24 C.F.R. § 290.25

Determination not to preserve a project or a part of a project

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

HUD may determine to demolish, or otherwise dispose of, a HUD-owned multifamily housing project, or any portion of such a project, or to foreclose a HUD-held mortgage on a multifamily housing project, without ensuring its continued availability as affordable rental or cooperative housing for low- and very low-income families under appropriate circumstances which may include one or more those listed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. If HUD decides not to preserve an occupied multifamily housing project at a foreclosure sale or sale of a HUD-owned project, tenants must be provided relocation assistance as described in § 290.17.

(a) The costs to HUD of rehabilitation are such that the monthly debt service needed to amortize the cost of rehabilitation, operating expenses, and a reasonable return to the purchaser cannot be provided with rents that are, for subsidized and formerly subsidized projects, within 120 percent of the most recently published Section 8 Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing (24 CFR part 888, subpart A) or, for unsubsidized and formerly unsubsidized projects, within rents obtainable in the market.

(b) Construction is substantially incomplete.

(c) Preservation is not feasible because of environmental factors that cannot be mitigated by HUD or the purchaser. For example, when the project is located on a site that cannot be made to comply with the Section 8 Site and Neighborhood standards in 24 CFR 886.307(k) because of factors that adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of residents such as air pollution; smoke; mud slides; fire or explosion hazards. Preservation may also be infeasible because of significantly deteriorated surrounding neighborhood conditions with inadequate police or fire protection; high crime rates; drug infestation; or lack of public community services needed to support a safe and healthy living environment for residents.

(d) HUD determines the project is unfit for rehabilitation.

(e) Rehabilitation would cost more than constructing comparable new housing.

(f) A reduction in the number of units in the project will enhance long-term project viability, for example, demolition of a building to provide space for a playground, open space, or combining one-bedroom units to create larger units for families.

(g) Continued preservation of the project as rental or cooperative housing is not compatible with State or local land use plans for the area in which the project is located.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1987 · leading case: Patsy Paris v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 713 F.2d 1341 (7th Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Patsy Paris v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 713 F.2d 1341 (7th Cir. 1983). “Although federal regulations require that formerly subsidized projects be sold with subsidies attached if there is a need for low and moderate income housing in the community, 24 C.F.R. § 290.25 , HUD approved a waiver of this regulation on the grounds that the cost to…”

Thomas v. Pierce, 662 F. Supp. 519 (D. Kan. 1987). “§ 1701z-ll and 24 C.F.R. §§ 290.25 and 290.27. Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the Secretary and Administrator to repurchase Highland Park Townhouses and reprocess its disposition so that it is sold with section 8 rent subsidies attached to all 126 units.”

Cowherd v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 827 F.2d 40 (7th Cir. 1987). · cites it 5× “2 The regulation further states that need exists unless HUD finds that “(1) [t]here is sufficient decent, safe and sanitary housing available in the market area at rents the present eligible tenants can afford without exceeding 25 percent of income, and (2) such housing is not…”

Frisby v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 755 F.2d 1044 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “§ 1701z-ll and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto at 24 C.F.R. § 290.25 (1983) and 24 C.F.R. § 290.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.