Groups Say They Will Oppose H.R. 4858 If Certain Provisions Aren't Removed

April 19, 2010
| Share | Print

Several industry groups are voicing their opposition against certain provisions of the Housing Preservation and Tenant Protection Act of 2010 (H.R. 4868). Our sister publication, Assisted Housing Management Insider, reported on the legislation, which was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (www.assistedhousinginsider.com, 3/3/2010, Insider Online).

The National Leased Housing Association (NLHA) has posted a statement on its site, which has the backing of several other groups including the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition and the National Multi Housing Council, among others. The statement says that while there are many provisions in the draft bill that the groups support… “we are writing to restate our continued opposition to several provisions in the legislation that would adversely impact private sector involvement in preserving and recapitalizing our nation’s existing affordable housing stock and will result in our active opposition to H.R. 4868.” The groups’ biggest opposition stems from some provisions in the bill that would discourage “private capital in assisted housing from both a lending and an investing perspective.”

Among the provisions they are asking to be taken out of the proposed legislation are:

  • A provision giving the federal government right of first refusal. This means that a property owner would have to offer HUD the opportunity to purchase his housing before entering into any agreement to sell his property. The statement says that the federal government “is not authorized to shift the burden of providing affordable housing by unilaterally stripping owners of their established property rights” and questions where HUD would get the funding to purchase the properties.
  • A provision permitting state and local governments to create their own preservation and tenant protection laws for owners of projects receiving federal assistance. In addition to conflicting with federal regulations, the NLHA states that this provision would make property owners’ contracts with HUD “meaningless as states and localities could negotiate federal law.”

The groups are also asking that Section 304, regarding resident access to building information, be amended to “prohibit access to proprietary information, including financial information of owners, investors, home addresses, SSNs, etc.”

For more information about the proposed legislation, contact Denise Muha at dmuha@hudnlha.com or Lisa Blackwell at lblackwell@nmhc.org.