Overview
Title
To amend the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 to remove the limit on the number of public housing agencies the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may add to the moving to work demonstration program.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 9377 is a plan to allow more housing groups to join a special program, which currently only lets 30 join. Now, they want at least 15 to join, but they don't say how many can join in total.
Summary AI
H. R. 9377 proposes to amend a specific section of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. This bill aims to change the rule regarding how many public housing agencies can be added to the "Moving to Work" demonstration program by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Currently, there is a cap of 30 agencies, and this bill seeks to replace that cap with a new minimum of 15 agencies. This change is intended to expand the program and potentially include more public housing agencies.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as H. R. 9377: Deliver Housing Now Act of 2024, aims to modify an aspect of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Specifically, it seeks to amend the existing limit on the number of public housing agencies that can participate in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's "Moving to Work" (MTW) demonstration program. The current legislation limits this to "up to 30" agencies, while the amendment proposes to change this to "not less than 15," effectively removing the cap and leaving the upper limit unspecified.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill raises several significant issues. First, the language change from a specific limit of "up to 30" agencies to "not less than 15" is ambiguous because it does not provide a new upper limit. This creates an open-ended scenario where theoretically any number of agencies could be included in the program, raising concerns about potential fiscal impacts and challenges in administrative oversight.
Additionally, the amendment lacks clarity on the criteria or guidelines for choosing which additional public housing agencies could join the program. This could lead to questions about fairness and transparency in the selection process. Moreover, there is no accompanying analysis or justification offered for lifting the cap, leaving stakeholders to wonder about the necessity and potential benefits of this legislative change.
Impact on the Public Broadly
For the general public, the removal of a cap on participating public housing agencies in the MTW program could signify a broader effort to enhance housing options and flexibility within the public housing system. However, without a defined upper limit or guidance on selection criteria, this initiative could strain government resources, potentially impacting the effectiveness of the program's roll-out and oversight.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Public Housing Agencies: These agencies would potentially have more opportunities to participate in the MTW program, allowing for greater local experimentation and innovation in addressing housing needs. However, without clear criteria, there could be inconsistencies and perceived inequities in which agencies benefit from the program.
Government and Taxpayers: The lack of a specified upper limit might lead to increased demands on government funds, thereby affecting budget allocations. Taxpayers may express concerns about how additional spending on the program is justified and managed, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability from the outset.
Residents and Communities: Residents living in areas managed by newly participating MTW agencies may see improvements in housing services as agencies implement broader initiatives. Conversely, an overly rapid or disorganized expansion could lead to inefficiencies in service delivery, impacting those who rely on these programs the most.
In summary, while the bill holds potential benefits for delivering more adaptive housing solutions across different regions, its current formulation lacks the precision needed to ensure equitable and efficient implementation. Clarity in legislative terms and transparent criteria for selection will be crucial in assuring the public and stakeholders of the advantages intended by the bill.
Issues
The amendment changes the limit for public housing agencies from 'up to 30' to 'not less than 15' without setting a new upper limit. This could lead to an undefined or excessive number of agencies, potentially affecting budget allocations and oversight. (Section 2)
The language in Section 2 might lead to misunderstandings about the intended number of agencies as it only provides a minimum without clarity on the maximum, affecting implementation and resource distribution.
There is no mention of criteria or guidelines for selecting additional public housing agencies in Section 2. This lack of clarity could raise concerns about fairness or potential bias in the selection process.
The amendment lacks analysis or justification for the change, providing no context or evidence on why it is necessary or beneficial, which might lead to public skepticism about the intent or effectiveness of the change. (Section 2)
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. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be officially called the "Deliver Housing Now Act of 2024."
2. Removal of limit on number of public housing agencies that may be added to moving to work demonstration program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section changes the law to allow more public housing agencies to be part of the "moving to work" program by removing the previous limit of 30 agencies and setting a new minimum of 15 agencies.