• The argument that Consolidated Plan programs inherently AFFH;

• The concern that HUD is attempting to impose requirements that go beyond what the Fair Housing Act demands;

• The role of purely private choice in establishing existing residential patterns;

• The concern that the HUD’s data driven approach might not work in states where very few people of color reside (e.g., Vermont, Maine, etc.);

• A request for an Interim Rule rather than a Final Rule;

• A request to fully integrate the AFH into the Consolidated Plan;

• Criticism of the requirement to consider data relating to issues other than but still related to housing such as education and transportation;

• The lack of control that program participants may have over barriers to fair housing in their communities (e.g, the inability of the entitlement jurisdiction to control the PHA);

• A call for CPD rather than FHEO to have responsibility for the AFH process;

• A call for the data criteria to be colorblind; and

• The need for more examples of issues, determinants, and goals.

• The right-wing Center for Equal Opportunity (Roger Clegg’s organization) urged that all AFFH efforts be colorblind.

• The Public Housing Authorities Directors Association commented on HUD’s lack of authority under the Fair Housing Act to require program participants to address concentrated poverty and disproportionate housing needs, the risk that the AFH process will undermine the investigation and enforcement of traditional individual discrimination complaints, unrealistic submission timetables that will be costly to comply with, and potential unintended consequences of compliance (e.g., accelerated gentrification and displacement, fewer total program beneficiaries because of the need to invest in high opportunity areas).

• The City of Seattle asked for clarification that investment in low-income communities of color is acceptable, requested syncing the AFH with the Consolidated Plan, and asked that it be allowed to use locally-generated data.

• The Erie, Pennsylvania Department of Economic and Community Development commented that the AFH submission deadline of 270 days before the Consolidated Plan was unrealistic and would force program participants to hire consultants instead of conducting AFHs in-house.

• The North Bend and Coos-Curry (OR) Housing Authorities commented that small rural PHAs in areas without entitlement jurisdictions do not have the capacity to conduct AFHs.

• The State of Minnesota criticized proposals for PHA-Consolidated Plan coordination, argued that the administrative costs of the Proposed Rule would be high, and argued that states have little to no control over localities.

• The State of North Dakota commented that the Proposed Rule betrayed a lack of understanding of rural housing issues and that the data tool was not relevant to rural areas.

• The Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development commented on the high cost of administrative compliance, the “ineffective” nature of Moving to Opportunity-type programs, and the requirement of consideration of factors that are not mentioned in the Fair Housing Act.

• Pinellas County, Florida expressed concern that a local impediment such as a consortium participant’s zoning ordinance would affect the entire consortium’s funding and asked that HUD identify impediments or determinants for the program participants since HUD has the data already.