11-006126 Ricardo Lockett vs. Miami-Dade County Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 31, 2012.

Summary: Petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed unlawful housing discrimination in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.

Case No. 11-6126

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RICARDO LOCKETT, RECOMMENDED ORDER )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted in this case

pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes,

before Cathy M. Sellers, an Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"), on August 20,

2012, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Terrence A. Smith, Esquire

Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office

Suite 2810

111 Northwest 1st Street

Miami, Florida 33128

For Respondent: Ricardo Lockett, pro se

Post Office Box 430612

Miami, Florida 33243

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against

Petitioner on the basis of race, in violation of the Florida

Fair Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida

Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 5, 2011, Petitioner, an African-American adult

male, filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint with the United

States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"),

alleging that Respondent, Miami-Dade County, through the Miami-

Dade Public Housing and Community Development Department 1 / and

Alix Cedras, site manager for the Perrine Gardens Public Housing

Development, had unlawfully discriminated against him on the

basis of race, in violation of section 804 of the federal Fair

Housing Act of 1988, by steering him into housing that

predominantly served African-Americans. HUD conducted an

investigation and issued a determination that there was not

reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing

practice had occurred.

HUD forwarded the Complaint to the Florida Commission on

Human Relations ("FCHR") for investigation. On November 9,

2011, the FCHR issued a Notice of Determination of No Cause,

determining that reasonable cause did not exist to believe that

a discriminatory housing practice had occurred and dismissing

the Complaint.

On November 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for

Relief ("Petition") alleging that Respondent unlawfully

discriminated against him in violation of the Florida Fair

Housing Act by steering him, through its rental offer, into a

predominantly black public housing community. The FCHR

forwarded the Petition to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and

conduct of an administrative hearing pursuant to sections

120.569 and 120.57(1).

The final hearing initially was set for February 6, 2012;

pursuant to motion filed by Petitioner, the hearing was

rescheduled for April 18, 2012. On April 13, 2012, pursuant to

the parties' request, the case was placed in abeyance to

accommodate settlement discussion. On May 15, 2012, the parties

informed the undersigned that despite their good faith efforts,

they were unable to resolve the claim and requested that the

matter be scheduled for final hearing.

The final hearing was held on August 20, 2012. Petitioner

testified on his own behalf and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1,

2, 2A, and 5 through 9, which were admitted into evidence

without objection. Respondent presented the testimony of Marie

Santiague, Janie Hicks, Arlina Mendoza, and Alix Cedras, and

offered Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 9, which were admitted

into evidence without objection.

The two-volume Transcript was filed on September 24, 2012,

and the parties were given ten days in which to file their

proposed recommended orders. Respondent timely filed its

Proposed Recommended Order on September 27, 2012, and Petitioner

timely filed his Proposed Recommended Order on October 2, 2012.

Both Proposed Recommended Orders were considered in preparing

this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Parties

1. Petitioner is an African-American adult male. He is a

United States military veteran. 2 /

2. Respondent is a political subdivision of the State of

Florida and is a public housing authority within Miami-Dade

County.

II. Respondent's Housing Programs

3. Respondent owns and operates between 9,000 and 10,000

public housing units.

4. Through its Public Housing and Community Development

Department, Respondent administers several public housing

programs, including the Section 8 and non-Section 8 public

housing programs, which receive federal funding from the United

States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"). 3 / To

receive federal housing assistance funding from HUD, Respondent

must maintain an occupancy rate of at least 95 percent at its

individual public housing properties.

5. HUD regulations govern the admission of persons into

Respondent's Section 8 and non-Section 8 public housing

programs.

6. Respondent has adopted its own public housing policies

in a document entitled the "Admissions and Continued Occupancy

Policy" ("ACOP"). 4 / This document sets forth Respondent's

policies governing its public housing programs, including

policies to ensure compliance with HUD housing regulations and

the United States Housing Act of 1937. HUD reviews and approves

the ACOP.

7. On or about June 6, 1998, Respondent and HUD entered

into a Consent Decree to resolve a class action lawsuit brought

by past, present, and future black residents of Respondent's

public housing, alleging that Respondent, in providing public

housing, discriminated against them on the basis of race in

violation of, among other things, the United States Fair Housing

Act of 1937. Adker v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban

Dev. , Case No. 87-0874 CIV-PAINE (Consent Decree June 6, 1998).

