Equal Housing Opportunities in New York: An Evaluation of
Section 8 Housing Programs in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse

Chapter 6

Section 8 Housing in the Rochester Area 

This chapter provides a portrait of the Section 8 housing situation in the Rochester area covering such topics as demographics of the area, barriers to fair housing and mobility, and landlord concerns. Divided into six sections, it first describes the demographic attributes of the city and surrounding area. Next, it describes the administrative structure and process of the five separate programs offering Section 8 rental assistance. In addition, it contains statements from housing advocates, local landlords and apartment managers, and Section 8 administrators.

Demographic Characteristics

Rochester is the third-largest city in New York State, with a 1990 census population of 231,636.1 It is the seat of Monroe County and is situated between Buffalo and Syracuse.

When viewed as a whole, Monroe County’s population exhibits diversity that is not dramatically different from that of New York State or the Nation. Whites form the overwhelming majority of the households; blacks are the largest minority group. While the proportion of Hispanics in the population is less than national or State levels, Monroe County has the largest Hispanic population in the State outside of the New York City metropolitan area.

A closer examination reveals several disconcerting characteristics. There is a distinct concentration of racial and ethnic minorities, as well as poverty-level households, in the city of Rochester. While the city accounts for about one-third of the population and 5 percent of the land area of the county, nearly 80 percent of all racial minorities and 76 percent of the local Hispanic population reside in the city. Within the city, 4 of the 10 planning sectors account for nearly 80 percent of all minorities.2

The Rochester region also has extreme household income disparities. Nearly 60 percent of the city’s households are classified as low-income, compared with fewer than 30 percent of suburban households. Seventy-three percent of all Monroe County residents below the poverty level reside within the city of Rochester. Twenty-eight percent of whites live in areas having a poverty level of 20 percent or higher, compared with 70 percent of Hispanics and 79 percent of blacks.3  

Table 2     Distribution of Households by Race/Ethnicity


                     United States

     New York State

                  Monroe County





















Source: 1990 U.S. Census of Population.

In 1986, the most recent year for which data are available, there were 31,200 low-income households with only 9,700 low-cost housing units available. Thus there was a shortage of 21,500 affordable housing units, or more than three low-income renters for each low-rent unit. That was one of the highest ratios of all metro areas in the Nation.4

Section 8 Housing Agencies

In the Rochester metropolitan area, there are five separate programs offering Section 8 rental assistance:

The RHA administers all but the village of Fairport program, which is administered by the Fairport Urban Renewal Agency (FURA). Approximately 3,750 individuals and families receive Section 8 assistance in the Rochester metropolitan area.5 RHA administers a total of 3,445 vouchers and certificates, while FURA administers 298 (see table 3).

Even though the RHA administers four of the five Section 8 programs from a single office in the city of Rochester, there is no centralized waiting list for these programs. Each of the four programs maintains separate waiting lists and procedures. Also, the three suburban programs, Greece, Irondequoit, and Penfield, use a residency preference waiting list. Applicants who live or work in the suburban jurisdictions covered by the programs have preferred status.6 According to the 1996 Analysis of Impediments, given the length of the waiting lists for these Section 8 programs, it is unlikely suburban certificates would be given to nonresidents.7

The RHA does not maintain a residency preference list; any resident of five of the six counties in the metropolitan area is given equal selection status. In practice, however, the majority of participants in the RHA program are city residents. Tenants with a subsidy from this program may use their certificate in any part of the five counties without having to transfer to another HA. City residents may choose to rent an apartment in the suburbs, or suburban residents may use their subsidy for an apartment in Rochester. In practice, however, this does not occur often. About 86 percent of the Rochester program participants live in Rochester, while a similar percentage of participants in the Greece and Irondequoit programs live outside the city of Rochester. All of the Penfield program participants live in the suburbs.8

Currently, the RHA Section 8 program has no available vouchers or certificates. Nearly 6,000 families are on waiting lists for participation, and the number of households on the waiting lists for the various other Section 8 programs exceeds the number of families currently being served by the program. No new applications are being accepted, and HUD is very unlikely to authorize funds for additional subsidies in the Rochester area.9 

Table 3     Distribution of Section 8 Certificates  and Vouchers in the Rochester Area

                                                      Certificates and
HA program                                             vouchers               
















Source: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice In Monroe County, 1996.

