July 1, 2025
To the Citizens of the Town of Worthington:
The Maples, our senior housing, could close and this is why.
For those who may not know, the Maples is a HUD subsidized senior housing facility that has been in Worthington since 1983, over 42 years. There are 22 apartments with 23 residents at present, and it is conveniently located within walking distance of the Hilltown Community Health Center. The residents pay rent based on their income. HUD, under section 202, makes up the difference to bring the rent to market value. This rent covers all utilities: electricity, heat, water, trash removal, maintenance, and property insurance.
As members of the Maples Board of Directors, we want to inform you of potential cuts in the Proposed FY 2026 HUD funding of 44% in the bill that is presently being considered in the Senate. This cut of HUD funding has already passed the House of Representatives and just passed the Senate with amendments today. The House must either pass the Senate’s version as is, or the two chambers must negotiate a compromise bill to reconcile any differences. If a compromise is reached, the final bill will then be sent to the President for his signature. Our concern is the impact on the Maples operational budget and the stability of this affordable housing. The potential cut, almost certainly, will make it impossible to keep the Maples open. We would not be able to keep the lights on.
As a small town, we have been fortunate to have this housing program that allows our seniors to stay in their Hilltown community. These apartments offer them safe, secure homes. We feel strongly that housing is a human need and a shared responsibility.
Our concern, as the Maples Board of Directors, is that people are unaware of this proposed cut and its effect on our town as well as nationally. Section 202 HUD funded housing is found in all 50 states. Please share this information with family, friends, and neighbors. If you have questions or would like to know what you can do, please email: estellemarcia13@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
On behalf of the Maples Board of Directors
Marcia Estelle
Please give the names of all board members. Thank you
Marcia Estelle President
Deb Kirk Secretary
Steve Monteiro Vice President
Karen BarshefshyTreasurer
Scott Smith
Alice Fritz
Dot Hague
Mary Beth O’Shea
Pam Carpenter
Brent West
Thank you for sharing this with all of us. I knew a lot about the content of that bill, but not this piece. My mother-in-law lived there for several years and it made such a difference to have her close-by. It would be very sad for Worthington to lose the resource of the Maples , and devastating for some of our seniors. I will pass this along.
We can certainly call of Senators and Congress-persons and ask them to vote no, while sharing this example of how it hurts seniors and communities.
I am thoroughly disgusted with cuts to the elderly in Trumps, “big horrible bill”. Cuts to the elderly across the board, Sicial Security, Medicare, Medicare, housing. It is sinful. Please tell us who to write too.
Charlie,
News from The Maples is devastating:
First of all Barbara Porter could be heard.! And, of course, a plea for town residents to contribute would be necessary (I guess this would be annual) and, we would be very happy to contribute. Hope all is well
Given the provisions in the BBB, it is no surprise that, now that the bill has passed, this could happen. This notice lacks any information about what avenues the board has explored to help the residents, or what the timeline for closure is.
If I were a resident in the Maples, reading this, I would be feeling a sharp kick to the gut, if not having a heart attack.
This letter implies that the board will shut down the buildings, without further discussion. Have not the residents signed leases? Are you not obligated to honor those leases? Who actually owns the buildings? What are the plans for future use of the buildings?
I’m assuming the HUD funding had to have been approved by Congress. If so, what legal efforts have you explored to hold our government to account for its denial of benefits? Have you gotten Gov Healey on the case?
I can’t imagine that you haven’t done those things, but you do not mention them. Worthington, the town I know, does not just give up and cave in when challenged by an untenable situation.
So much mis-information around. Social security is not cut, in fact there is an additional tax deduction that many seniors on SS can take advantage of. Medicaid is more complicated but it will require able-bodied people to actually work for 80 hours a month, including in public service, in order to keep benefits Not sure what’s so bad about that.
What is the final impact on HUD from the signed bill? I have not been able to find this.
I found this letter to the town a bit unnerving. All the facts were not yet in, and I’m sure some of the people in the Maples were made afraid, more likely terrified, for no real good reason. I agree with a writer above who mentioned that the board could have identified what the other options might be.
I wanted to follow up the letter to the town about the Maples. The Maples Board of Directors became aware of the cuts to HUD funding from the management company, Elderly Housing Management. We heard about it just 3 weeks ago. If you look up the HUD funding for 2026, you will find the 44% cut in HUD funding specifically in Section 8 and Section 202 housing, which is how the Maples is funded, as well as community block grants for housing. The other change is HUD funds will now come back to the states for distribution. There are a great deal of uncertainty and as a board we are moving forward by contacting our state representative and senator to fight for proper allocation of funds for the Maples. We will be meeting with Representative Lindsay Sabodosa and Senator Paul Mark on July 14 when they will be visiting the Maples. Rep. Sabadosa has been talking to the Governor and the Secretary of Housing and Livable Communities Edward Augusta. So yes clarity is needed and we are looking for answers because there has been very little information in the news about these cuts. The Maples Board will make ever effort to see Maples continue to thrive as it has for 42 years.
Thank you for the clarification.
Here’s what I learned from Grok. I find Grok to be a more reliable AI source on current events than ChatGPT.
Basically, the cuts are proposed as part of the President’s budget proposal for next year. They were not in the BBB.
Here’s hoping something gets figured out,
Isaac
Cheers,
Isaac
The open letter from The Maples Board of Directors contains several key assumptions about FY 2026 HUD funding, particularly a 44% cut affecting Section 202 (elderly housing) and Section 8 programs, the legislative status of the relevant bill, and the potential impact on facilities like The Maples. Based on current information as of July 14, 2025, these assumptions are partially accurate but significantly overstated or incorrect in critical details. I’ll break it down step by step, focusing on verification of the claims.