The Consent Decree went into effect on or about August 2, 1999,

and expired on August 2, 2009. 5 /

8. The Consent Decree required Respondent to establish a

tenant-based 6 / waiting list and a project-based 7 / waiting list for

admission into Respondent's public housing programs.

9. The Consent Decree also required Respondent to

establish a neutral lottery system to rank the housing

assistance applications it received. Through the lottery

system, each applicant was assigned two ranking numbers, one for

the tenant-based waiting list and one for the project-based

waiting list.

10. Even though the Consent Decree no longer is in effect,

Respondent continues to maintain its project-based and tenant-

based waiting lists and its lottery ranking system pursuant to

the ACOP.

11. Because the demand for public housing assistance

greatly exceeds the availability of units, Respondent opens

registration for housing assistance only when units become

available. At that time, persons who wish to qualify for

housing assistance complete an online web application to be

placed on the waiting lists.

12. Waiting list rankings are randomly assigned by

computer, and each applicant is assigned separate ranking

numbers for the project-based waiting list and for the tenant-

based waiting list. Applicants move up the waiting lists

sequentially based on ranking number; for the project-based

waiting list, the type and size of unit requested also

determines movement up the list.

13. Housing assistance recipients are selected through the

waiting lists. Once an applicant moves to the top of the

waiting list, he or she is contacted to participate in a

preliminary eligibility interview. Eligibility is determined

based on annual gross income, qualification pursuant to an

eligibility category, 8 / citizen or eligible immigration status,

and other factors. 9 /

14. To enable Respondent to determine whether an applicant

has any special needs that must be accommodated in assigning a

housing unit, each applicant must complete a Reasonable

Accommodation Request Questionnaire ("RARQ"). 10 / If an applicant

identifies a need for special accommodation on the RARQ, the

applicant must then submit a Reasonable Accommodation Request

Form ("RARF"), and a Reasonable Accommodation Request

Verification form ("RARV") completed by a health care provider.

Both of these forms must be submitted for an applicant to be

assigned a unit based on need for special accommodation.

15. The first qualified applicant in sequence on a waiting

list is offered a unit of appropriate size and type. If more

than one unit that meets the applicant's specified needs is

available, the applicant is given a choice of units.

16. Once an applicant accepts an offer, Respondent

forwards the applicant's file to the specific housing site for

which the offer was made. A final determination of the

applicant's eligibility, including a review of the applicant's

income, verification of other requirements, and rent calculation

is made at the specific housing site. If determined eligible,

the applicant signs the lease and moves into the unit.

17. The ACOP states the circumstances under which an

applicant's name will be removed from a waiting list, unless

good cause is shown. 11 / These circumstances are that the

applicant receives and accepts an offer of housing, requests

that his or her name be removed from the waiting list, or is

determined ineligible for assisted housing; or that an

application is deemed withdrawn under specified circumstances,

including that the applicant failed to respond to the offer or

failed to attend the leasing meeting.

18. If an applicant is removed from the waiting list,

Respondent provides written notice and informs the applicant

that he or she has the right to request an informal review of

the removal decision and to present information justifying

reinstatement to the waiting list. 12 /

19. Respondent generates a current list of available

housing units on a daily basis. Respondent does not maintain a

historic list of the specific units that were available on a

particular date. 13 /

III. Petitioner's Housing Assistance Application

20. Respondent opened its public housing assistance

registration in 2008 and received over 72,000 applications.

21. On or about July 30, 2008, Petitioner submitted a 2008

Waiting List Web Application to Respondent, seeking public

housing assistance. Petitioner specified in his application

that he needed a three-bedroom unit to accommodate himself and

his two children. 14 /

22. Pursuant to Respondent's lottery ranking system,

Petitioner was assigned ranking numbers 6,352 for the project-

based waiting list and 68,187 for the tenant-based waiting list.

23. Based on Petitioner's project-based waiting list

ranking number, Respondent contacted Petitioner to interview for

eligibility for public housing. Respondent interviewed

Petitioner on or about December 2, 2009.