There is a distinct difference in racial makeup between the city and suburban Section 8 programs. The racial composition of Section 8 participants varies by program. Table 4 shows the varied racial composition of both participants and persons on the waiting lists of the Section 8 program in Monroe County.

Of the RHA program participants, 95 percent of blacks and 87 percent of Hispanics reside in the city, compared with 46 percent of white participants.

Although there are a few small Section 8 programs that serve portions of the suburban area around Rochester, nearly 81 percent of the subsidies in the region are allocated to the RHA. Because essentially one HA administers the Section 8 program for the entire region, unlike Buffalo and to a lesser extent Syracuse, there are few restrictions on Section 8 subsidies available to minority residents of the city of Rochester. Thus minority residents of Rochester theoretically have access to nearly all the subsidies allocated to the area. Yet a review of the use of Section 8 subsidies by minority residents of Rochester shows that more than 9 out of 10 use their subsidies within the city limits.10

Table 4     Racial Composition of Section 8 Recipients and Waiting Lists, Monroe County

Participating households

City of Rochester Town of Greece Town of Irondequoit Penfield Fairport Total

# of units



































Waiting list





































* Includes Hispanic

Source: Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice In Monroe County, 1996.

Fair Housing Advocates

The Advisory Committee heard from representatives of three local, nonprofit agencies that provide support and legal services to low-income individuals who believe that they are the victims of discrimination: Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation, the Rochester Center for Independent Living, and the Housing Council of the Monroe County Area, Inc. The representatives from these organizations stated that their concerns include the following:

  1. The inability of participants to find landlords outside the inner city that accept Section 8 certificates.

  2. The pressure to get lease approval on a unit before the 60-day deadline.

  3. The unique difficulties persons with disabilities face when trying to find a Section 8 unit.

The panelists provided the Advisory Committee with examples of these concerns and others during their presentations.  

Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation

Laurie Lambrix is a staff attorney with the Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation (MCLAC), which represents low-income people in civil matters and specializes in public and assisted housing cases. She stated that over 85 percent of her clients are single mothers:

They tend to be women who already are dealing with the challenges of being a single parent and of being low income. Now they get this wonderful opportunity after maybe 2 or 3 years on the Section 8 waiting list. So, they go to their briefing, and they get their paperwork, and they are told they have 60 days to get lease approval papers back on a unit, back to the Section 8 office, who will then arrange for an inspection of the unit, will check to see if the rents are appropriate for the fair market rents, etc.11

According to Ms. Lambrix, clients have difficulty finding landlords outside the inner city that accept Section 8 certificates. To illustrate, she recently picked up an available rental list provided by the RHA for Section 8 recipients. According to Ms. Lambrix, of the 87 addresses on the list, only 1 was from a suburban rental property. Seventy-two percent of the addresses on the list were in census tracts that have a greater than 42 percent minority population, while 30 percent of the units were in census tracts where the minority population is greater than 80 percent. In addition, 65 percent of the addresses on the list were in poor neighborhoods, with 22 percent of the addresses in census tracts where 40 percent or more of the population is below the poverty line.12

Ms. Lambrix is troubled that the rental lists being given to her clients are inhibiting their ability to move out of areas of high poverty and in fact encourage them to remain in the city. She expressed concern that “this is their chance to go anywhere in a six-county region, but when they’re asking for help about where to find housing, they’re getting this kind of list that . . . reinforces segregation.”13

Ms. Lambrix said that when a client does find a unit and turns in her paperwork, very frequently the client is told that the unit failed inspection. She referred to RHA data that show 90 percent of the units turned in failed the first inspection.14

