Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "565369970",
    "label": "Project Basing",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970"
}

{
    "id": "565369970",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Project Basing",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Margy Waller's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 80,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/565369970",
    "naId": 565369970,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 30,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-dpc/7367483/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025/7367483-20200317S-017-016-2025-030.jpg",
    "mediaId": "7dfa78851c0d1273",
    "ocrText": "Barbara Sard <[email protected]>\n08/29/2000 08:16:28 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: \"Alternative\" project-based vouchers\nTo accommodate the Administration's concern\na reasonable number of families refuse to accept a\nproject-based unit, the PHA should not remain Jb\" gated under a project-based contract, thereby depriving\nwaiting list families of tenant-based vouchers, I suggest the following revision to my proposed revision of\n8(o)(13). The addition is indicated by italics. (The re .sed paragraph (G) is also attached as a wp\ndocument.)\nAfter consultation with a number of knowledgeable folks, I changed the draft in a few respects. I was\npersuaded that it was important to make the time period after which the contract would be reduced 120\ndays rather than fewer for several reasons. The owner may only feel some financial pinch after the first\n60 days (during which vacancy payments may be made), so giving more time may make the owner agree\nto rent to a willing tenant even if the owner had previously rejected applicants. In addition, a tenant may\nwant to rent the new unit but have to give notice under his/her current lease. The longer time period also\nwill permit owners to do necessary repairs for the unit to pass inspection on re-rental. These\nconsiderations seemed to me to more than balance cut a few months additional lag before the assistance\nis reprogrammed for issuance as a voucher.\nThe other substantive change I made was to make the use of this contract reduction authority\ndiscretionary with the PHA rather than mandatory. : was persuaded to do this by Conrad Egan of the\nNatl. Housing Conference. The reason to permit a PHA to decide this issue is that in some markets, the\nadditional risk to the owner may not interfere unduly with the PHA's ability to project-base vouchers, but in\nother markets the additional risk may be a deal-breaker. Similarly, where project-basing is linked to new di\nevelopment or rehab that requires credit, a lender may be less willing to rely on the voucher contract as\npart of the collateral for the loan if the contract may be reduced by the PHA during its term. However, in\nhighly desirable markets, a lender may not be deterred by such a reduction provision as there would be\nlittle likelihood of the provision ever being invoked. Overall, these considerations appear to be so locally\nvariable that it would be unwise to have a uniform national policy.\nThe initial language below would make the new provision apply to all project-based voucher contracts,\nincluding new incremental vouchers project-based in tax credit buildings pursuant to the Administration's\nproposal. After the suggested language to be added to 8(o)(13)(G), I suggest alternative language if the\nnew provision were to apply only to the tax credit/voucher program.\n(G) VACATED UNITS. - Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of this subsection, a public housing agency's\nhousing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may authorize the agency in its\ndiscretion to pay the rent of a vacated unit from funds available under the agency's annual contributions\ncontract with the Secretary for a reasonable period not to exceed 60 days where the vacancy is not due to\nany fault of the owner. The contract must obligate both the public housing agency and the owner to take\nevery reasonable step to minimize the likelihood and extent of any such vacancy. A public housing\nagency's housing assistance payment contract with an owner under this paragraph may provide that if no\neligible family has agreed to rent a vacated unit within 120 days after the owner has notified the public\nhousing agency of the vacancy despite the reasonable efforts of the agency and the owner to refer eligible"
}