NLIHC submitted comments to HUD on July 29 in response to proposed changes to the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program (see Memo, 6/3). The comments addressed tenant rights and protections, as well as provisions involving Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs), and expressed support for the greatly expanded tenant rights and protections provisions included in the proposed changes (see Memo, 5/20) and for those changes intended to facilitate the formation and continued operation of CHDOs, which are nonprofit organizations with a degree of accountability to low-income people and their neighborhoods (see Memo, 5/28). While welcoming all proposed changes, NLIHC also offered several recommendations.
Comments Regarding Proposed Tenant Protection Provisions
In the letter, NLIHC offered a suggestion that could strengthen tenants’ right to organize. NLIHC also urged HUD to explicitly state in the final rule that a tenant could contact their HOME Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) to challenge an owner’s charge for normal wear and tear to a unit, damage claim against a security deposit refund, or failure to return all or a portion of a tenant’s security deposit in a timely fashion.
The proposed rule would state that “other good cause” for termination or refusal to renew a lease may include cases in which a tenant creates a documented “nuisance” under applicable state or local law. NLIHC recommended that the final rule not use the term “nuisance” because localities and states have so-called “Crime Free Nuisance Ordinances” (CFNOs) and other laws that target residents with fines, evictions, or other penalties if they are thought responsible for alleged “nuisance” activity, such as calls to emergency services or noise disturbances related to domestic violence. Such policies can force survivors of domestic violence to make impossible decisions between calling for needed help and potentially losing their homes. NLIHC urged HUD to establish a “good cause” for eviction that requires an actual, substantial, and imminent threat to the health, safety, and right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by others.
For an owner to establish good cause for eviction for violation of federal, state, or local law, the proposed regulation would require a record of conviction for a crime that has a direct bearing on a tenant’s continued occupancy of the unit, such as a violation of law that affects the safety of others living at the property. NLIHC urged HUD to explicitly state in the final rule that the record of conviction be of a crime that took place during a person’s tenancy and not prior to tenancy.
Comments Regarding Proposed CHDO Provisions
NLIHC supported the proposed amendment changing the one-third “public official” board member limit on a government-created CHDO to “officials or employees of the PJ or government entity that created the CHDO.” This change would enable other public officials or employees, such as public school teachers, county planners, or state public works employees, to serve on a government-created CHDO board. NLIHC also supported two provisions regarding a potential CHDO’s ability to demonstrate “development capacity,” one by considering volunteers who are on the organization’s board, and the other by carrying out non-HOME housing development, such as those using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) or state or local housing resources.
The proposed rule would delete the requirement that rental housing created by a “developer” CHDO continue to be owned by that CHDO throughout the HOME affordability period. The preamble explained that the current rule’s requirement has created difficulties when a CHDO’s status has dramatically changed (for example, if a CHDO experienced bankruptcy, decreased capacity, etc.), thus requiring another CHDO to acquire the project in order to preserve its affordability. NLIHC supported this proposed change, however, commenting that simply deleting the old text does not promote CHDO project transfers, nor does it provide guidance regarding how to make a needed transfer or how to preserve affordability if another CHDO cannot take on the project. Therefore, NLIHC recommended that HUD explicitly state that ownership transfers are permitted when necessary to sustain a CHDO project and maintain compliance with HOME affordability requirements.
NLIHC supported a new paragraph that states that an organization that meets the CHDO definition – except for the demonstrated capacity provision – may receive HOME capacity building funds so that it can develop a demonstrated capacity to carry out HOME activities. NLIHC also recommended increasing from 24 to 36 months the time allowed for a PJ to commit CHDO set-aside funds to a project for a CHDO receiving capacity building funds. NLIHC also recommended that any CHDO be allowed to retain capacity building funds beyond 24 (or 36) months, provided the CHDO demonstrates that it is making a good-faith effort toward carrying out a CHDO set-aside project.
Read NLIHC’s comment letter at: https://tinyurl.com/47tvktn2
Read more about the HOME program on page 5-1 of NLIHC’s 2024 Advocates’ Guide.