Hey, there! Log in / Register

State sues Boston Housing Authority for leaving family with health problems in apartment filled with mice and mold for years

The state Attorney General's office last week sued the BHA over its treatment of a family with two girls with asthma and developmental issues, charging the authority ignored repeated complaints for three years about the unsanitary conditions in their Franklin Field apartment that were so bad the girls had to seek emergency care at a local hospital two to three times a month.

According to the suit, the BHA moved the woman, her mother and the woman's two nieces, who were living with them, into a four-bedroom Franklin Field apartment in 2016 - an apartment that was already overrun by "mice and other pests," as were other apartments at the development, conditions that grew worse as the BHA ignored repeated complaints.

The state said the authority's repeated ignoring of both the woman's requests and documentation from her family's doctors about the harmful impact of them being in close daily contact with mice, their droppings, their urine and mold - which started sprouting in 2018 - violates both state housing anti-discrimination law and a Boston-specific fair-housing law. It is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the family.

The suit describes the increasing hell it says the family found itself in not long after moving into a four-bedroom unit on Ames Street in Franklin Field in 2016:

[T]he radiators in the apartment were filled with mice droppings, there were droppings and chewed holes in all the furniture despite routine cleaning, and the entire family were living in fear of seeing mice, at times seeing more than five mice every hour.

It was so bad that the family "did not want to cook or eat in the unit due to fear of contamination by mice droppings and urine."

Then, in 2018, the suit continues, the family began noticing "a strong mildew smell in the unit" and black mold growing on ceilings.

In October, 2019, the suit says, the nieces' doctor contact the city Inspectional Services Department to request an inspection. On Oct. 24, 2019, the suit says, ISD notified BHA that the apartment was in violation of the state sanitary code.

In response, the state alleges, the BHA sent somebody out to swab some bleach on the mold and repaint the affected areas, but the mold soon came back.

The authority did nothing special about the mice - it simply continued what it was doing - and so the rodents never left, the suit charges. If anything, the number of mice - and their droppings and urine - only increased, forcing the woman and her nieces to spend time in relatives' homes away from Franklin Field - several days a month - to try to get some respite.

Finally, all four people had to sleep in a single bed, because the girls were too scared to sleep in their own after a mouse crawled into bed with one of them, the state says.

In December, 2020, the woman asked BHA to transfer her family to a unit somewhere else. BHA ignored her request and followup requests and letters from both her nieces' doctor and her own doctor saying the problems were making her own health problems worse, in part due to anxiety and her attempts to keep up with the problems on her own by cleaning the apartment twice a day.

In August, 2022, ISD inspected the apartment again and again concluded it was in violation of the state sanitary code. Despite that, and a fourth formal request from the woman for help, BHA did nothing, the state says, adding:

On January 22, 2023, BHA's extermination contractor removed fourteen mice from the apartment and found that the bait stations in the unit had been "wiped clean" due to the severity of the infestation. As a result, the contractor designated 20A Ames as a "**High Priority Unit""."

On March 15, 2023, the suit states, BHA sent a property manager to take a look. The next day, that manager called the woman to discuss an "emergency administrative transfer" to another unit.

Finally, on May 1, 2023, the woman and her nieces - her mother died in 2022 - moved into a new unit on D Street in the BHA's West Broadway development.

On Sept. 26, she asked the BHA - attaching a letter from her nieces' doctor, asking for window guards, a video doorbell and security cameras.

"In particular, due to their developmental and mental health diagnoses, A.C. and D.C. require these modifications in order to feel safe in their home, and in order to monitor any unpredictable behavior resulting from these diagnoeses."

Also, the woman asked the BHA to address "inadequate and ripped screens" that were allowing bugs into the unit and "continually leaking toilets which were creating conditions likely to lead to mold growth.

As of last month, though, none of the work has been done, the state says, adding the requests were for "reasonable accommodations" to the family's physical and mental health issues.

The authority has until May 6 to answer the complaint.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell is a former Boston city councilor, as is BHA Administrator Kenzie Bok.

Neighborhoods: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon Complete complaint342.15 KB


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

This sounds like living in pure hell. I don’t have any experience visiting or living in public housing and hope to never. Is this typical throughout the City? I’m wondering if these conditions are so common that this is a reason they were unaddressed. Albeit, very unacceptable! If the City expects landlords to provide basic things such as screens for safety, why wouldn’t they expect that if themselves?

up
Voting closed 0

When I was growing up in da hood, the projects were the root of all evil. Who thought it was good idea to stick a bunch of "poor", mostly desperate single moms and their kids, into these things? Research going back to at least the 1840s-1850s when the huge wave of Irish immigration hit big cities like NY, clearly showed the feral kids raised in this type of environment, again mostly single mothers no reasonably responsible father living at home.

Projects today, on the outside at least look a lot better than they did when I was a kid. But the main problem remains. Just more window dressing

up
Voting closed 1

Luckily, the state has tax and spending cuts ready to address these issues.

up
Voting closed 0

Flint, Michigan?

up
Voting closed 0

The building needs some cats.

up
Voting closed 2

Yeah, these are public buildings and the state has some jurisdiction, but this is yet another example of why public health and code violations shouldn't be left to cities and towns to enforce without some bigger hammer waiting if they don't.

up
Voting closed 0

Local jurisdiction isn't the problem. The issue is that the landlord is a public agency and as such the enforcement tools of fines are meaningless since they just allocate taxpayer money to cover the fines. The incentive of a private owner to avoid fines doesn't exist.

