I had trouble finding sources on the trust fund but did find some stuff, though haven't yet found an up to date assessment of the program's effectiveness but instead these sources are from the time of passage. I'm not sure if you will all be able to access them, I will quote the conclusion in any case.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25782830.pdf?casa_token=np_gtoZZD2gAAAAA:JZ4vlTczctX8RoJOLPkMCT4lfysyaS2jy1aUbLEVGfJYivzBucLZbPf1w6NxeKFNCwZUqtN4SefFQUOkydkY__F1-HeGXfzhfmiDxSOobOtdky3QuxYMUg As comments about the increasing severity of the subprime mortgage
crisis demonstrate, a national consensus is emerging about the need for expanded federal participation in the housing market. The successes of state
and local housing trust funds have bolstered congressional support for a
national affordable housing trust fund. At the same time, the limitations of
these local funds, particularly the disparities in funding between different
states and localities, demonstrate the need for a broader, federalized fund.
Given this background, H.R. 2895 represents an important opportunity for a renewed federal commitment to affordable housing production
for lower-income families. The bill's income targets include populations
that have historically fallen below the levels assisted by HOME and other
federal programs, while explicit preferences for firefighters, first responders, and other public servants may increase the bill's acceptance among
broader segments of American society.
The creation of a dedicated revenue source is equally critical for three
reasons. First, it provides the financial stability necessary for long-term
planning, particularly with regard to construction projects. Secondly, this
stability comes without jeopardizing Congress's ability to exercise its fiscal oversight over housing programs. Because the dedicated funds represent only a small percentage of recent housing appropriations, federal
housing programs will remain highly dependent on congressional action.
Finally, the trust fund derives its income from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the FHA, all federal housing entities, creating a reasonable relationship
between the source and use of the funds. Rather than creating arbitrary
constraints on congressional spending, the dedication represents a rational
recommitment of funds to similar housing-related activities.
Despite the importance of creating a dedicated revenue source, how
ever, opponents of H.R. 2895 are correct that creation of a new block grant
program for affordable housing will create unnecessary duplications with
the HOME program. Rather than creating a separate program to administer
the trust fund, a stronger proposal would locate the dedicated fund within
HOME, to be distributed through existing channels, and according to the
income guidelines established in the existing bill. Such a proposal would
reduce the administrative costs associated with devising new rules and
distribution guidelines, leaving more funding for housing. It also would
continue to protect the dedicated funding by allowing it to remain apart
from annual appropriations battles. At the same time, preserving the bill's
original block grant structure will preserve spending flexibility, one of the
elements that has made both HOME and the state and local trust funds so
effective. Even in its current incarnation, however, H.R. 2895 represents an
essential dedication of federal funds to support long-term housing projects.
As such, it deserves the support of the current Congress.
Additionally, H.R. 2895 possesses tremendous symbolic importance
as a demonstration of expanded federal participation in the provision of
low-income housing. As one of the first expansive housing measures in
almost twenty years, the bill signals a renewed federal concern for the
housing needs of all Americans, particularly those not served by traditional
market forces. At the same time, establishment of a trust fund reflects the
understanding, captured by state and local trust funds, that housing is a
long-term capital need that requires long-term financial commitments. Finally, while H.R 2895 alone will not solve the national affordable housing
shortage or the subprime crisis, as Representative Lee-Jackson argues, "this
legislation is an important step toward these important goals."
Note this does seem to vindicate YE's concern about block grants and suggests a possible alternative course.
The conclusion of the second source(
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25781122.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae2395770d915ad0bdb84a94f92dd5d7f) is less useful but does vindicate the idea of the fund being valuable.
The current state of the housing market underscores the need for avail
able soft gap financing, particularly financing that works well with existing
subsidy programs. The trust fund is a long-fought-for attempt to bridge
chronic financing gaps for affordable housing development. Although advocates have secured several positive programmatic features for the trust
fund in this authorizing legislation, several more nuances will be revealed
with the promulgation of implementing regulations. Although current
funding levels suggest that the trust fund will have only a modest initial
impact, the stability and permanence of the program provide a good foundation to support future growth. If allowed to grow, the trust fund may
prove to have a lasting and significant impact on the country's housing
needs.
If you can access the source I would advise you to try and look through the rest of it as well, I haven't had the chance to read them fully. I also found this article (
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R40781.html#_Toc452047689), which may be even more useful and provides arguments for and against (such a balanced take tends to be hard to find). My take would be that this fund is valuable as it is a more targeted way of helping those who really need it. Please note that the Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac issue doesn't seem to apply here with this bill. Hopefully this is helpful, if you want I'll try and find some more information for you.
