Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)

Citation: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Parent Document: Johnson v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, 911 F.2d 1302 (1990)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1990-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8990172/johnson-v-united-states-departm... ↗

Full Text

1,723 chars

Even considering this more narrow definition of “other changes” in the legislative history, we are not convinced that Congress intended to exclude from the Act’s coverage mortgage insurance termination. First, we note that the Conference Report does not indicate that “other changes” refers exclusively to additional financial incentives. Conference Report, 1987 USCCAN 3491. In addition, while the prospect that units built in the 1960s would soon be eligible for mortgage prepayment clearly prompted Congress’ enactment of the Preservation Act, the language of the Act demonstrates Congress’ broader concern over any termination of low income affordability restrictions. For instance, Section 223(b) requires that the plan of action include “a description of any proposed changes in the status or terms of the mortgage or regulatory agreement, which may include a request for incentives to extend the low income use of the housing.” Preservation Act, § 223(b)(1), 101 Stat. 1879 (emphasis added). And, the provision setting forth the criteria for HUD’s approval of an owner’s “plan of action” refers to a plan of action “involving termination of low income affordability restrictions,” Preservation Act, § 225, 101 Stat. 1880, which the Act specifically defines as “any elimination or relaxation of low income affordability restrictions,” id. § 233(7), 101 Stat. 1886 (emphasis added). Finally, Congress indicated in its findings that “in the next 15 years, more than 330,-000 low income housing units insured or assisted under section 221(d)(3) and 236 of *1310the National Housing Act could be lost as a result of the termination of low income affordability restrictions.” Id. § 202(a), 101 Stat. 1877 (emphasis added).

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text