National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

HUD's 1995 Bill:
The American Community Partnerships Act —
A Summary of the Public Housing Provisions

HUD has sent to Congress a bill¹ to implement its Blueprint for Reinvention. The bill is generally the same as the narrative description unveiled in the Department's March publication of its HUD Reinvention: From Blueprint to Action.² HUD proposes a staged transition of public housing from the current program to one in which public housing tenants would become certificate holders and public housing authorities (PHAs) would become ordinary private landlords. HUD's bill would accomplish that result be adding a new Title IV to the United States Housing Act of 1937.

In Stage I, Deregulation and Consolidation, most of the current restrictions on PHAs would be repealed or radically revised, including those that create rights for tenants and applicants. The various public housing funding programs would be consolidated into two: a capital fund for renovations, demolitions and replacement housing and an operating fund for operating costs.³ Stage I would begin immediately upon the bill's enactment and would last for about two years (until 1998) for about one-third of the units, for four years (until 2000) for another third, and for five years (until 2001) for the remainder.⁴ HUD could grant extensions, but there would have to be extraordinary circumstances for an extension to go beyond a six-year period.⁵

In Stage II, Project-Based Assistance Tied to Market Rents, the funding system would be changed. Operating subsidies and modernization grants would be eliminated. In their place, the PHAs would be given one-year contracts for project-based certificates, with housing assistance payments based upon the market value of the units. Most of the tenants' rights that would be retained during Stage I's deregulation would be preserved for tenants already in the building when Stage II begins, but not for new tenants moving in.⁶ For each development, Stage II would last for one year. Thus roughly one-third of the units would finish Stage II and reach full certificate status by 1999, another third by 2001 and the rest by 2002.⁷

In Stage III, the project-based certificates would convert to tenant-based and the tenants would be free to move elsewhere. Again, only tenants residing in buildings at the time they left Stage I would retain any federal tenants' rights.⁸

Stage I: Deregulation and Consolidation

Deregulation (§§ 441-444 and 471-473)

The new Title IV would replace the current provisions of the United States Housing Act that govern public housing, including those that create rights for tenants and applicants.⁹ During Stage I, the proposed legislation would repeal some of those rights and redefine others, including eligibility, preferences, rents, grievance procedures and leases. Unlike some of the other provisions in HUD's bill, many of these changes are attractive to the PHAs and may very well be enacted by Congress.

Income limits

Currently, applicants for public housing must have incomes at or under 50 percent of area median income for their size family, except that 25 percent of the older units (those existing before October 1, 1981) and 15 percent of the newer ones may be rented to applicants with incomes up to 80 percent of area median income.¹⁰ Under the new Title IV, the basic 50-percent-of-area-income limit would be retained.¹¹ However, PHAs would be allowed to rent an unlimited number of their units to applicants with incomes up to 80 percent of area median, if they were willing to pay a ceiling rent, that is, at least the market value of the unit and one that covers at least the operating costs plus a reserve for replacements.¹²

Skipping

With one minor exception, current law prevents PHAs from skipping over applicants with lower incomes in order to accept higher income applicants who have applied later, with a minor exception.¹³ That anti-skipping provision would not be retained in the new act.

Preferences

Federal law also establishes a system of preferences that PHAs must follow in choosing from eligible applicants. In summary, half of the PHAs choices must qualify for one of the federally prescribed preferences, including being displaced, living in substandard housing or being homeless, or paying excessive rents. The other half can be applicants that fit into local preference categories established by the PHAs.¹⁴

Under the new act, the PHAs would be allowed to create two preference categories, but would not be required to do so.¹⁵ One would be for applicants who have at least one adult in the family who is working or preparing for work. No more than 50 percent of the admissions could have received preference for being in this category. The second permissible preference category would be applicants with urgent needs consistent with needs identified in the local Consolidated Plan. Again, no more than 50 percent of the admissions could be granted to people because of their being in that category.

Under HUD's proposed legislation, there would be two overriding rules on preferences. First, notwithstanding any preferences, at least 10 percent of the admissions would have to be based on chronological order of application. Second, for projects for the elderly or people with disabilities, applicants with incomes at or under 50 percent of area median income would have preference.

