Jacksonville – In a federal lawsuit filed last week, Harriet Brock, the Jacksonville Housing Authority (JHA) board secretary and resident community advisor, alleges that the agency terminated her Section 8 housing voucher – worth roughly $1,200 per month – without granting her the hearing required by law.
Legal claim centers on due‑process violation
Brock, 67, says the agency’s decision to end her assistance was made without the separate hearing that state municipal code mandates for voucher terminations. The code also requires at least one board member to be a public‑housing resident or voucher recipient; losing her voucher could therefore jeopardize her seat on the board.
According to the complaint, Brock initially received a hearing after JHA officials raised concerns that her adult grandson’s concealed employment caused an overpayment. The grandson, who presented himself as a Georgia college student, was reportedly earning income that increased the household’s earnings, prompting JHA to demand repayment of more than $9,000.
Termination and hearing issues
The lawsuit distinguishes the overpayment issue from the voucher termination. Brock contends that while the agency discussed repayment, it never addressed the termination itself. She further alleges that her request for a second hearing was denied by Andrew Denicola, director of JHA’s Housing Choice Voucher program. Both Denicola and JHA Director Cheron Corbett are named as defendants.
JHA declined to comment on the pending litigation, reiterating its standard policy of not confirming or denying the existence of any investigations involving personnel, program participants, or board members.
Agency’s stated mission
In a brief statement, JHA emphasized its ongoing commitment to “providing safe, sustainable and affordable housing opportunities to individuals and families in need.” The agency’s response was placed near the top of the filing, reflecting its priority to address the core mission amid the lawsuit.
Potential impact of upcoming HUD rule
The dispute arises as JHA prepares to implement new work‑requirement policies that could affect other residents, should the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development finalize an optional rule. Those changes may tighten eligibility criteria for voucher holders across Jacksonville.
Local officials have not indicated whether the lawsuit will prompt a review of JHA’s hearing procedures or its compliance with municipal code. The case underscores the importance of due‑process protections for vulnerable residents who rely on federal housing assistance.
What’s next?
The federal court will determine whether JHA’s actions violated state law and whether Brock is entitled to reinstatement of her voucher and any associated board rights. The outcome could set a precedent for how local housing authorities handle terminations and hearings for Section 8 participants.
Original reporting: Jacksonville Today — read the source article.
