PRICE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 17, 2025
Bottom line
The PRICE Act creates a federal grant program to upgrade infrastructure, improve housing quality, and enhance affordability in manufactured housing communities, focusing on resident empowerment and long-term stability.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the PRICE Act, establishes a new competitive grant program within Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The program aims to fund improvements and development in eligible manufactured housing communities, prioritizing those that are affordable to low- and moderate-income residents and committed to preserving long-term affordability, including resident-owned communities.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides crucial, targeted funding to address the often-neglected infrastructure and housing needs of manufactured housing communities, which serve as a vital source of affordable housing. They contend it empowers residents, improves living conditions, and helps preserve affordability for vulnerable populations who might otherwise face displacement.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that establishing a new, specific grant program could add another layer of federal bureaucracy and spending, potentially duplicating or complicating existing housing assistance efforts. Concerns could also be raised about the program's administrative overhead or whether federal grants alone can achieve long-term affordability without addressing broader market dynamics.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2, adding new Section 123(b) to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Establishment of Manufactured Housing Community Improvement Grant Program
This provision directs the Secretary (presumably of Housing and Urban Development, as it amends the Housing and Community Development Act) to create a competitive grant program. This program will award funds to various eligible recipients, such as local governments, non-profits, and resident-owned communities, to undertake projects that develop or improve eligible manufactured housing communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated grant program is essential to channel resources directly to manufactured housing communities, which often lack access to traditional funding streams for critical infrastructure and housing improvements.
Critics contend
Some might argue that creating new, specific grant programs adds complexity to federal housing policy and that existing block grant programs could be expanded or better utilized for these purposes, rather than creating a new administrative structure.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between creating a highly targeted program to address specific needs versus streamlining and expanding existing federal aid mechanisms for broader housing development.
Section 2, adding new Section 123(a)(2) and (3)
Eligibility Criteria for Communities and Grant Recipients
This section defines which manufactured housing communities are eligible for grants: those affordable to low- and moderate-income persons (up to 120% of the area median income) and either owned by residents (e.g., cooperatives) or committed to long-term affordability. It also broadly defines eligible recipients, including the communities themselves, local governments, housing authorities, non-profit entities, Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), Indian Tribes, and States.
Section 2, adding new Section 123(c)
Scope of Grant-Funded Activities and Restrictions
This provision outlines the types of projects eligible for grant funding, including improvements to community infrastructure, facilities, and utilities; reconstruction or repair of existing housing; replacement of homes; planning activities; resident health, safety, and accessibility upgrades; land acquisition for community expansion; and resident services like relocation or down payment assistance. Notably, it prohibits using funds for rehabilitating manufactured homes built before June 15, 1976, allowing only for their disposition and replacement with new, compliant homes.
The Secretary is granted authority to waive or specify alternative requirements for any law or regulation administered by the Secretary in connection with the use of grant amounts. This authority excludes requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment, and can only be exercised if the waiver is consistent with the section's purposes and necessary to facilitate the use of funds.
Section 2, adding new Section 123(e)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice to provide administrative flexibility in implementing new programs, allowing the agency to adapt to diverse local needs and streamline processes without needing further legislative action. The exclusions ensure fundamental protections remain in place.
Case for: Supporters argue this flexibility is crucial for efficient program implementation, allowing the Secretary to adapt to diverse local needs and remove bureaucratic hurdles that might otherwise delay or prevent beneficial projects.
Case against: Critics might express concern that broad waiver authority, even with specified exclusions, could lead to reduced oversight or a weakening of important programmatic standards, potentially impacting accountability or the consistent application of rules.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could alter how federal regulations apply to grant recipients, affecting project timelines, costs, and compliance burdens, while preserving core protections.
This technical amendment modifies the existing Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 by inserting 'Unless otherwise authorized under section 123, activities' at the beginning of the section outlining eligible activities for assistance. This means the new grant program's eligible activities (defined in Section 123) can operate independently of, or in addition to, the general eligibility criteria of the broader Act.
Section 2(1), amending 42 U.S.C. 5305(a)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to properly integrate a new, specific program into an existing statutory framework. It ensures that the new program's tailored eligible activities don't conflict with or are not unduly constrained by the general eligibility rules of the broader act it's amending.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures the new grant program has the flexibility to define its own eligible activities, tailored to the specific needs of manufactured housing communities, without being restricted by the general CDBG eligible activities.
Case against: No strong specific opposition, as it's a technical adjustment. Some might argue it adds a layer of complexity to the relationship between new programs and the foundational CDBG program, but this is a minor point.
Estimated impact: Ensures the new grant program's activities are distinct and not limited by the existing HCDA framework, providing greater programmatic autonomy and clarity for administrators and applicants.