Rents

For rents, the general formula of basing rent upon 30 percent of adjusted family income would be retained.¹⁶ There would still be some federally prescribed adjustments, i.e., $480 for each dependent, $400 and excessive medical expenses for each elderly or disabled family, attendant care and auxiliary apparatus expenses for family members with disabilities, child care expenses, and excessive travel expenses for tenants of Indian housing authorities. The new Title IV would not carry over the 1990 Act reforms that, subject to appropriations, raised the dependent figure to $550, made excessive medical expenses of all families deductible, made child support payments deductible, and created deductions and deferred treatment for new earned income.¹⁷ The PHA would be able to add such adjustments on its own, but HUD would not cover any increased need for operating subsidies that might arise because of those adjustments.¹⁸

Ceiling and minimum rents

Notwithstanding the general rent-setting formula, PHAs would be allowed to established both maximum and minimum rents, unrelated to the tenants' actual incomes. On the minimum side, the PHA would be allowed to set a flat minimum rent for each apartment, as long as it did not exceed 30 percent of the gross SSI grant for single tenants or 30 percent of the gross AFDC or successor program grant to an appropriately sized family. The PHA could charge a tenant that minimum rent even if it exceeded 30 percent of the tenant's actual adjusted income.¹⁹ On the maximum side, the PHA could set ceiling rents at the housing's market value, but not less than operating costs plus a deposit to a replacement reserve. The PHA could reduce the rents of higher income tenants to that level, even if 30 percent of their adjusted incomes were higher. HUD would not cover any increased need for operating subsidies that might arise because of those ceiling rents.²⁰

Grievance procedure

Each PHA would have to maintain a grievance procedure for resolving disputes between the PHA or resident management corporation (RMC) and the tenants.²¹ The grievance procedure would apply to evictions, with two exceptions: first, for evictions involving drugs or criminal or other threatening activity, the PHA could skip the grievance process if HUD has determined that the jurisdiction's eviction proceedings meet the basic elements of due process. Current law allows the PHA to skip the grievance process only for criminal activities.²² The second exception where the PHA could skip the first, informal settlement step would be for all evictions in jurisdictions that have due process eviction procedures. Again, this would be in contrast to current law, which allows PHAs to skip the first step only for evictions involving criminal activities.²³

The current statutory provisions identify the particular tenant protections that each grievance procedure must include. These provisions would not be retained,²⁴ nor would the specific requirements that any changes be made by HUD in regulations with rights to comment. The revisions would also eliminate the statutory language that currently grants public housing tenants a right to discovery of documents during any judicial eviction process.

Leases and good cause for eviction

On leases, HUD's proposed act would retain the current requirement that the PHA have good cause before evicting a tenant.²⁵ However, it would not retain the other statutory tenants' rights regarding leases, including the ban on unreasonable lease terms, the PHA's duty to maintain the project in decent condition, tenants right to 14 days' notice in nonpayment eviction cases and 30 days' notice in others, and the right to discovery of documents during any judicial eviction proceedings.²⁶

Community service

One provision that contradicts the current emphasis on deregulation is proposed Section 473, which mandates that PHAs require all adult family members to contribute at least eight hours of work per month within the community. HUD would be allowed to create exemptions for the elderly, for people with disabilities who are unable to meet the requirement, and for people already employed.

As the discussion below explains, even the bill's limited preservation of tenants' rights would disappear, at least for new tenants, when the developments move into stages II and III.

Demolition and Sales

Another part of HUD's bill that is likely to be enacted is its scheme for widespread demolitions and sales.²⁷ That provision has a number of parts, including (1) a requirement that each PHA review each of its developments to determine whether to demolish or renovate them, with a plan for implementing the decisions; (2) a loosening of the current rules on demolitions and sales; and (3) increased efforts to turn around or eliminate troubled PHAs.