Even this case doesn't solve the underlying issue since ultimately tax money will pay the lawyers and settlement to the family. Well, actually it does since the income from the settlement will likely make the family ineligible for public housing in the end.

up
Voting closed 0

Local jurisdiction isn't the problem. The issue is that the landlord is a public agency and as such the enforcement tools of fines are meaningless since they just allocate taxpayer money to cover the fines. The incentive of a private owner to avoid fines doesn't exist.

And ... that is EXACTLY WHY local control is the problem here, dear. There are ZERO consequences for doing nothing because local jurisdiction IS the problem.

Duh.

up
Voting closed 0

It seems to me that statewide administration of public housing would be even more prone to losing track/ignoring cases like this due to regional biases or bureaucratic baloney - with no higher level authority to step in and force corrections.

I understand that the current BHA administrator Kenzie Bok was only appointed five months ago, but it seems imperative that she not only make this particular situation right, but also promptly come up with a plan to rectify the institutional and/or personnel issues that allowed this to happen.

up
Voting closed 1

There are still no consequences for mismanagement or failure to serve customers/constituents.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry, but in this case the Boston code enforcement people repeatedly noted that the unit was unfit for habitation going back to 2019. That the landlord didn't take action is why we're here today.

up
Voting closed 0

The City of Boston was the landlord.

up
Voting closed 0

The Boston Housing Authority is the landlord, and they are quasi independent.

up
Voting closed 0

This is a problem in every city and town in the Commonwealth where the locals don't want to be responsible for anything or cry poverty to the state when their schools and housing and other public buildings are uninhabitable but then don't want to be responsible for keeping them habitable.

Many towns are far worse at this than Boston, but all 351 play these games because there is no regulatory oversight to compel them to follow the law.

In the case of private landlords there is also a lot of "regulatory capture" in towns and cities - certain connected people don't get enforcement.

In the case of this PUBLIC landlord, there is also zero enforcement because there are no consequences.

This is a Massachusetts problem. Every city, every town. But do keep your head firmly up your muddy river when you whine your standard reactionary whine about suburbs, honey - It's a bit quieter that way.

up
Voting closed 0

Your comments imply that a state-level public housing authority managing all the way down to the site-level would not be vulnerable to similar failures - but I don’t understand why this would be so, or why the incentive for regulatory capture would not be just as great, were administrative power aggregated under a single office.

Or are you suggesting a kind of housing authority Authority that would not be tasked with actual public housing, but policing the municipal authorities?

(Also, can we all please resolve to use less kneejerk ad hominem this year? It’s a crutch for sub-par thinking and not worthy of the UHub community’s collective intelligence and sincere concern about the issues of the day.)

up
Voting closed 0

Because agencies under state supervision -- like the MBTA, for example -- are shining examples of good management, effective safety culture, and care for the experience of the constituents they serve. Or how about the state's management of the Big Dig? Or the Covid deaths at the state-run Holyoke Soldiers' Home?

up
Voting closed 0

I rented an apartment in JP for several years. When the landlord began extending the building that created a few major problems. Included were closing the 2nd egress (a major safety issue) as well as creating a hole in the envelope of the building to my kitchen and allowing horrific levels of noise by the contractors building the extension.

The landlords, fellows who otherwise wear the badge of progressive liberals, claimed there was nothing they could do (somehow they didn't see themselves as the ultimate boss despite paying for the work). It took an ISD inspection to stop them from turning my life into hell. The landlords had no concern about the quality of life for either me or my dog. This was during the height of Covid when most folks were quarantined to their homes (I suspect that the landlords had arranged for the project at this time since they also were snowbirds come winter).

Calling upon ISD put a stop to the insanity. A level of insanity supported by again, and I believe this is important, people who would claim the high road of social morality. I believe this is important to note because tenant and landlord relationships are about money and power. Cash and who is control. Not all landlords realize that the label landlord is not the Medieval concept of lord of the master's domain (i.e., property). If the landlords I rented from understood that they might have not resorted to some ugly personal attacks.

From being on both sides of the tenant and landlord I've seen what were ultimately legal and monetary relationships turn into vicious and nasty fights where, ironically, the same tools such as ISD are used as weapons.

When violations of housing codes are identified by ISD tenants have rights;

1) to escrow rents (but the landlords still have to make their mortgage and tax payments). Landlord still have to pay their bill so this is a stick to get a landlord to obey the law and so this is a stick to get the landlord to do right,
2) tenants are protected from retaliatory evictions.

So local laws do offer protection.

Where protection can fail is in the courts which are funded by the state. Because Massachusetts refuses to fund the courts at the level that is needed court based resolutions are put off so long that justice becomes the servant of whoever can last long enough in a civil case without having to just give up and more on.

Large landlords who have ample cash flow, including apparently BHA, have the cash flow that gives them far too much buffer from the consequences of their actions and inaction.

up
Voting closed 0

Note that tenants also have the right to withhold rents without putting it in escrow. Something landlord’s lawyers sometimes lie about to intimidate tenants.

up
Voting closed 0

The individuals at BHA are the ones who should pay part of the penalty of negligence. Fining BHA ultimately harms the people who fund the agency - tax payer. Same for police based violence.

up
Voting closed 0