Eliminating all new funding for Section 202 (Housing for the Elderly), a cut of $931.4 million compared to FY 2025, effectively zeroing out the program for new projects or expansions while potentially affecting renewals.
Slashing Section 8 (both tenant-based and project-based rental assistance) by roughly half, consolidating it into a “State Rental Assistance Block Grant” that shifts administration to states and reduces federal oversight and funding guarantees.
Additional eliminations or deep cuts to related programs, such as public housing, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and Community Development Block Grants, totaling over $27 billion in reductions across rental assistance.
A 26% reduction in HUD staff (saving $334 million).
Elimination or reduction of 38 “wasteful” programs (saving $7.3 billion), though specifics on Section 202 or Section 8 aren’t detailed in public summaries yet—it emphasizes “refocusing” assistance for self-sufficiency while protecting vulnerable groups.
Overall, this is far milder than the President’s 44% proposal, but it could still impact Section 202 if cuts target elderly housing renewals or services. 37 46
1. Existence of a 44% Cut to HUD Funding, Specifically Impacting Section 202 and Section 8
• Assumption in the Letter: There’s a proposed 44% cut to HUD funding in FY 2026, directly threatening Section 202 subsidized senior housing (like The Maples) and making it “impossible to keep the Maples open.”
• Verification: This is partially true, but it’s tied to the President’s budget request, not a congressional bill that has advanced as described.
◦ President Trump’s FY 2026 budget request, released in May 2025, indeed proposes a historic 44% reduction in HUD’s overall discretionary funding (from approximately $89.1 billion in FY 2025 to about $43.5 billion). This includes:
◦ Sources confirm this proposal would devastate affordable housing for seniors and low-income individuals, potentially leading to closures of facilities like The Maples if enacted, as HUD subsidies cover operational gaps (e.g., utilities, maintenance). The block grant shift could introduce uncertainty, with states deciding allocations, possibly prioritizing other needs over senior housing. 9 10 13 17 24 25 27 30 31 33 36 40
◦ However, this is not yet law—it’s a White House proposal submitted to Congress as a starting point for negotiations. Congress can (and often does) modify or reject it. Advocacy groups like the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), LeadingAge, and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) have strongly opposed it, warning of widespread evictions, homelessness increases, and closures of senior facilities nationwide if adopted. 11 26 28 41
2. Legislative Status of the Bill
• Assumption in the Letter: The 44% cut “has already passed the House of Representatives and just passed the Senate with amendments today” (implying July 1, 2025). The House must now reconcile or pass the Senate version, then send it to the President.
• Verification: This is false. No such bill incorporating a 44% HUD cut has passed either chamber of Congress as of July 14, 2025.
◦ The relevant bill is the FY 2026 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill, which funds HUD.
◦ House Status: The House Appropriations Committee released the bill text on July 13, 2025 (yesterday). A subcommittee markup (initial review and amendments) is scheduled for today, July 14, at 6:00 PM. It has not been voted on by the full committee, let alone passed the House floor. The process is just beginning, with potential full House consideration later in July or August. 1 3 37
◦ Senate Status: The Senate has not released or voted on its version of the THUD bill. Hearings on the President’s budget request occurred in June (e.g., Senate THUD Subcommittee on June 16), but no bill has advanced. Reconciliation between chambers hasn’t started because neither has passed a bill. 0 2 5 42
◦ The House’s released bill does not adopt the full 44% cut. It proposes a total THUD allocation of $89.91 billion (4.7% below FY 2025’s $94.37 billion), with HUD-specific changes including:
◦ No FY 2026 HUD appropriations bill has “passed the Senate with amendments” as claimed—Congress is still debating topline funding levels (302(b) allocations), and a government shutdown risk looms if no agreement by September 30, 2025. 4 6
3. Broader Impacts and Context from Comments
• The letter’s follow-up comment (by Marcia Estelle) accurately notes uncertainty from the block grant proposal and efforts to lobby state reps (e.g., meeting with Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa and Sen. Paul Mark today, July 14). This aligns with advocacy pushes. 26 45
• Some comments contain misinformation:
◦ Claims of cuts to Social Security or Medicare in the “big horrible bill” (e.g., Comment 4) are incorrect—the FY 2026 budget proposes no direct cuts to Social Security benefits (it adds a tax deduction for some seniors), though Medicare/Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied recipients (80 hours/month) are proposed, not targeting elderly.
◦ Comment 7 correctly notes no Social Security cuts and questions the letter’s alarmism, as facts weren’t fully in on July 1.
◦ Comment 6 raises valid questions about leases, ownership (The Maples is likely nonprofit-owned with HUD contracts), and alternatives—boards must honor leases, but funding loss could force closures; legal challenges or state interventions (e.g., via Gov. Healey) are options being explored, as per the follow-up.
• Nationally, Section 202 funds over 400,000 units in all 50 states; a full cut could displace thousands of seniors.
Overall Assessment
The core concern about potential devastating cuts to Section 202 housing is grounded in the President’s budget proposal, which could indeed threaten The Maples’ viability if Congress adopts it. However, the letter inaccurately portrays this as a bill that has already passed both chambers—it’s not; the process is nascent, and the House bill proposes much smaller cuts (4.7% overall for THUD). This may stem from confusion between the White House request and congressional action, or reliance on early reports from management companies. The alarm is premature but not unfounded, given advocacy warnings.
If you’re a resident or stakeholder, contacting reps (as suggested) or groups like NLIHC is advisable. For real-time updates, check congress.gov for bill H.R. [number pending] or HUD’s budget page. If the bill advances with deep cuts, it could reach the President by fall, but bipartisan opposition may soften it.