The strategic plan (§ 412)

Every PHA must develop a strategic plan that determines the marketability and needs of each of their developments. In doing so, PHAs must consult with the tenants, neighbors and other persons designated by HUD. The mayor must certify that the plan is consistent with the local entity's Consolidated Plan. There is no requirement that potential applicants or people on the waiting list be consulted.

The plan must schedule the demolitions, rehabilitation and transition to tenant-based assistance. It must also describe how assistance will be used to improve management and conditions and to assist tenant programs and services.

New demolition and sale rules (§§ 451-456 and 204(c))

Demolition standard

First, the standard for deciding when HUD can approve demolition of a project would be modified in four respects. It would authorize HUD to approve demolitions of projects (1) that are severely distressed or obsolete, without any showing that they are beyond rehabilitation; (2) that are in locations unsuitable for housing purposes; (3) that have deficiencies that make cost-effective rehabilitation infeasible; or (4) that, even after rehabilitation, would not command market-based rents to cover operating costs and replacement reserves. Currently, demolitions of entire projects may be approved only if they are obsolete and it is not feasible to return the projects to a useful life.³⁰

Relocation

The relocation rights of any displaced tenants are more specific in the proposed statute than they now are under Section 18. Not only would PHAs be required to ensure that displaced tenants are relocated to decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing, but the tenants would have to be paid relocation expenses, and their initial rents following relocation would not be permitted to exceed their former public housing rents. Provisions along these lines have already been included in the Senate version of the FY 1995 rescission bill.³¹

One-for-one replacement

The new Title IV is missing many of the crucial protections for tenants and applicants that are now included in Section 18. There would be no requirement that demolished units be replaced on a one-for-one or any other basis. There would be no requirement that the demolition application be developed in consultation with affected tenants and tenant councils. There would be no requirement, in the case of demolition, that tenants first be offered an opportunity to purchase the buildings. Local government officials would not have to certify that the demolition was consistent with local plans, although that might be covered in the PHAs' development of the initial strategy plan. Both the House and Senate versions of the FY 1995 rescission bill, H.R. 1158³² and S. 617, would repeal the one-for-one replacement requirement for this and past fiscal years.

De facto demolition

Most fundamentally, the proposed act would not include the current provision banning PHAs from taking any action to demolish a project without securing HUD's approval and without complying with the United States Housing Act.³³ That provision forms the basis for the de facto demolition doctrine, and provided the basis for success in many of the recent cases challenging PHA actions that had lead, in effect, to the demolition of projects.³⁴ Moreover, the new Title IV would affirmatively authorize PHAs to deliberately vacate a building and hold it vacant without HUD approval, at least if the PHA were doing so to improve tenants' living conditions or provide them with more efficient services.³⁵ That provision seems intended to specifically overrule the holding in Velez.³⁶ It has already been included in the latest version of the rescission bill.³⁷

Sale standard

On sales, the proposed act parallels current law slightly more than do its provisions on demolition. The standard for deciding whether a development should be sold remains almost the same.³⁸ The PHA, in appropriate circumstances, has to offer the property first to any eligible resident organizations or management corporations.³⁹ Any tenants facing displacement would have the same relocation rights as apply in the case of demolition. Tenants who remain in the units after the sale will have the same terms and conditions in their leases as before the sale and those leases cannot be terminated except for good cause. The new act, however, would not retain the current requirements for one-for-one replacement, tenant consultation and consistency with local housing plans.

These changes regarding demolitions and sales would also be made retroactive.⁴⁰ Thus, if HUD has approved the demolition or sale of a project in the past and even funded replacement units, the statutory duty to replace each unit that prevailed when the application was approved would no longer have any force and effect. Thus, if the PHA now were to decide not to complete the replacement, or to convert the planned units to housing for the elderly, the previous statutory language prohibiting that would be ineffective. The only exception to this retroactive provision would be for cases where the demolition or sale was part of a court order or court-approved settlement. This approach to retroactivity has already been included in both the House and Senate versions of the rescission bill, although the exception for court cases is only in the House version.

