If I posted the headline as is, few people would know what the article was really about.
Original Headline:
"We're losing our home:' LGBTQ+ community mourns loss of iconic bar Underground
Also the article is somewhat ambiguous.
The article states HUD would would "not renew the business' lease." It then goes on to say "HUD subsidizes the low-income senior apartments above the building."
Was the lease to the low-income senior apartments included or separate from the LGBTQ bar lease?
Pulled in 3, 2, 1...
Homosexuals
Bisexuals
Transgenders
Miscellaneous Practices
Why do Lesbians get double billing. A woman on woman situation, is a homosexual situation. And Q? What the hell is that?
I suggest a new acronym, HoBi TraMPs...
The article is written by a reporter who does not understand HUD subsidies.
If the owner of the building receives a section 8 subsidy any sub-leases would be subject to HUD regulation.
In that case HUD is not leasing the building and is not sub-leasing to the bar.
However, HUD can regulate what it subsidizes.
It sounds like the tenants complained to HUD who then contacted the building owner—and told the building owner to terminate the sub-lease.
HUD would not own the building or sub-lease any portion of it.
Leave it to HUD to transform it’s purpose from helping the poor with housing to paying for a gay bar!
It’s been obvious for many years that HUD doesn’t like whole families.
HUD is the housing version of school busing.
That's funny, the media regularly trumpets complaints about everything from smoking (after they could sell ads) to bad language.
Statutes come falling down, businesses get shuttered.
All because of one complaint.
Sorry, HUD should never subsidize anything, much less a commercial business.
“and everyone knows each other’s name”
What, do they have name tags on their anuses?
The character “Woody” at this club is not a bartender.