#166 Summer 2011 — 36th Anniversary

What’s in Store for PETRA?

At the time it was unveiled last year, the Obama administration’s Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Act, or PETRA (see SF, Summer 2010), was described as either something […]

PETRA. Illustration photo shows padlock on a gate

File photo

At the time it was unveiled last year, the Obama administration’s Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Act, or PETRA (see SF, Summer 2010), was described as either something that could leverage billions of private dollars in debt to resuscitate hundreds of thousands of public housing units or “a formal divestment from and the end of public housing.” The criticism, coming almost entirely from the left, included concerns about PETRA’s lack of a cap on the interest rate lenders could charge housing authorities and questions about what would happen if lenders foreclose. Some questioned the wisdom of infusing private capital into public housing when no HUD secretary in recent memory has even sought sufficient public funds to address its capital needs. These concerns put into sharp relief the differences in policy approach that exist within the housing world and signaled the beginning of a substantive, constructive dialogue.

Then in November, Republicans took the majority, and “PETRA” seemed as ancient as the city of the same name.

But not so fast. Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison has been carrying the PETRA flame in the 112th Congress in the form of the Rental Housing Revitalization Act, first introduced in 111th’s lame duck session and referred to the House Financial Services Committee. There are many substantive differences, however, between PETRA and RHRA, some of which try to address advocates’ concerns. The Ellison bill, for example, tightens the criteria for when lost units may be replaced with vouchers rather than new units; requires that the HUD secretary be notified in the case of a default; allows the secretary to suspend rental payments and use the funds to cure a default; stipulates not only that the secretary is given right of first refusal before a public housing property is sold following a foreclosure, but that the right must be exercised; and gives residents access to information about their building’s condition and finances.

Find more information here and read our complete 2010 coverage of PETRA.

OTHER ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE

  • Developing Economic, Along with Physical, Health

    March 29, 2016

    Sue Joss and Jason Barbosa might seem to be unlikely economic development partners. She is the veteran CEO of a major nonprofit health care provider in Brockton, Massachusetts, just south […]

  • Bank Fees of a Different Kind

    July 26, 2011

    A proposed bank accountability bill in California that had received considerable national attention has suffered something of a setback, but that doesn’t mean we’ve seen the last of it. Assembly […]

  • Housing for Families, Not Just Households

    July 26, 2011

    It’s time to do away with a mortgage-industrial complex that turns “families” into “households” with income earners, credit scores, and debt ratios.