geoff Schoos, GoLocalProv Guest MINDSETTER™

Guest MINDSETTER™ Schoos: Burdened Tenants, Evictions, & Still No Access to Justice Commission in RI

Rhode Island has an affordable housing problem. There isn’t enough affordable housing to meet demand. According to HousingWorks RI, 40% of Rhode Island households rent apartments. These renters, ideally, should spend no more than 30% of their incomes on housing costs, including rent, insurance, utilities, and other housing related expenses. Any more than 30% indicates that the renter is cost burdened.

HousingWorks reports that in 2014, 52% of all renters were cost burdened. This is an increase of 41% since the year 2000. Being cost burdened limits a tenant’s ability to participate in the local economy, with fewer resources devoted to feeding and clothing kids, purchasing transportation, saving money, and meeting the other expenses that we incur in our daily lives.

Being cost burdened can be financially lethal to low-income people, who tend mostly to be utenants. One limitation cost burdens impose is on a tenant’s ability to pay the rent. For example, my agency had a client who received Social Security benefits, who spent 62% of his income on his rent. He had two small kids who needed to be fed and clothed. Needless to say, this created a financial instability that often put him at odds with the landlord.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

Recently, due to reasons not related to his tenancy, he was forced to relocate. The landlord provided him substantial financial support, if he moved within a 90 day period. My client, a friend, and I spent 89 of those days trying to find some place suitable and cost effective for a family of three with limited financial resources. On the 89th day, we obtained an apartment that ultimately consumes 69% of his income. For too many people, cost effective rental housing for low-income households doesn’t exist in Rhode Island.

One of the reasons that he and his family could keep a roof over his head was because my former agency was there for him. As you might guess, my client would eventually run into trouble with the landlord. Being cost burdened required that he adopt a “rob Peter to pay Paul” approach to his monthly finances. That might work for a while but sooner or later Peter wants to get paid.

This is a unique story because my client had legal services to advocate on his behalf. Most low-income tenants don’t have that support. When low-income tenants come to the inevitable decision to pay partial or no monthly rent to the landlord in order to meet other necessary expenses, the landlord will eventually come to collect. And failing collection will start eviction proceedings against the tenant.

The indigent tenant will often either appear pro se, or not appear at the court hearing. Appearing pro se against an experienced attorney is often a fool’s errand, with the outcome not much in doubt. Not appearing will definitely result in a default judgment for possession of the premises and money. An eviction, whether through a contested hearing or by default can seriously erode a tenant’s ability to find housing in the future.

Evictions are catastrophic. They force an evicted tenant to seek housing that is too often substandard. There are many landlords, who exist below the radar, who will provide housing with rodent and insect infestations, inadequate utilities, and housing that is structurally unsound to previously evicted tenants. Many tenants do not complain because they fear being out on the street more than they fear living in unsafe, unsound, and unhealthy squalor.

Tenants too often fare no better in public housing. Section 8 provides subsidized rent either through a public housing facility or by voucher. If a tenant who receives Section 8 subsidies is evicted, he will receive a renter’s death sentence – lifetime exclusion from any subsidized housing program. That tenant then joins the scrum in the private rental market, looking for the holy grail of rentals: a safe, affordable, secure rental unit.

Tenants, even those who wantonly shirk their responsibilities, have rights. One right is to have a fair hearing before a court, one that because of her inability to procure legal assistance doesn’t look like a Star Chamber proceeding. In any court proceeding, especially when one party is represented, due process would dictate that that other party be represented as well. Sadly, that often isn’t the case.

There are efforts to address the challenge of the unrepresented tenant in an eviction proceeding. But these efforts, while important and necessary, will likely fall short of the mark. Providing limited representation and easy access to court forms is a poor substitute for an attorney who is familiar with legal nuance, the formal rules of the court, and is equal in training and experience as the landlord’s attorney on the other side. As I understand these efforts, they are tantamount to placing a knife in the hand of a tenant and sending him on his way to a gun fight.

Our concept of justice requires that all hearings be fair and impartial, and that each of the parties have access to an advocate. When only one side is represented, outcomes are inconsistent, making justice illusory. This is unacceptable.

This begs the overall question: how do we protect the rights of all parties in any adversarial proceeding?  While the District Courts might be consumed with an excessive number of pro se litigants, which studies have indicated puts them at a distinct legal disadvantage, eviction issues only touch the surface of a vast legal iceberg. Indigent litigants are too often unrepresented in domestic relations, debt collections, benefit suspension and appeals matters. What of them?

Four years ago, resources were distributed to Rhode Island for the creation of an Access to Justice Commission and we still have no Commission, leaving well intentioned community and legal advocacy organizations, supplemented by academic resources, to try to resolve these issues of indigent representation and assistance on a piecemeal basis.

Those of us who have worked on these issues don’t need another study to confirm what we know. Nor do we need a limited piecemeal focus on a broad and daunting problem. A litigant’s rights ought not depend on the fact that she falls into the legal category for which limited assistance is available. That’s not justice. That’s a roll of the legal dice.

Four years have passed since resources were awarded by the ABA to establish an Access to Justice Commission. Four years where nothing got started, let alone accomplished. During that time, peoples’ rights were harmed due to inaction and neglect.

This is unacceptable and we can and must do better. This is a solvable problem. What we need is leadership and commitment. An Access to Justice Commission would be a good start.

     

Geoffrey A. Schoos, Esq is the past President of the former Rhode Island Center for Law and Public Policy.            

Rhode Island’s 50 Wealthiest and Most Influential - 2015 Edition

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.