Overview
Title
Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan-Information Collection: Solicitation of Comment 60-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; OMB Control No.: 2529-0013
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wants to hear what people think about forms that help make sure everyone can find a home without being treated unfairly. They're asking if there’s a better way to fill out or use the forms, like using computers to make it easier.
Summary AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued a notice to gather public comments on the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) forms over a 60-day period in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. These forms document advertising and outreach practices of various housing project owners or developers to ensure fair access to housing without discrimination. HUD is requesting feedback on the information collection practices, focusing on practicality, accuracy, and ways to leverage technology such as electronic submissions. Public feedback is sought to ensure that the collection process is efficient and inclusive, in compliance with federal regulations.
Abstract
This notice solicits public comment for a period of 60 days, consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) forms. The AFHMP forms collect information on the advertising and outreach activities of owners/developers of HUD Multifamily, Single Family, and Condominium/ Cooperative Housing projects to attract applicants/buyers throughout the housing market area regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeks public comments on the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan (AFHMP) forms. These forms are pivotal in documenting the advertising and outreach activities by owners and developers of various housing projects. The intention is to ensure that applications and inquiries about these housing opportunities are free of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or familial status. By gathering public input, HUD hopes to refine these forms and their associated processes to better align with the overarching goal of fair housing practices.
General Summary
The core purpose of this document is to initiate a 60-day period for public commentary on the effectiveness and efficiency of the AFHMP forms under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The document outlines the process for submitting feedback, highlighting the various methods available, such as mailing comments or submitting them through an online portal. HUD is particularly asking for feedback on several aspects, including the necessity and utility of the information collected, the accuracy of the time burden estimation associated with completing these forms, and suggestions for using technology to streamline the submission process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the primary concerns presented by the document is its use of technical jargon and references to specific forms and regulations, such as the "HUD-935.2A" form and "24 CFR part 200, subpart M". Such terminology may not be readily understood by the general public, potentially hindering effective participation in the commentary process. Furthermore, the procedures for submitting comments, despite being detailed, may seem daunting for those unfamiliar with federal processes, which could limit meaningful public engagement.
Additionally, there appears to be insufficient detail concerning the specific changes made to the forms, notably the HUD-935.2A. The document briefly mentions formatting changes and updates to demographic fields without specifying what these changes entail. This lack of clarity might inhibit stakeholders from providing focused and constructive feedback.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this document has the potential to impact the public by shaping the way housing opportunities are presented and accessed, which is crucial in promoting equal housing rights. It encourages a more inclusive process for collecting demographic data, which can significantly influence policy adjustments and implementation designed to reduce housing discrimination.
For specific stakeholders such as developers and housing project owners, the revision of these forms and the commentary process may present both opportunities and challenges. Positively, this could lead to streamlined procedures and the use of electronic submissions, reducing the manual burden and aligning marketing practices with modern technological trends, such as social media.
However, smaller developers could face potential challenges, particularly if the implementation of revised forms results in added costs or administrative burdens. Crucially, the document does not delve into analyzing potential financial implications or providing examples of how these might affect different stakeholder groups.
Conclusion
Overall, while the HUD's initiative to solicit public feedback is commendable, the complexity of the document may limit its accessibility. Providing clearer explanations and examples, along with addressing concerns about potential costs and administrative burdens, could enhance stakeholder engagement. This feedback process offers a prime opportunity for the public and interested parties to influence housing marketing practices, contributing to a fairer, more accessible housing market for everyone.
Issues
• The document contains technical jargon and references specific forms and regulations (e.g., 'HUD-935.2A', '24 CFR part 200, subpart M') that might not be easily understood by the general public.
• The procedures for public comment submission are detailed but may be considered complex for someone unfamiliar with government processes.
• The description for the estimated burden of hours ('Total Estimated Burden: 14,958 hours') could be seen as vague without context on how it was calculated.
• The document does not specify what specific changes have been made in greater detail to the HUD-935.2A form, aside from the general mention of 'formatting changes' and 'racial and ethnic demographic fields'.
• There is no discussion or analysis on how effective the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan has been in the past, which may be beneficial for understanding its current necessity.
• The document could be interpreted as overlooking potential costs associated with the implementation of the revised forms and whether these costs may burden smaller developers.
• The request for comments on modernizing marketing using internet and social media is included, but no guidelines or examples are provided, which may limit the usefulness of the public's input.