Troubled PHAs (§§ 461-464)

The last part of HUD's scheme for widespread demolition and sales of public housing is its plan for troubled PHAs. HUD would be required to declare a troubled PHA to be in breach of its Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) if, after one year's notice, the PHA had not demonstrated improvement satisfactory to HUD. PHAs that already have been identified as troubled would have one year from the effective date of the new act to demonstrate improvement. Other PHAs that fail the Public Housing Management Assessment Program would be notified of their one-year probation.

Once HUD declares a breach of the ACC, it must either directly take control of the PHA or appoint another entity to do so. HUD will have authority to spend funds from a new capital fund to create such entities to take over troubled PHAs and dispose of their assets.⁴¹ Sales and demolitions would still be governed by the rules proposed in the new Title IV that are described above. Otherwise, HUD and the new entities would have all the powers that a court-appointed receiver or bankruptcy trustee would have.

Consolidated Funding (§ 413)

During Stage I, the current public housing funding categories would be consolidated into a capital fund and an operating fund. If funds have been reserved for a PHA, they must be used under the capital or operating fund. If they have been obligated to a PHA, they may be used under the capital or operating funds. If funds have been received by a PHA from either fund, the PHA may continue to use them for the designated purpose, even after the development is converted to Stage II or III.

The Capital Fund (§§ 421-425)

HUD would be authorized to make grants from the capital fund to PHAs for physical improvements, for replacement housing and for related management improvements. These would include activities previously funded under the Comprehensive Grant program, CIAP, HOPE VI and the early childhood development program, but the specific statutory requirements of those programs would not apply when capital grant funds were being used. The particular activities would include reconstruction and reconfiguration, vacancy reduction, demolition and replacement, relocation, and economic empowerment and self-sufficiency. The grants could not be used to develop new public housing units other than replacement units. For FY 1996, the authorization for this fund would be nearly $4.9 billion.

HUD would continue parts of the Tenant Opportunity Program with this capital fund. It would be required to spend $25 million of the fund each year for grants made directly to resident councils, organizations or management corporations. The grants would have to be spent on resident management or other activities to improve the economic self-sufficiency of public housing tenants. In addition, HUD could use capital grant funds to provide training and technical assistance to resident organizations.

The Operating Fund (§§ 431-435)

HUD would be mandated to make grants to PHAs from the operating fund for the normal activities funded currently under the operating subsidy program, as well as for anti-crime activities and service coordinators. For FY 1996, the authorization for the fund would be $3.2 billion.

The formula for allocating the funds would be generally the same as that used under the current performance funding system, with modifications to reflect anti-crime activities and service coordinators as new eligible activities. There also would be changes in the treatment of vacant units and "other income," and the rental income increase factor would be eliminated. Negotiated rulemaking would no longer be required for changes regarding the vacant units.

HUD would be authorized to grant performance bonuses to PHAs that make particularly rapid and effective progress toward the transition to stages II and III.

Miscellaneous Stage I Changes

HUD would be allowed to waive federal state and local procurement requirements.⁴² It would be authorized to choose which, if any, of the lead-based paint requirements to apply to public housing during stages I and II.⁴³ PHA participation in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program would not be mandatory.⁴⁴

Stage II: Project-Based Assistance Tied to Market Rents

For projects that have reached Stage II, which in most cases will last only one year, the PHA would no longer be eligible to receive subsidies from either the capital fund or the operating fund. Instead, for these projects, the PHA would have a contract with HUD, funded out of the new Housing Certificate Fund, for project-based assistance.⁴⁵ The assistance would cover only units that are occupied and that are decent, safe and sanitary.⁴⁶ There would be no subsidies for vacant or substandard units. The amount of the assistance would be the difference between the tenant's contribution and the reasonable rent for the unit or the PHA's payment standard, whichever would be lower.⁴⁷ The tenants will not be allowed to move out of the project and take their assistance with them during this one year period.⁴⁸

Fifteen-year project-based assistance

There would be three exceptions to the tenants' right to use their certificate assistance to move out at the end of the one-year transition period. When replacement units are developed in partnership with private developers, HUD could allow the assistance for these new units to remain project-based for 15 years.⁴⁹ If developments were sold to resident management corporations, the assistance could also be project-based for 15 years.⁵⁰ If the building was housing for the elderly or people with disabilities, the PHA could put tenants who want to move out on a waiting list for certificate assistance, as long as a majority of the tenants wish to remain.⁵¹