Ms. Lambrix offered a story of what can happen when enough information is not given to a Section 8 recipient. A client of hers, who was living in a subsidized housing project in suburban Irondequoit needed to move because of dissatisfaction with her landlord. Ms. Lambrix said:

She received her certificate and was given 60 days to locate a suitable apartment. She wanted to stay in Irondequoit, which is one of the suburbs, because she had a little boy who she wanted to keep in the Irondequoit School District. She went down and got the rental list from RHA, which only listed city rental properties. So, I called the Greece and Irondequoit Community Development Departments to see if they had any separate lists that would have Irondequoit listings. They didn’t have anything. They referred me back to RHA which said they didn’t have anything else they could give her. So this woman who had been living in the suburbs ended up back in the city because she had been unable to find something out in the suburbs within the 60-day timeframe.15

Ms. Lambrix suggested that this type of outcome is not uncommon given the racial and geographic breakdown of where certificates are used. “This was not a good outcome for her. She was happy to get the subsidy, but because of lack of information and assistance, she wasn’t able to find housing in a place where she wanted to live,”16 she said. HAs have the authority to extend the 60-day search period to 120 days, but “it’s next to impossible to get an extension, ”17 she contended.

Rochester Center for Independent Living

Michele Olyer is a housing specialist with the Rochester Center for Independent Living, which assists people with physical and developmental disabilities. Her clients, Ms. Olyer said, face all of the same “dilemmas” other minorities face, but because of their disability, they face additional problems. “When you hear a comment about transportation, the individuals I work with, not only do they not have access to transportation because it doesn’t exist, even if it did exist, it may not be accessible.”18  

She gave two examples of what people with disabilities face when they are participating or trying to participate in the Section 8 program. One involves the complexity of the paperwork and rules of the Section 8 program and the other affects persons with mobility impairment.

“Individuals with cognitive disabilities are at a disadvantage,” Ms. Olyer stated, “due to the complexity of both the paperwork and rules of the Section 8 program, where even a person of average intelligence has difficulty completing all the necessary steps.”19 An individual with some type of cognitive impairment, including mental retardation, traumatic brain injury, or mental health disabilities, has that much more difficulty completing those steps. It is also not uncommon, according to Ms. Olyer, for these individuals to experience more difficulty negotiating with landlords, and consequently they may give up the process much sooner.

She would like to see extra assistance given to these individuals in both paperwork processing and going over the rules several times, especially for individuals who have a short-term memory loss. Many of these individuals, she said, often times do not have case workers or managers to provide the extra time needed to walk them through the process and make sure they understand the rules and procedures.

She also recommended that Section 8 staff have some type of disability awareness training in how to deal with individuals with different types of disabilities. For example, “When interviewing a person who is deaf, be sure the person can see your lips while you are talking, don’t look down at your desk while you’re writing and talking.”20

The second issue Ms. Olyer discussed was the discrimination that individuals with mobility impairments may face when looking for an apartment. She said, “Landlords who are knowledge- able on Section 8 and Federal laws may actually discriminate against individuals with disabilities who require modification to their apartments, for example, a ramp, because once you’ve accepted a Section 8 certificate, you are now subject to [Section] 504 regulations,21 because you are receiving Federal money.”22

She suggested establishing a program to help property owners absorb the expense they would incur to accommodate Section 8 recipients with disabilities. In her opinion, landlords would be more attracted to the program and to renting to persons with disabilities if they knew that this money was available to improve their properties by making them more accessible.

Housing Council of the Monroe County Area

According to its executive director, Anne Petersen, the current goal of the Housing Council of the Monroe County Area, Inc., a 25-year-old nonprofit organization, is the maintenance, expansion, and availability of decent, safe, and affordable housing in Rochester and Monroe Counties.

One of the services provided by the Housing Council is compiling the “registry of available rental property,” which is made available free of charge to public assistance recipients and other low-income individuals. Nearly all of the 1,300 listings, which represent almost 30 percent of the available rental properties in Monroe County, are located in the city.

