The federal government shouldn’t spend taxpayer money on apartments unfit for human habitation, but the Department of Housing and Urban Development did just that in Homewood, Garfield and Larimer.

Now, as the Post-Gazette’s Kate Giammarise has reported, more than 100 residents have to decide whether to find new subsidized housing or remain where they are without further rental assistance there. Some are having trouble making the transition. HUD’s inspector general should investigate this debacle to determine how the ball was dropped and take steps to keep it from happening elsewhere.

HUD’s Section 8 subsidies defrayed the residents’ rent at units owned by Bethesda-Homewood Properties. HUD recently canceled its contract with the company because of widespread maintenance problems. But the agency should have stepped in long before conditions became so bad that it was unsafe or unhealthy for people to live in the properties.

Section 8 programs aren’t small initiatives requiring little oversight. Nationwide, they’re behemoth programs, assisting millions of families, involving hundreds of thousands of landlords and costing taxpayers billions of dollars annually. In some cases, the Section 8 money goes directly to owners of buildings who set aside units for eligible families. In others cases, eligible families receive vouchers to use at locations they choose. At Bethesda-Homewood, tenants fell into the former category.

Programs these important and costly require strict oversight by HUD offices. But in various parts of the country, that oversight is lacking. In July, for example, HUD’s inspector general released a report asserting that a Texas apartment complex accepted into the program nearly 100 “nonexistent, unqualified and questionable tenants” because of fraud committed by the landlord’s employees. The IG recommended that the apartment complex repay HUD about $800,000 and that the local HUD office step up monitoring of the landlord.

It sounds like better landlord monitoring is needed in Pittsburgh, too.

When it inspected the Bethesda-Homewood units, HUD documented exposed electrical wires, a lack of working smoke detectors, missing doors, cracked walls and peeling paint, among other problems. Based on inspection results, HUD’s online Real Estate Assessment Center gave the company’s units low marks. The question is why HUD, having documented the units’ problems, failed to ride herd on maintenance efforts or move residents out long before now.

Perhaps HUD balked because affordable housing in Pittsburgh can be difficult to find and there would be no easy way to replace Bethesda-Homewood units taken off line. Perhaps HUD doesn’t have the staff or infrastructure to monitor landlords as closely as needed. Perhaps residents and community leaders need better access to HUD officials who can force a landlord to keep properties in shape.

An investigation by HUD’s inspector general could shed light on these questions and make recommendations to improve the Section 8 program locally and nationwide. Based on reports of problems in other parts of the country, including Texas, some general improvements in Section 8 management appear warranted.

Those who want to stay in Bethesda-Homewood units can do so, but HUD no longer will subsidize their rent there. Those who want to move can get subsidized housing elsewhere. It shouldn’t have come to this.

Taxpayers are spending a lot of money to help disadvantaged families keep roofs over their heads. Those roofs shouldn’t leak.

First Published: October 24, 2017, 4:00 a.m.