Grievance procedures and good cause

During Stage II, some of the applicants' and tenants' rights retained in Stage I would continue in effect.⁵² Tenants who were in a building when it converted to Stage II could not be evicted without good cause and would have the protections of the grievance procedure as it existed under Stage I. However, new tenants who move in after Stage II starts will get only one-year leases, with no protection against landlord refusals to renew without good cause and with no grievance procedure.⁵³

Rents

Rents for tenants in place at the time of conversion and any new tenants who move in with certificates would be set at 30 percent of their adjusted incomes.⁵⁴ The adjustments would be the same as those for Stage I.⁵⁵ Ceiling rents could, in effect, continue for assisted tenants, because the maximum rent would be the reasonable market rent (§ 187(e)), which is the same standard for setting ceiling rents. If the reasonable market rent for the unit is less than the payment standard (the maximum rent PHAs can pay for a unit), HUD might allow the tenant to share some of the subsidy savings.⁵⁶ There would be no minimum rent. If, however, the reasonable market rent for the unit exceeded the payment standard, assisted tenants would have to pay the excess above the payment standard out of their own pockets, in addition to their normal contribution of 30 percent of adjusted income.⁵⁷ Any new tenants who move in without a certificate would have to pay the unassisted market rents for their units.⁵⁸

Any tenants present at the time of conversion who have incomes above 50 percent of area median (the normal income limit for the certificate program), would still receive certificate assistance if the market rent for their unit exceeded 30 percent of their adjusted income, as long as 30 percent of their adjusted income did not exceed the payment standard.⁵⁹ If they could pay the payment standard or the market rent with 30 percent of their adjusted income, they would not be eligible for assistance. Tenants made ineligible by that rule would be at a disadvantage when the development reached Stage III, because they would not have certificates with which to move out, even though rents on the private market might exceed 30 percent of their adjusted income.

When units become vacant during Stage II, the PHA will have to rent them either to families on the Housing Certificate Fund waiting list or to families who will pay market rents and who have incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median.⁶⁰ To counteract the possibility that a PHA might rent all its units to applicants with incomes above 50 percent of median, HUD would have the power to set a minimum percentage of units for tenants with incomes under 50 percent of median, but the statute does not specify the minimum.⁶¹ It appears that the percentage would be applied to the tenants in occupancy and any new admissions, not merely to the families admitted during a particular time period. With respect to a reasonable number of its units, the PHA could not refuse to accept certificate holders.⁶²

In Stage II, no federal rules would control the PHAs' use of preferences to select applicants for these buildings, except that federal law would still slightly control who received certificates. As with public housing in Stage I, PHAs would be allowed to use work preferences and urgent needs preferences, but no others, to hand out certificates.⁶³ Who receives certificates would somewhat limit the options PHAs would have for renting their units. However, to the extent they were able to rent units to non-certificate holders, with incomes above 50 percent of median or not, PHAs could select among applicants in any manner they pleased. The Stage I preference for applicants with incomes at or under 50 percent of area median income in projects for the elderly or people with disabilities would be dropped.

During Stage II the same rules on demolition and sales that applied during Stage I would continue to apply. Thus, a PHA could not demolish or sell a Stage II project without HUD approval and without meeting the standards discussed above.⁶⁴

Stage III: Tenant-Based Assistance

In Stage III, the conversion to tenant-based assistance would be complete. Tenants in the building at the time of conversion would be able to use their certificate assistance elsewhere, unless one of the three exceptions described above applied.⁶⁵ Tenants with incomes above 50 percent of area median would not get certificates to move, unless the rent for their units exceeded 30 percent of their adjusted income.⁶⁶

Tenants who were in the building when it converted to Stage II and who remained when Stage III was reached would still be protected from evictions without good cause and retain the right to a grievance procedure,⁶⁷ but they would have no other public housing tenants' rights and new tenants would not have even those protections.