In 1996 the housing council mailed 23,800 registries on request to Monroe County residents, and 6,800 registries to 66 service providers across the county. Ms. Peterson was not sure to what extent the Housing Council list overlapped with the list RHA provides to its clients. But she said, “Their list is more expansive than our list and the units cost more. Ours serves a group that is very low income.”23  I  seek immediate  relief   in  this  matter before it is taken further under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She added:

While most of us in this room today can turn to an array of units available in the local paper to choose an apartment, low- and very low-income residents have no such good luck. The rental registry is the only free source of increased housing choice in the admittedly already narrow universe of the inner city.24

Ms. Petersen stated that she will be adding to the list a page of consumer protection information and tips on how to get the most for your rental dollar. She believes that housing choice is directly affected by supply and demand. Increasing the known supply of available units makes it more likely that the worst units will go unrented, encouraging landlords to improve their properties if they want them rented.25  

Ms. Petersen concluded, “The concept of mobility has as its basic premise that supply is really limited to the supply one knows about, and real housing choice depends on greatly increasing the knowledge of what the choices are and preparing to exercise those choices effectively.”26


The views of business people and landlords on the workability of the Section 8 program outside the city were represented by Harriet Howitt, a certified property manager and vice president for Midland Management, which manages approximately 1,000 apartment units primarily in suburban Rochester, and Don Rothchild, president of the Maplewood Landlords Association, a private organization representing the views of smaller apartment complexes and owners.

Midland Management

Apartment vacancies, Harriet Howitt stated, are running between 5 and 10 percent higher than they have been in any time in the past 30 years. Landlords  therefore  are trying  everything  to lure tenants. Accordingly, she said, it would not make good business sense to turn away potential tenants simply because they are on some type of public assistance.27

One suburban complex has 284 units of which 29 are rented by people on some type of assistance. Four of those units have Section 8 subsidy holders consisting of two white and two black families.28 She said as far as she knows, property managers around the region take Section 8 tenants. Regarding attracting more suburban landlords to participate in Section 8, she thinks they are discouraged by the perceived difficulty in dealing with the administrative paperwork and the oftentimes “draconian rules” of the program.29

Ms. Howitt told the story of one apartment rented by a Section 8 recipient that needed to be reinspected before a yearly rental increase was approved. The inspector arrived and found a piece of curled up linoleum under the dishwasher. The property manager was told that it must be repaired in 10 days. According to Ms. Howitt, this was the busiest time of the year for the property manager who was trying to turn over 30–40 units a month, and this was not something that needed to be done or even could be done immediately. The manager was able to get a 30-day extension, but could have been denied rent for that period of time until that little piece of linoleum got tacked down. “These are the things that drive private landlords crazy. You have to use good common sense,” she cautioned.30

When asked if there was anything preventing Section 8 recipients from renting one of her apartments, Ms. Howitt responded, “All of our rents in all of our suburban complexes, except maybe one, would fall within Section 8 guidelines.”31

Also, when asked about having her properties placed on the rental list, Ms. Howitt responded, “We’re not on the list of RHA . . . never knew there was such a list. I just thought that Section 8 people knew they could go anywhere they wanted. But I think we can help with that, by letting our landlords know that they should be on the list.”32

She recommended that Section 8 administrators go out to the suburbs and promote the program to suburban landlords who may not know that much about the program and may need more information to feel comfortable with it. “When people put their heads together, I think they can solve problems. We have housing. Let’s try to get the people to it.”33

Maplewood Landlords Association

Don Rothchild is a private full-time landlord with both urban and suburban properties. Concerning his participation in the Section 8 program, he stated, “I enjoy the Section 8 program, and I welcome their inspections. They bring a lot of things to my attention that I don’t know about, and I am happy to follow through.”34

