Likely supportive in principle because the bill targets converting blighted commercial properties into housing that serves low- and moderate-income households, includes community land trusts, and prioritizes economically distressed areas and people like elderly, disabled individuals, and veterans.

Concerns would center on the depth and duration of affordability, the use of opportunity zones and market-driven conversions that could cause displacement or gentrification, and whether the pilot’s funding level is sufficient.

The waiver authority is notable: although fair housing, labor, nondiscrimination, and environmental rules are protected, the ability to waive other requirements could be used in ways that reduce tenant protections or community benefits unless carefully constrained.

Views the bill as a modest, targeted pilot that leverages existing HOME program structures to repurpose blighted commercial properties into housing.

Appreciates competitive grants, local control, and the additive nature of funding relative to HOME allocations, but wants assurances about cost-effectiveness, accountability, and predictable funding.

Cautious about the administrative waiver authority and about incentives (like opportunity zones) that could be gamed; would favor clear metrics, reporting, and sunset/assessment provisions already present.

Likely skeptical of the bill’s new federal grants and the use of federal housing funds to subsidize redevelopment, preferring local, market-driven solutions or tax-based incentives.

Concerns include federal spending and the role of HUD in influencing local land use, potential favoring of developers or investors (especially with opportunity zone priority), and creation of new federal programs without clear offsets.

Some conservatives may see benefits in removing blight and increasing tax base but would prefer less federal involvement and more reliance on private investment and state/local action.