PHAs would still be prohibited from renting to applicants with incomes above 80 percent of area median and would have to reserve an appropriate, HUD-specified number of units for applicants with incomes beneath 50 percent of the median.⁶⁸ They would also be banned from rejecting certificate holders for a reasonable number of units.⁶⁹

PHAs would also have to secure HUD permission to demolish or sell the buildings. The rules governing these demolition and disposition decisions would be the same as for Stage I.⁷⁰

The restrictions — on renting to applicants with incomes over 80 percent of area median, on having to rent a portion of the units to certificate holders and applicants with incomes below 50 percent of the median income, on leases and grievance procedures for the original tenants, and on demolition and disposition — would not last forever. Any Stage III projects that received money from the capital fund during Stage I would have to comply with these restrictions for 20 years from the date the capital fund grant was executed.⁷¹ If a project received no funds from the capital fund but received a grant from the operating fund during Stage I, it would be subject to these requirements for 10 years after receipt of the grant.⁷²

Conclusion

1. HUD's proposed American Community Partnerships Act (May 1995).
2. See HUD's Reinvention: From Blueprint to Action — Proposed Changes for Public Housing: A Summary, 25 HOUS. L. BULL. 71 (Apr. 1995), for a description of the public housing provisions.
3. §§ 402(a) and 411-473 of proposed Title IV. In this article, the citations to sections numbered 400-499 refer to a new Title IV of the United States Housing Act as it would be added by Section 202 of HUD's American Community Partnerships Act. The citations of other sections, e.g., § 205, are to the bill itself.
4. Proposed new Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 403.
5. Id. § 403(b).
6. Id. §§ 402(b) and 481-487.
7. Id. § 403.
8. Id. §§ 402(c) and 491-499.
9. Id. § 401(a).
10. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n (West 1994).
11. Proposed new Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 441.
12. Id. § 442.
13. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437n(c) (West 1994).
14. Id. § 1437d(c)(4)(A).
15. Proposed Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 444(b).
16. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 205.
17. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1437a(b)(5) and 1437a(c) (West 1994).
18. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 205.
19. Proposed Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 443.
20. Id. § 442.
21. Id. § 471.
22. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(k) (West 1994).
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Proposed Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 472.
26. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437d(l) (West 1994).
27. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 411.
28. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 204(c).
29. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at §§ 451-456.
30. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437p(a)(1) (West 1994).
31. S. 617, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (passed Apr. 7, 1995).
32. H.R. 1158, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (passed Mar. 15, 1995).
33. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437p(d) (West 1994).
34. See, e.g., Velez v. Cisneros, 850 F. Supp. (E.D. Pa. 1994); Henry Horner Mothers' Guild v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 780 F. Supp. 511 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Tinsley v. Kemp, 750 F. Supp. 1001 (W.D. Mo. 1990); and Concerned Tenants Ass'n of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp. 316 (D. Conn. 1988).
35. Proposed new Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 454.
36. Supra note 34.
37. H.R. 1944, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (passed June 29, 1995).
38. Proposed new Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, § 453(a).
39. Id. § 453(c).
40. Id. § 456.
41. Id. § 424(c)(3).
42. Id. § 414.
43. Id. § 415.
44. Id. § 416.
45. Id. § 481.
46. Id. § 482.
47. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at §§ 184(b) and 187(e).
48. Id. § 185(d).
49. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 484.
50. Id.
51. Id. § 485. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 185(c).
52. Id. § 483.
53. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 186.
54. Id. § 184(b).
55. Id. § 183(1).
56. Id. § 184(b)(1).
57. Id. § 184(b).
58. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 483.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id.
62. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 187(c).
63. Id. § 187(a).
64. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 483. See text accompanying notes 28-40, supra.
65. Id. § 491. See text accompanying notes 49-51, supra.
66. Id. § 495.
67. Id. §§ 493 and 494.
68. Id. §§ 496 and 497.
69. The American Community Partnerships Act, supra note 1, at § 187(c).
70. New Title IV of the United States Housing Act, supra note 3, at § 492.
71. Id. § 491(b).
72. Id.