Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for co…
The bill requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to collect and publish data on properties that received Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) allocations.
It specifies categories of information to collect (development costs, ownership, habitability, disposition reasons, expiration of affordability, qualified contract waivers, inspections, etc.), requires State allocating agencies to submit data within 18 months of a property being placed in service and annually thereafter, and directs HUD to set standards, provide technical assistance, minimize duplicate reporting, and issue periodic public reports.
The Secretary must also collect purchaser information for properties leaving LIHTC eligibility, including nonprofit status.
Technocratic transparency bills often advance, but implementation costs, data confidentiality concerns, and Senate procedural barriers create nontrivial uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and reasonably specific federal reporting requirement for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties, assigning duties to HUD and State administering agencies and listing data elements and submission cadences. However, it omits funding authority, explicit timelines for HUD to issue standards, mechanisms for enforcement or penalties, and protections for sensitive data. There is also a technical inconsistency in the cited Internal Revenue Code year.
Liberals stress tenant protection and accountability benefits
Liberals stress tenant protection and accountability benefits
Likely broadly supportive: sees the bill as increasing transparency and accountability for affordable housing and protecting tenants from loss of affordability.
Will view public data as useful for enforcement, community advocacy, and research on LIHTC outcomes.
May push for strong public access, tenant privacy protections, and data on displacement risk.
Generally favorable to transparency, but cautious about unfunded mandates, administrative cost, and data quality.
Will want clarity on scope, cost estimates, and protections for proprietary business information.
Supports coordination with states to avoid duplicate reporting.
Likely skeptical: views the bill as an additional federal reporting mandate that could expose proprietary developer information and discourage investment.
Concerned about federal overreach into state-administered LIHTC programs and unknown compliance costs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic transparency bills often advance, but implementation costs, data confidentiality concerns, and Senate procedural barriers create nontrivial uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress tenant protection and accountability benefits
Technocratic transparency bills often advance, but implementation costs, data confidentiality concerns, and Senate procedural barriers crea…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear and reasonably specific federal reporting requirement for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit properties, assigning duties to HUD and State administerin…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.