Laserfiche WebLink
Additionally, as noted above, Treasury is finalizing the rule with some changes to the <br />treatment of affordable housing development designed to clarify that permanent supportive <br />housing or other programs or services to improve access to stable, affordable housing among <br />individuals who are homeless, and the development of affordable housing to increase supply of <br />affordable and high -quality living units, are responsive to individuals and households that were <br />impacted by the pandemic in addition to those that were disproportionately impacted. This shift <br />is in line with commenters' recommendations and consistent with the facts described above, <br />which demonstrate that lack of supply of affordable housing units contributed to the pandemic's <br />impact on housing insecurity and unsustainable housing cost burdens and that these impacts were <br />experienced broadly across the country. <br />Public Comment: Eligible Activities: Many commenters asked for clarity on what types <br />of activities (e.g., land acquisition, construction, pre -construction costs, operating costs, etc.) are <br />eligible uses of SLFRF, and what affordability criteria must be applied to affordable housing <br />development. Commenters encouraged Treasury to allow the full array of affordable housing <br />activities, including particular requests for broad flexibility for Tribal communities, and to <br />specify that "development" should include construction, preservation, rehabilitation, and <br />operation. Other commenters requested clarification about permissible program administration <br />approaches for affordable housing, such as contracting methods and distribution of funds. <br />Some commenters asked that Treasury require SLFRF funds to be focused on the lowest - <br />income households, who suffer the most severe rent burdens and risks of housing instability, and <br />whose housing situation has left them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. For example, one <br />commenter argued that SLFRF funds should only be used to support affordable housing for <br />households making 50 percent of AMI or less and that recipients should be required to set aside <br />105 <br />