He explained that “It is to the landlords advantage to hold out for a desirable tenant who will bring the neighborhood up while enhancing the property values.”35 He said that his Section 8 tenants have run the gamut. “I’ve had great tenants who have stayed year after year after year, and I’ve had one who I couldn’t wait to get rid of. I took that particular person to court, because she would not pay her share of the rent. She was finally eliminated from the [Section 8] program.”36  

As to how the program may be extended to include more suburban landlords, Mr. Rothchild responded, “I’m not so sure you should expand it to the suburban area. I’m not so sure you’re going to get suburban landlords interested in the government telling them what to do and how to do it. They aren’t used to that, and we don’t want some stereotype individuals, whether it’s DSS [Department of Social Services], Section 8, or others, to move into certain suburbs.”37

Section 8 Administrators

The Advisory Committee heard from representatives of the two local housing authorities that provide Section 8 programs: the village of Fairport program and the Rochester Housing Authority. The representatives from these programs discussed landlord participation, residency preferences, and HUD changes to the Section 8 program.

Village of Fairport

Kenneth Moore is the village administrator for Fairport and formerly managed the village’s Section 8 program. By working with suburban landlords he has learned what attracts them to and dissuades them from joining the Section 8 program.

According to Mr. Moore, the main problem with recruiting suburban landlords is that they simply are not as knowledgeable of the program as the average city landlord. He believes that it is very important for HAs to attract the larger suburban landlords, while concurrently considering the small landlord for Section 8. Suburban landlords, Mr. Moore said, “pay a little bit closer attention to their property. They expect a little higher quality of property maintenance and they may have a little bit more suspicion of government programs, but they can be a big part of the Section 8 program.”38

In order to increase suburban participation in the Section 8 program, Mr. Moore believes, administrators should go out into suburban communities and talk with village boards, town boards, and building inspectors to see what particular concerns the community may have. Furthermore, they should also hold training sessions for landlords on Section 8 procedures and try to gain their confidence.39 Referring to options available to suburban landlords, he stated:

My experience was that landlords expected to be dealt with professionally and they expected the paperwork to be there on time, that if it wasn’t, they became disenchanted with the program, and given the fact that the vacancy rates in the suburbs are relatively low, they really have other options.40

When asked whether the Fairport program had a residency requirement, Mr. Moore answered that the program does not have a residency requirement now, although it did for the first 18 years of existence. The residency requirement had been eliminated a few months before the date of the factfinding forum in Rochester.41 The Committee has more recently been advised by Mr. Moore that the village of Fairport has reinstated its residency preference.42 In part this was due to the refusal of the town of Irondequoit and the town of Greece to remove their residency preferences, and to the fact that the persons who were obtaining subsidies once the preference was removed had been largely unsuccessful in finding apartments before their search periods expired.

At the time of the removal of the preference, the Fairport waiting list was 42 percent minority. After the reinstatement of the residency preference, the minority percentage on the Fairport waiting list dropped to 22 percent, which means during this period while the residency preference was removed approximately 20 percent of minorities on the waiting list were given Section 8 certificates to find housing. Yet the minority percentage of successful participation in the program (participants who secured housing in Fairport) did not significantly increase. It is possible that, in the absence of the availability of mobility counseling for subsidy holders, minority city residents who had been backed up on the Fairport list were unable to use those subsidies successfully when they finally got them. Consequently, they lost their chance to  participate  in  the  program  when their search period expired. This question may bear further exploration by the Committee.

Asked what efforts the Fairport program was making to encourage mobility from the inner city, Mr. Moore responded that they are not making great efforts to promote the program outside the program area. “The public feeling and the feeling of the elected officials is that the program be for the benefit of the people in the program area. They do not see as their goal the solving of wider housing problems.”43 Mr. Moore did volunteer to share the Fairport’s program rental list with the Rochester Housing Authority and anyone else who requested it.

The Rochester Housing Authority

The Advisory Committee heard presentations from the executive director of the RHA and the director of Leasing Operations for the RHA. They discussed issues including the mobility aspects of their program and related their concerns about HUD’s recent changes in the Section 8 program.

