RAD

At the time it was unveiled last year, the Obama administration’s Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Act, or PETRA (see SF, Summer 2010), was described as either something […]

At the time it was unveiled last year, the Obama administration’s Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Act, or PETRA (see SF, Summer 2010), was described as either something […]

From the early days of the public housing program in the 1930s to the present, vociferous opposition has resulted in a host of problems. Understanding the history can help put President Obama’s PETRA program in context.

PETRA, the Obama administration’s $350 million effort to reform public housing, first proposed in February 2010, has many in the housing field skeptical.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition wants to be able to support PETRA, but has some concerns.

In written testimony submitted to the House Committee on Financial Services in May, excerpted here, a group of urban affairs academics argue that PETRA is nothing less than a formal divestment from public housing, worse than anything previous administrations have proposed.

While PETRA is flawed, it is also the only serious attempt any administration has made to preserve public housing in quite some time.

The National Alliance of HUD Tenants weighs the merits and drawbacks of the PETRA proposal.

As the merits and flaws of PETRA are being debated, PolicyLink offers its list of desired outcomes for poor people and economically distressed communities.

The history of well-intentioned housing plans from HUD and Congress has public housing residents across the country scared to death that they could lose their homes through PETRA.

 As housing advocates, policy analysts, and tenant organizers have examined PETRA, they have found concerns that need to be aired.