24. As part of the interview, Petitioner was required to

complete various forms, including the RARQ form. Respondent's

eligibility screener, Marie Santiague, completed the top portion

of the RARQ. The RARQ listed a series of responses to the

question "[d]o you (head of household or any member or your

family require any of the following:" For response number 3,

Ms. Santiague checked "yes" and circled the word "elevator." On

the portion of the form entitled "Reason for Needing Feature,"

Ms. Santiague wrote the word "elevator." At hearing,

Ms. Santiague testified that she was in training during this

period and completed every applicant's RARQ in this manner,

whether or not the applicant had requested a unit having an

elevator.

25. Petitioner credibly testified that he did not request

a housing unit with an elevator because neither he nor his

children needed such an accommodation. He emphatically denied

that he signed the RARQ. 15 /

IV. Respondent's Offer and Petitioner's Acceptance

26. Based on Petitioner's request for a three-bedroom

unit, on or about December 11, 2009, Respondent offered

Petitioner Unit No. 077032 ("Unit" or "Perrine Unit") at the

Perrine Gardens Public Housing Development ("Perrine Gardens"),

16800 Southwest 106th Avenue, Miami. The Unit is part of a 32-

unit single family residential site that is physically separate

from, but a part of, Perrine Gardens.

27. The persuasive evidence establishes that the Perrine

Unit was the only three-bedroom unit available, so was the only

unit offered to Petitioner. The persuasive evidence also

establishes that had other three-bedroom units been available,

Petitioner would have been offered a choice of units.

28. Respondent's offer letter directed Petitioner to

contact the site manager or visit the site's management office

if he wished to see the unit, and to respond to the offer by

December 17, 2009, to avoid having his name removed from the

project-based waiting list. The offer letter further stated:

"[a]ccepting this offer requires that you contact the site

manager within 5 working days to complete your eligibility

process, failure to do so may result in your name being removed

from the 2008 project based programs."

29. Petitioner accepted Respondent's offer to rent the

Perrine Unit on December 15, 2009. He later visited Perrine

Gardens and site manager Alix Cedras showed him the Unit.

30. The Unit was a three-bedroom single story home without

an elevator.

31. The persuasive evidence establishes that in assigning

the Unit to Petitioner, Respondent did not consider the RARQ

form that Ms. Santiague filled in during Petitioner's initial

eligibility interview. Specifically, Respondent assigned

Petitioner to a single story, non-elevator unit, notwithstanding

that Ms. Santiague circled and wrote the word "elevator" on the

form. Moreover, Petitioner never completed and submitted the

RARF and RARV forms, both of which would have been required for

Petitioner to have been assigned a unit based on an

accommodation request.

V. Refusal to Move Into the Perrine Unit

32. During the timeframe relevant to this proceeding, the

racial composition of Perrine Gardens predominantly was African-

American, with a smaller number of Caucasian Hispanic tenants

also residing in the development.

33. After being shown the Unit, Petitioner walked around

the neighborhood and became concerned that the Unit was not

located in a desegregated area. At hearing, he testified that

he was particularly concerned about the quality of schools and

potential for crime in the area. He acknowledged that these

concerns were based on his own assumptions rather than on any

specific evidence.

34. On or about January 20, 2010, Mr. Cedras sent

Petitioner a letter setting forth two rental payment options for

the Unit, a flat rent option and an income-based option.

35. In a February 1, 2010, letter to Mr. Cedras,

Petitioner disputed the rental options presented and asserted

the he should have been presented a zero-income option, which he

claimed was appropriate since at the time he accepted the offer

for the Unit, he was unemployed and had no income. He was

concerned that he could not afford the calculated rent because

he was in the process of transitioning from one unemployment

compensation tier to another and did not know the specific

amount of unemployment he would receive. 16 /

36. By letter dated February 2, 2010, Mr. Cedras notified

Petitioner that Respondent was not able to further delay his

move into the Unit, and requested that Petitioner be present at

the Perrine Gardens management office on February 11, 2010, to

sign the lease and complete all other documents necessary to

move into the Unit. The letter stated: "[f]ailure to respond

and comply with this invitation will result in our returning

your file to the Application and Leasing Office for further

action."