Thomas McHugh, Executive Director

Thomas McHugh has been executive director of the Rochester Housing Authority since 1974. According to Mr. McHugh, a high level of minorities have been using their Section 8 certificate outside the city of Rochester since 1988, when the RHA computerized its Section 8 statistics. Since 1988, the RHA has signed contracts with 815 households using Section 8 certificates for units outside the city of Rochester, 31 percent of whom have been minority.44 As of December 1996, for the authority’s own program, 350 households have found units outside the city, with 29 percent of those being minority households. The 350 figure represents 11 percent of the entire Section 8 Rochester Housing Authority allocation.45

While Mr. McHugh claims 11 percent is a “respectable number,” it translates to hardly more than 3 percent of minority subsidy holders renting outside the city. Nevertheless, the RHA intends to increase that number with the advent of a new mobility counseling center for Section 8 recipients.46

In July 1996, RHA was awarded a grant in excess of $1 million to develop and implement such a counseling effort. According to Mr. McHugh, RHA established an advisory committee to provide input into the draft counseling plan as well as to provide an ongoing voice during the plan’s 5-year implementation. The advisory committee will consist of representatives from the towns, a Section 8 tenant, a major city/county Section 8 landlord, and representatives of the Greater Upstate Law Project, Neighborhood Housing Services, the Rochester Urban League, and Monroe County. Mr. McHugh is very “optimistic that this endeavor will further enhance the work that has already started relative to housing mobility throughout the metropolitan Rochester area.”47 

John Haire, Director, Leasing Operations

John Haire is the director of Leasing Operations for the Rochester Housing Authority and in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Section 8 program. He has been with the RHA since it first initiated the Section 8 program in 1976.48

Mr. Haire was questioned regarding the RHA’s policy for extending the 60-day limit if the tenant has difficulty finding a suitable apartment. He responded, “We perhaps are known as an agency that is rather stingy with extensions. There has to be a good reason for an extension. With over 5,000 people on the waiting list, it seems unfair to penalize somebody on a list while somebody sits there procrastinating about using their certificate.”49 He did say that he would grant extensions in certain medical circumstances. Mr. Haire also indicated that as part of the Regional Opportunity Counseling program, RHA would extend the search time to 120 days automatically for any of the mobility program participants.50

Asked why 95 percent of blacks use their subsidy in the city, Mr. Haire responded:

They [minority Section 8 recipients] already know where it is they want to look for housing . . . Let’s not forget the element of choice
. . . It is important to remember the vital role the urban landlord has played in providing quality, affordable housing throughout the Section 8 program’s 20-year history. The urban landlords are the backbone of this program.51

Mr. Haire is worried that new HUD regulations that would reward HAs based upon the extent to which contracts were executed for units in low-poverty census tracts would put a restriction on a family’s choice. He stated, “Does this mean that housing agencies will be penalized for approving leases in high-poverty census tracts? If so, are you removing the element of choice from the Section 8 tenant?”52

Mr. Haire also expressed concern over the HUD changes that have made the Section 8 program more landlord friendly by making tenants more accountable. He gave an example: 

An owner may now execute a 1-year lease with a provision for a 1-year renewal or he may elect to renew on a month-to-month basis. However, the Section 8 tenant continues to enjoy a provision which [allows] him the ability to give 30-day notice of intent to vacate at any time after the initial term. How do you explain to an owner that despite what he thought, the Section 8 tenant can still walk with 30 days notice?53

Asked whether it was realistic that a Section 8 tenant would leave a suburban apartment after making such an effort to obtain it, Mr. Haire responded:

[It is a] waste of time debating whether it’s realistic or not. If we’re going to try to solicit these suburban landlords, and we say, we’re going to be as unobtrusive as possible, but these tenants can walk with 30 days, they [the suburban landlords] are going to tell me to walk in 30 seconds.54

Anne Petersen responded to Mr. Haire by saying that it is important to note how realistic it is that a tenant would actually take advantage of that clause and leave a landlord hanging. She said:

