Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of Interior to submit to Congress a report on the National Park Service’s interpretation and application of the Standards for Rehabilitation for use of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 2448 is like asking a ranger to check if the rules that help keep old buildings nice are working well, and to see if they can also help make houses cheaper and protect the planet. They have a year to do this and tell Congress what they find.
Summary AI
H. R. 2448 directs the Secretary of the Interior to present a report to Congress about how the National Park Service interprets and applies the Standards for Rehabilitation under the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. The report must be submitted within one year of the bill's enactment and should cover various aspects, such as evaluation of past applications, potential areas for improvement, and recommendations for making the program more supportive of affordable housing and climate protection. The bill also requires the Secretary to review how the service implements changes and gathers user feedback.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Bill Summary
H.R. 2448 is a legislative proposal introduced in the House of Representatives, aimed at assessing the National Park Service’s (NPS) use of Standards for Rehabilitation within the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. This bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to deliver a comprehensive report to relevant congressional committees detailing how these standards are interpreted and applied, especially concerning historic preservation and affordable housing development. The report is expected within one year of the bill's enactment and will cover various aspects, including data on application processing over the past ten years, challenges faced by stakeholders, and recommendations for improving and updating the standards to align with current needs such as affordable housing, climate change mitigation, and accessibility enhancements.
Significant Issues
One of the critical issues highlighted in the bill relates to the deadline set for the report. The bill requires the report's completion within one year, which may not allow sufficient time for the exhaustive gathering and analysis of data necessary to provide meaningful insights and recommendations.
Another issue concerns the language used in the bill, particularly in areas describing "improvements" and "opportunities" for updating the standards. The terms are considered vague, potentially leading to multiple interpretations and a lack of clear direction in addressing existing barriers within the program.
Additionally, the bill mandates the report to address the process by which the NPS decides to update its guidance. However, it lacks specific criteria or circumstances that would trigger such updates, which could result in a lack of clarity and predictability for stakeholders.
Impact on the Public
This bill, if enacted, could play a significant role in shaping how historic preservation projects are managed across the United States. By potentially unlocking or easing the use of tax incentives, it might encourage more developers and property owners to undertake preservation projects, subsequently influencing urban development patterns.
The broader public would benefit from a clearer, more efficient application process for preservation projects, potentially leading to a greater number of historic buildings being preserved and adapted for modern uses, including affordable housing. These projects could also incorporate essential updates such as energy efficiency measures and accessibility enhancements, possibly improving quality of life and environmental sustainability in communities.
Impact on Stakeholders
National Park Service and the Department of the Interior: These organizations would be directly impacted, as they would need to allocate resources and time to compile the necessary data and develop strategies to address the report's requirements. Ensuring that the report is comprehensive and delivered on time could strain resources, especially if existing staff are reassigned to meet the bill's demands.
Developers and Property Owners: For developers and property owners involved in or considering historic building projects, improvements in the interpretation and application of standards could lead to more streamlined processes and better support for affordable housing initiatives. This might result in increased participation in the tax incentives program, spurring economic benefits from these developments.
Affordable Housing Advocates: Advocates for affordable housing may view this bill as a positive step toward integrating housing needs with historic preservation efforts. By removing barriers and providing clearer guidance, the program could become a more attractive option for entities aiming to increase affordable housing stock, thereby addressing some of the housing crises in various parts of the country.
Environmental and Disability Advocates: This bill could also positively impact those advocating for environmental sustainability and accessibility improvements in building design and renovation. By including specific considerations for these factors in historic preservation projects, the bill encourages a more holistic approach to development that could lead to broader societal benefits.
Overall, while the bill aims to provide a strategic assessment of the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, the challenges related to its implementation may influence how effectively it achieves its intended goals. Improved clarity and a more realistic timeline could enhance its prospects for success.
Issues
The report deadline set for '1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act' in Section 1(a) might not provide enough time for comprehensive data collection and assessment, potentially affecting the quality and depth of the report.
The phrase 'areas of improvement to and recommendations for the Standards to remove barriers' in Section 1(b)(2)(A) is too vague and lacks specificity, which can lead to misinterpretation and implementation challenges in addressing barriers effectively.
The requirement for identifying 'opportunities for the Secretary to update or provide additional guidance' as stated in Section 1(b)(2)(B) is vague, making it unclear what constitutes a significant opportunity, potentially leading to subjective interpretation.
The specification of 'the process that the Service uses to decide when to update guidance' under Section 1(b)(2)(E) lacks clarity on specific criteria or circumstances that would trigger such updates, thus affecting the predictability and transparency of the update process.
The report's requirement to cover 'most frequent issues that Program users, State reviewers, and other stakeholders raise' in Section 1(b)(2)(D) may result in an overly broad data collection, which can complicate the analysis due to lack of clear guidelines on prioritization and focus.
Section 1(b)(3) on 'recommendations of the Secretary regarding updates and improvements' could benefit from more specific evaluation metrics or criteria, especially related to housing needs, climate risk, and feasibility, to ensure these recommendations are actionable and measurable.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Report Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report within one year, detailing how the National Park Service interprets and applies standards for a program offering tax incentives for preserving historic buildings. The report must include data on applications over the past decade, identify areas for improvement and opportunities for updates regarding affordable housing and safety, and provide recommendations for making the program more compatible with modern needs like climate protection and economic feasibility.