The Aug. 16 News article "Woman's dream home turns nightmarish" told the story of Juanita House, who bought a home on Woltz Street in 1995.

She was portrayed as a victim of the Department of Housing and Urban De
velopment, the bank that financed her and the developer who sold her the house.
While I am truly sympathetic to her plight, as the developer mentioned in the story, I want to state emphatically that I did not victimize her and I strongly suspect neither did anyone else.
The article mentioned that Ms. House fell behind on her mortgage payments, approximately $300 per month, including taxes and insurance.
The article alleged, "It's the story of a developer who sold her a house she couldn't afford."
I want to rebut this with words from the same article: "Shortly after buying the house, (Ms. House's) mother died, and her son was taken off Supplemental Security Income.
Her mother co-owned the house and was helping to pay the bills."
How is the developer to blame for selling her a house she couldn't afford, when the house was sold to both her and her mother? Ms. House and her mother were well-qualified and the bank (not us) approved their loan. To state that we sold her a
house she couldn't afford implies we should have know beforehand that her mother would die or her son would lose his benefits. The allegation is totally absurd.
We also come in for blame because the furnace broke down two years after she bought the house.
First, readers should be aware that this was not a new home, but rather a 90-year-old, $30,000 house. It was never warranted to be forever repair-free. In fact, the contrary is true: Ms. House was told by the lender that she must budget for regular maintenance and repairs. Second, before Ms. House bought her home, it was
inspected by a HUD appraiser who approved the condition of the house — including the furnace, which was in good working order.
The reality is that Ms. House's "nightmare" was not caused by us or HUD, but rather by the loss of family income.
The story also contained a factual error, reporting that HUD "banned" our business for one year. We entered into a voluntary agreement with HUD, which cannot be
characterized as a "ban." This was a "one-year voluntary exclusion." A "ban"
has a negative connotation, is usually unilateral and implies guilt. A "voluntary ex-
elusion," however, with the clause"with no admission of liability or wrongdoing by either party," gives a window for the presumption of innocence.
Finally, the article stated that the "ban" expired and we were "now back in business." This implies we were out of business for a time. That' is untrue. Since we opened our doors in 1941, our company has never been out of business. True, we voluntarily
stopped working with HUD. But. since there are thousands of non-HUD lenders, we continue as strong as ever.
We are weary of the misstatements being passed along to the pub-:.lie as fact. Based on this, the public" draws conclusions that are unfair and' untrue. Precisely because of this, we no longer service the inner city, for it is only there that one can get blamed
for a woman's mother dying, or for her furnace breaking two years after she bought the house. In other areas, people are presumed responsible for their actions.
Still, I feel our departure from the inner city is a loss because we were doing something that few were willing to do — trying to give home owner-ship opportunities to low-income peo-ple.
As for Ms. House, with her late fees waived, she can save her home. Indeed, she is quoted as saying she "loves" her house, and that is testimony in our favor. Very few developers would have worked with her in the first place and found her a home
she "loves." Ms. House should be a success story and, thanks to HUD, she may be. So we wish her good fortune in the future. And when she does succeed, like it or not, she can thank us: We believed in her first.
................................................................................................................

FRANK PARLATO JR. and his family
own Parlato Real Estate.
For writer guidelines for columns
appearing in this space, send a
self-addressed, stamped envelope to
Opinion Pages Guidelines, The Buffalo
News, P.O. Box 100, Buffalo, N.Y.
14240.