In our presentations to landlords, it needs to be presented in the proper context, yes, this could happen, but we are providing a counseling program that brings people into your unit, and we  have an ongoing  program here and we’re not going to disappear because the tenant has moved in and that we will continue to work with the tenant.55

According to Ms. Petersen, landlords are familiar with and accept “transfer clauses,” which allow tenants to move with 30–60 days’ notice if they are transferred for work-related reasons. “Landlords accept those clauses everyday, and it’s much more likely that it will be activated by a very mobile tenant than it’s going to be activated by a Section 8 tenant. So it’s got to be described in that kind of context.”56  


1  Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 CP–1–34, 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, New York 49, table 5 (1992).

2  According to 1990 census data, the African American and Hispanic population of the city of Rochester was 93,079 out of a total population 231,636 (40.18 percent), while the African American and Hispanic population of Monroe County, excluding the city of Rochester, was 18,412 out of a total population of 482,232 (3.82 percent ). See Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990 CP–1–34, 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, New York, p. 49, table 5; p. 175, table 6 (1992).

3  Ibid.

4  1990 census data indicate that the affordable housing deficiency is now about 15,000 units.

5  Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing In Monroe County, 1996.

6  For the Penfield program preference is given to applicants who reside or work in Monroe County.  “Nonresident” applicants include persons who live or work in the city of Rochester, Greece, and Irondequoit or applicants outside Monroe County who do not work in the county. The service area for the Fairport program is Eastern Monroe County, excluding the city of Rochester and Irondequoit. Preference is given to applicants who live or work in Perinton, Fairport, Pittsford, Penfield, East Rochester, Webster, Brighton, and Henrietta.

7  Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing In Monroe County, 1996, pp. viii–6.

8  Ibid.

9  Ibid., pp. viii–7

10  Philip Tegeler, Michael Hanley, and Judith Liben, Transforming Section 8: Using Federal Housing Subsidies to Promote Individual Housing Choice and Desegregation, 30 Harvard C.R.–C.L. Rev. 451 (1995).

11  Laurie Lambrix, statement before the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, factfinding meeting, Rochester, NY, Nov. 21, 1996, transcript, p. 43 (hereafter cited as Rochester Transcript).

12  Ibid., p. 47.

13  Ibid., p. 48.

14  Ibid., p. 49.

15  Ibid., p. 59.

16  Ibid.

17  Ibid., p. 54.

18  Olyer statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 64.

19  Ibid.

20  Ibid., p. 70.

21  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, applicable to recipients of Federal funds, requires program participants to make reasonable accommodations at their own cost for individuals with disabilities, so long as it does not cause an undue economic hardship. 29 U.S.C. § 794; 24 C.F.R. Pt. 8.

22  Olyer statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 67.

23  Petersen statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 120.

24  Ibid.

25  Ibid., p. 121.

26  Ibid., p. 122.

27  Howitt statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 99.

28  Ibid., pp. 97–98.

29  Ibid.

30  Ibid.

31  Ibid., p. 102.

32  Ibid.

33  Ibid., p. 103.

34  Don Rothchild, president, Maplewood Landlords Association, statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 198.

35  Ibid.

36  Ibid.

37  Ibid.

38  Moore statement, Rochester Transcript,  p. 136.

39  Ibid., p. 137.

40  Ibid., p. 136.

41  Ibid., p. 140.

42  Conversation with State Advisory Committee member Michael L. Hanley, Apr. 1, 1998.

43  Ibid., p. 141.

44  McHugh statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 157.

45  Ibid., p. 157.

46  Ibid., pp. 157–58.

47  Ibid., p. 159.

48 Haire statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 207.

49  Ibid., p. 174.

50  Ibid., p. 213.

51  Ibid., p. 179.

52  Ibid., p. 180.

53  Ibid., p. 182.

54  Ibid., p. 204.

55  Petersen statement, Rochester Transcript, p. 206.

56  Ibid.