37. Petitioner did not complete the leasing process as

directed by Respondent and did not move into the Unit.

38. By letter dated March 24, 2012, Respondent notified

Petitioner that his name had been removed from the 2008 project-

based waiting list for failure to move into the Unit. 17 /

39. Petitioner requested and received informal review of

the decision to remove his name from the project-based waiting

list; the informal review affirmed the decision.

40. Respondent subsequently offered the Perrine Unit to a

Caucasian Hispanic female, who accepted the offer and resides in

the Unit.

41. Petitioner claims that Respondent unlawfully

discriminated against him on the basis of race by steering him

to a unit in a public housing project having a predominantly

black resident population. 18 / In making this claim, Petitioner

asserts that by only offering him a unit in a project having a

predominantly black resident population, Respondent effectively

rejected him as a tenant, or refused to rent him a unit, in a

predominantly non-black project.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

42. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes.

43. Florida's Fair Housing Act is codified at sections

760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes. Section 760.23

provides in pertinent part:

760.23 Discrimination in the sale or rental

of housing and other prohibited practices.—

(1) It is unlawful to refuse to sell or

rent after the making of a bona fide offer,

to refuse to negotiate for the sale or

rental of, or otherwise to make unavailable

or deny a dwelling to any person because of

race, color, national origin, sex, handicap,

familial status, or religion.

(2) It is unlawful to discriminate against

any person in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling,

or in the provision of services or

facilities in connection therewith, because

of race, color, national origin, sex,

handicap, familial status, or religion.

44. Florida's Fair Housing Act is modeled after the

federal Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, federal case law

involving housing discrimination is instructive and persuasive

in interpreting section 760.23. Loren v. Sasser , 309 F.3d 1296,

1300 n.9 (11th Cir. 2002); Dornbach v. Holley , 854 So. 2d 211,

213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

45. In cases involving a claim of unlawful housing

discrimination under section 760.23, the petitioner has the

burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination. Sec'y, Housing and Urban Dev. ex

rel. Herron v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870 (11th Cir. 1990).

The petitioner's failure to do so ends the inquiry. See

Ratliffe v. State , 666 So. 2d 1008, 1012 n.6 (Fla. 1st DCA),

aff'd 679 So. 1183 (Fla. 1996)(citing Arnold v. Burger Queen

Systems , 509 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)). However, if the

petitioner establishes a prima facie case, then the burden

shifts to the respondent to articulate some legitimate, non-

discriminatory reason for its action. Texas Dep't of Cmy.

Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981)(evidence of a

nondiscriminatory reason need only be sufficient to raise a

genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged

discrimination); Budnick v. Town of Carefree , 518 F.3d 1109,

1114 (9th Cir. 2008). If the respondent meets this burden, then

the burden shifts back to the petitioner to establish, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the reason articulated by

the respondent is merely a pretext to conceal unlawful

discrimination. Massaro v. Mainlands Section 1 & 2 Civic Ass'n,

Inc. , 3 F.3d 1472, 1476 n.6 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied , 513

U.S. 808 (1994); Soules v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urb. Dev. ,

967 F.2d 817 (2d Cir. 1992).

46. To establish a prima facie case of housing

discrimination based on race, Petitioner must demonstrate each

of the following elements: (1) he is a member of a protected

class; (2) he applied for and was qualified to rent a public

housing from Respondent; (3) Respondent rejected his application

or refused to rent him a unit; and (4) the unit was rented to a

member of a non-protected class. See Selden Apartments v. HUD ,

785 F.2d 152, 159 (6th Cir. 1986); Nat'l Housing Alliance v.

Town & Country-Sterling Heights , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5142

(E.D. Mich. 2009).

47. Petitioner is African-American and thus is a member of

a class protected under the Fair Housing Act. Accordingly, the

first element of Petitioner's housing discrimination claim is

met.

48. Petitioner also satisfies the second element of his

housing discrimination claim. He applied to rent, and, pursuant

to Respondent's established application and qualification

processes, was determined qualified to rent a public housing

unit.

49. Petitioner has not shown that he meets the third

element of his housing discrimination claim. Respondent offered

Petitioner a housing unit, and Petitioner accepted the offer.

