Overview
Title
To establish a manufactured housing community improvement grant program, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The PRICE Act is about giving money to help fix and improve places where people live in mobile homes, making them safer and nicer, especially for those who don't have a lot of extra money.
Summary AI
S. 943, also known as the "Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement Act" or the "PRICE Act," aims to create a grant program to improve manufactured housing communities across the United States. The bill outlines eligible recipients and projects, such as developing community infrastructure, repairing or replacing existing homes, and enhancing accessibility and safety features. It prioritizes projects benefiting low- and moderate-income residents and seeks to maintain long-term housing affordability. The Secretary of Housing can waive certain legal requirements to facilitate the program's implementation, and funds can be specifically reserved for Indian Tribes and their housing entities.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as the “Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement Act” or the “PRICE Act,” aims to establish a grant program to support improvements in manufactured housing communities. The bill seeks to allocate funds for various projects, including infrastructure enhancements, housing reconstructions, and services for residents. An emphasis is placed on prioritizing projects that benefit low- and moderate-income individuals, ensuring long-term affordability and safety within these communities.
Summary of Significant Issues
Broad Authority to Waive Requirements:
A primary concern with the bill is the broad authority it grants to the Secretary to waive or change certain legal requirements. While this flexibility could be beneficial for tailoring solutions to specific community needs, it poses risks of diverging from the Act's original intent and undermining consistency in the application of the law.
Lack of Accountability Measures:
The bill lacks specific accountability measures or oversight mechanisms for how grants are distributed and utilized. This could result in inefficient use of funds or potential misuse, raising concerns regarding financial oversight and ethical governance.
Open-Ended Appropriations:
The bill authorizes open-ended funding, designating "such sums as may be necessary." This approach could lead to financial mismanagement without clear budgetary controls, potentially impacting fiscal discipline.
Vague Prioritization Criteria:
The criteria for prioritizing grant applicants are not clearly defined. This lack of specificity could result in inconsistent application of the program, leading to issues of fairness and perceived inequities among different communities and stakeholders.
Definition Challenges:
The definition of an "eligible manufactured housing community" heavily relies on the Secretary's discretion, which may introduce subjectivity and lack clarity. Communities predominantly featuring older housing units face uncertainties due to restrictions on using funds for units built before June 15, 1976.
Interpretation of Protection Needs:
Terms like "necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents" are open to interpretation. This ambiguity may result in disputes or unequal application of funding, affecting the perceived fairness and effectiveness of the program.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broad Public Impact
The bill's intent to enhance living conditions and maintain affordable housing is of significant public interest, particularly as housing affordability remains a pressing issue across the United States. By focusing on manufactured housing communities, the bill targets affordable housing options for low- and moderate-income families, making strides in addressing housing equity.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Residents of Manufactured Housing Communities: Residents stand to benefit from improved infrastructure, enhanced safety, and better living conditions. The focus on affordability aims to protect existing residents from displacement due to rising housing costs.
Local Governments and Housing Authorities: These entities might gain valuable resources to tackle housing challenges within their jurisdictions. However, without clear accountability measures or oversight, they may also face challenges in effectively managing and implementing the grants.
Nonprofit and Community Development Organizations: These groups could access new funding opportunities to support housing projects and resident services, promoting community engagement and wellbeing. Clear guidelines and accountability are crucial to ensure these organizations can maximize the benefits of the grants effectively.
In conclusion, while the bill presents a promising initiative for improving manufactured housing communities, it requires more defined criteria, accountability measures, and fiscal controls to effectively achieve its goals and ensure fair and efficient distribution of grants.
Issues
The broad authority granted to the Secretary in Section 2 and Section 123(e) to waive or specify alternative requirements could potentially undermine specific legislative intents and lead to decisions not aligned with the original goals of the Act. This could have legal and ethical implications if not properly restricted or monitored.
The lack of defined accountability measures or oversight mechanisms in Section 2 for the distribution and utilization of grants could lead to inefficiencies or misuse of funds. This is a significant concern from both financial and ethical standpoints.
The open-ended authorization of appropriations ('such sums as may be necessary') in Sections 2 and 123(g) could lead to unspecified financial commitments without adequate budgetary controls, potentially resulting in fiscal irresponsibility.
The prioritization criteria in Sections 2 and 123(d) for grant awards are vague. Without specific criteria, this could lead to inconsistent application across different communities, raising ethical and fairness concerns.
The definition of 'eligible manufactured housing community' in Section 123(a)(2) relies on the Secretary's determination, which might introduce subjectivity or lack clarity, potentially affecting equitable implementation of the program.
The restriction in Section 123(c)(2)(A), prohibiting the use of funds for rehabilitation or modernization of units built before June 15, 1976, without clarifying what happens to communities predominantly featuring such units, leaves uncertainty for these communities, which could have social and financial implications.
The term 'necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents' in Section 123(c)(1)(H) is open to interpretation, possibly leading to disputes or uneven application of standards, impacting both legal and political perceptions of the program's fairness and effectiveness.
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 section establishes that this legislative document is officially titled the “Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative for Community Enhancement Act” and can be referred to as the “PRICE Act” for short.
2. Manufactured housing community improvement grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The proposed section of the bill establishes a grant program to fund improvements in manufactured housing communities. It defines key terms, describes eligible projects like infrastructure upgrades and home replacements, and prioritizes grants that benefit low- and moderate-income residents, ensuring long-term affordability.
123. Preservation and reinvestment for community enhancement Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section establishes a grant program to improve or develop manufactured housing communities, focusing on projects that benefit low- and moderate-income residents. It defines terms like "community development financial institution" and prioritizes activities that enhance living conditions, provide resident services, and maintain long-term affordability and safety.