Petitioner subsequently decided, on his own volition, not to

move into the unit, and as a result, was removed from the

project-based waiting list. Further, the evidence does not

establish that Petitioner was steered into a predominantly black

housing project by being rejected or refused a unit in a

predominantly non-black housing project. To the contrary, the

persuasive evidence establishes that at the time Petitioner was

extended an offer, the Perrine Unit was the only available unit

that fit his need for a three-bedroom unit 19 / and had other

three-bedroom units been available, Petitioner would have been

offered a choice of these units. The evidence also does not

support Petitioner's contention that the RARQ was used to steer

him into a unit that he did not request. As discussed above,

for Respondent to assign a unit based on a reasonable

accommodation request, not only must the RARQ be completed, but

the RARF and RARV forms also must be completed and submitted; it

is undisputed that Petitioner did not complete or submit these

forms. Moreover, the Perrine Unit was a single-story house

without an elevator; thus, it is apparent that Respondent did

not consider Petitioner's RARQ in assigning him the Unit. In

sum, the evidence does not establish that Petitioner was

rejected from, or refused offers for, units in predominantly

non-black housing projects, and that he was instead steered to

Perrine Gardens based on his race. See Gladstone Realtors v.

Bellwood , 441 U.S. 91, 94 (1979)(racial steering entails

directing prospective purchasers or renters to different areas

according to their race).

50. Petitioner also has not satisfied the fourth element

of his housing discrimination claim. Only after Petitioner

accepted the Perrine Unit and subsequently chose not to move in

was it offered to a white person. Further, Petitioner did not

present evidence showing that three-bedroom units were available

in predominantly non-black housing projects and that these units

were offered to whites rather than to him.

51. For these reasons, Petitioner did not establish the

elements of his housing discrimination claim by a preponderance

of the evidence. Accordingly, he failed to prove that

Respondent unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of

the Florida Fair Housing Act.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on

Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Respondent

Miami-Dade County did not unlawfully discriminate against

Petitioner Ricardo Lockett in violation of the Florida Fair

Housing Act, sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2012, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CATHY M. SELLERS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of October, 2012.

ENDNOTES

1/ The Miami-Dade Public Housing and Community Development

Department is now responsible for administering the housing

programs that formerly were the responsibility of the Miami-Dade

Public Housing Agency.

2/ Petitioner was to receive housing assistance through the

Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. He

currently resides in a one-bedroom unit subsidized by the Miami

Beach Housing Authority Section 8 rental assistance program.

3/ Respondent and HUD annually execute an Annual Contribution

Contract, which authorizes Respondent to administer the Section

8 and non-Section 8 housing programs.

4/ The 2008 Revision to the ACOP was in effect when the events

giving rise to this proceeding occurred. The ACOP was revised

in 2010 and 2012.

5/ While the Adker Consent Decree was in effect, Respondent was

required to consider an applicant's race in making offers for

housing assistance for both the tenant-based and project-based

waiting lists. The Consent Decree required public housing

offers to be desegregative, and established percentages of

tenant-based and project-based vacancies required to be offered

to black applicants who met the qualifying criteria to be

members of the mobility pool. For project-based vacancies,

desegregative offers were defined as offers in a development in

which the household's race does not predominate, i.e., does not

exceed 65 percent. For tenant-based vacancies, desegregative

offers were defined as offers in a neighborhood in which the

race of the household receiving the offer does not predominate,

i.e., in which no more than 65 of the population is the same

race as the household receiving the offer.

6/ "Tenant-based" assistance means rental assistance through the

Section 8 voucher program that is not project-based and that

allows for an eligible family to select suitable housing and to

move to other suitable housing. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. Under

Respondent's 2008 ACOP, the tenant-based waiting list included

the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the voucher program for the

disabled, and the Project-Based Voucher Program.

7/ The term "project-based" assistance means rental assistance

under which a housing project owner reserves units for rental by

eligible persons and the federal government pays the difference

between the tenant's contribution and the rent established by

contract between the owner and the federal government. See id .

Under the 2008 ACOP, the project-based waiting list included

conventional public housing, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation,

and Respondent-owned Section 8 New Construction.

8/ Persons must qualify as a family, as an elderly person, or as

a person with a disability.

9/ Other factors specified in the ACOP for which documentation

must be provided include social security status information and

legal capacity.

10/ Respondent executed a Voluntary Compliance Agreement ("VCA")

with HUD to address deficiencies in its housing, non-housing

facilities, and administrative offices for purposes of complying

with the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act,

the Architecture Barriers Act, and the Uniform Federal

Accessibility Standards. Respondent included the RARQ in its

application review process to help ensure compliance with the

VCA.

11/ Applicants who do not accept offers must show "good cause"

to remain on Respondent's waiting lists. The ACOP defines "good

cause" as an undue hardship not related to consideration of

race, color, sex, religion, national ancestry, marital or

familial status, or sexual orientation, specifically: the unit

is not ready for move-in; inaccessibility to source of

employment, education, job training, day care, or educational

program for disabled children such that the applicant would be

forced to quit a job, drop out of an educational institution or

job training program, or take a child out of day care or

disabled children's educational program; placement of the

applicant's or a family member's life, health, or safety in

jeopardy, as established by specific and compelling

documentation such as restraining orders or other court orders

or risk assessments from a law enforcement agency; health-

related circumstances verified by a health professional;

inappropriateness of the unit for the applicant's disability; or

decision by an elderly or disabled person not to accept the

unit. The ACOP states that refusal to accept a unit based on

location alone does not constitute good cause for an applicant

to remain on the waiting list after refusing an offer.

12/ The informal review is conducted by a staff member of

Respondent's Public Housing and Community Development Department

who was not involved in making the decision under review.

13/ According to Respondent's Acting Director of the Public

Housing and Community Development Department, this is because

the unit availability information constantly changes.

14/ At the time, Petitioner was in process of getting a divorce

and residential arrangements for his children had not been

finalized. His children did not reside with him at the time,

and they currently do not reside with him.

15/ Petitioner testified that the signature on the completed

RARQ was his but that he did not sign the form. Petitioner

posited that the form may have been mechanically signed using an

image of his signature.

16/ At hearing, Mr. Cedras explained that Respondent does not

have a "zero-income" rent option because all public housing

residents must have some means of paying their utility and water

bills, whether through an income source such as a job or

unemployment compensation, or through a utility subsidy.

Mr. Cedras further explained that if a tenant's income were to

change such that he or she was unable to pay the rent, the site

manager's office would accordingly adjust the rent.

17/ Here, Petitioner accepted the offer and subsequently decided

not to move into the Unit. Even if his not moving into the Unit

amounted to refusing Respondent's offer, the reasons Petitioner

cited for not moving into the unit——personal assumptions about

the character of the neighborhood and a dispute over the rent——

do not constitute "good cause," as defined in the ACOP, that

would allow him to remain on the project-based waiting list.

18/ Petitioner further asserts that pursuant to Resolution No.

R-1044-09, adopted by the Miami-Dade County Commission on

September 1, 2009 ("Resolution"), he was entitled to a

desegregative offer. The Resolution directed the Mayor or his

designee to, among other things, ensure that the Adker Consent

Decree's desegregative offers requirement continued to apply to

Respondent's housing offers after the Consent Decree expired.

Respondent formally amended the ACOP in early 2010 to

incorporate this requirement. Petitioner contends that the

Resolution required Respondent to make desegregative offers

during the period in which Petitioner received his offer.

Petitioner's assertions may give rise to a claim that

Respondent's offer to Petitioner violated its own desegregative

offers housing policy in effect at that time. Alleged

violations of local housing policies are not cognizable in a

housing discrimination claim brought under section 760.23,

Florida Statutes, and the Division of Administrative Hearings

lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims; jurisdiction over

such claims may instead properly lie in the state circuit court

or federal court.

19/ Respondent's "convenient" practice of not keeping historic

records of units that are available on a particular date makes

it virtually impossible for challengers like Petitioner to

independently verify Respondent's representations regarding unit

availability when an offer is extended.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Ricardo Lockett

Post Office Box 430612

Miami, Florida 33243

Terrence A. Smith, Esquire

Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office

Suite 2810

111 Northwest 1st Street

Miami, Florida 33128

Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.