California Housing Consortium

CHC Supports AB 1585

nmartin — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:18:28 +0000

Policy Position

AB 1585 was introduced last week by Speaker Perez and Assemblymembers Atkins, Dickinson, Hill, Mitchell, Perea and Torres.

AB 1585 is an urgency bill running parallel to SB 654 (Steinberg). This bill clarifies that existing unencumbered Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund balances will transfer to the successor housing agencies of dissolved redevelopment agencies to be retained for affordable housing as they were intended.

Click here for the complete bill text.

Yesterday, the CHC Board of Directors voted to support AB 1585. Please show support by reaching out to your Assemblymembers today!

Update on SB 654

nmartin — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:40:10 +0000

UPDATE (1/31):

Republicans today offered a set of technical amendments to SB 654. After the amendments were refused, the bill with the urgency clause died on a 24-1 vote with all Republicans abstaining except for one. Senator Steinberg then stripped the urgency clause from the bill and it passed on a 34-1 vote. This now moves to the Assembly without the urgency clause. Senator Steinberg referenced that this would now become part of the budget process.

We will continue to keep you posted on any developments.

CHC Supports SB 654

nmartin — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:37:45 +0000

The California Housing Consortium Board of Directors voted today to support SB 654, authored by Senator Steinberg, which seeks to protect the crucial existing housing funds of dissolving redevelopment agencies.

CHC’s support letter can be seen here.

California Supreme Court: NO to Redevelopment

nmartin — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:41:28 +0000

In a widely-anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court, in a ruling that included a partial dissent from Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye over ABX1 27, today ended redevelopment in California and struck a significant blow to affordable housing. The Supreme Court majority found that the “rda elimination bill,” ABX1 26, is constitutional but the “reconstitute rda bill,” ABX1 27 is unconstitutional.

The net effect of this decision is the worst case for affordable housing and job creation. As the Chief Justice wrote in her dissent, “…the Legislature’s attempt to balance the benefits of continued redevelopment with the need to fund vital local government services has apparently failed with little or no alternative to continued redevelopment available.”

California Housing Consortium’s Executive Director, Ray Pearl, states that “today’s ruling by the Supreme Court is an unfortunate outcome that will have far-reaching impacts on those in our society who need help the most. We urge the Legislature and the Governor to follow the intent of the original legislation and help find a solution to continuing to fund affordable housing in California. The need is as critical as ever and action is needed now.”

The full decision can be read here.

LIHTC Support Letter to Super Committee

nmartin — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:34:30 +0000

Over 45 organizations signed onto CHC’s Low Income Housing Tax Credit support letter sent to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction on November 2. Click here to see the letter.

Governor Vetoes RDA Clean-Up Bill

nmartin — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:06:04 +0000

This week Governor Brown vetoed SBX1 8, the redevelopment trailer bill clean-up measure, and SB 450, the Low & Moderate Income Housing Funds reform bill. In his veto messages, the Governor explained he based his veto on the idea that signing these bills into law would be “premature,” because the California Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the California Redevelopment Association and League of Cities’ lawsuit against the State. The Court’s decision on that case is expected by January 15, 2012.

To download the Governor’s veto message on SBX1 8, click here; for the veto message on SB 450, click here.

CHC Newsletter: September 2011

nmartin — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:58:18 +0000

In this issue: -CHC Launches New Website -Legislative Update -RDA Lawsuit Supreme Court Schedule -CHC Award Winning Members -Thank You to John Shirey

Redevelopment: The Next Chapter

nmartin — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:34:40 +0000

On June 30, 2011, Governor Brown signed SB 87, the main budget bill containing the FY 2011-12 State Budget. Additionally, he signed a number of budget trailer bills, including ABX1 26, the redevelopment elimination bill, and ABX1 27, the bill that allows redevelopment agencies to “opt in” to a new system but force them to make $1.7 billion in payments next year to stay alive.

ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 become effective immediately upon being signed by the Governor. RDAs can not enter into any new agreements until they have enacted an ordinance committing to make the payments as required by ABX1 27.

On July 18th the League of California Cities (League), the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and the cities of San Jose and Union City filed a petition with the California Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27, the two redevelopment bills passed as part of the state budget in June.

The Supreme Court accepted the case and in its order outlined an expedited briefing schedule. This was designed to meet the goal deadline for a decision by January 15, 2012, the date when redevelopment agencies are required to make their first payment. Here are the key deadlines laid out in the court’s order:

September 9, 2011: the state must file its brief
September 24, 2011: CRA and the League must file their response to the State’s filing
September 30, 2011: Amicus curiae briefs must be filed with the court
October 7, 2011: Replies to individual amicus briefs must be filed

The court states it does not anticipate extending any of these deadlines and intends to set a hearing for oral arguments before the end of the year.

On the legislative front, legislative leaders, Senator Steinberg included, have promised to do a “clean-up” bill that will fix the problems included in the recently passed legislation. Those promises include:

Legislation that deals with proportionate funding. This will ensure that schools, special districts and RDAs don’t get all the money.
Legislation that could extend the life of RDAs who meet certain public policy goals such as SB 375 or job creation goals
Legislation that protects affordable housing and ensures that housing money that has been taken is paid back by 2016.
Legislation that deals with ensuring no new barriers to infill building have been created.

For more in-depth information on the situation click here for a Goldfarb & Lipman analysis and here for a CRA document on Frequently Asked Questions.

Welcome to CALHFA’s ‘Keep Your Home California’ Program

nmartin — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:57:46 +0000

The California Housing Finance Agency is using $2 billion federal dollars to administer a new program helping Californians avoid foreclosure. Visit the Keep Y our Home California website for information on eligibility, resources and FAQ’s. Each of the programs is designed to address one or more aspects of the current housing crisis by doing the following:

Helping low and moderate income homeowners retain their homes if they either have suffered a financial hardship such as unemployment, have experienced a change in household circumstance such as death, illness or disability, or are subject to a recent or upcoming increase in their monthly mortgage payment and are at risk of default because of this economic hardship when coupled with a severe decline in their home’s value.

Creating a simple, effective way to get federal funds to assist low and moderate income homeowners who meet one or all of the objective criteria described above. Speed of delivery will be balanced with fulfillment of the specific program’s mission and purpose.

Creating programs that have an immediate, direct economic and social impact on low and moderate income homeowners and their neighborhoods

Does Access to Public Transit Affect Housing Costs?

nmartin — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:00:08 +0000

On August 29, 2011 the Center for Housing Policy released Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature, which summarizes the extensive body of research on whether public transit influences the cost of nearby housing. The brief finds that access to public transit generally leads to higher home values and rents, but the magnitude and direction of the impact can vary both across metro areas and from station to station within a single metro. In most cases, the impact is positive and can be quite large, but a few studies have found the effects to be neutral or negative.

Certain conditions appear more likely to lead to higher housing costs near transit stations than others, including: A public transit system that significantly improves regional accessibility A strong housing market A pedestrian-friendly, walkable station area Supportive zoning and public policies that encourage growth As noted above, however, housing costs do not always rise, and sometimes the “nuisance effects” associated with public transit — noise, pollution, traffic — can lower nearby housing values. Findings on this topic are also discussed.

Where costs rise, they often do so years before the system is operational. This underscores the importance of adopting policies early in the planning process both to preserve existing affordable housing near proposed stations and to include affordable options in any new development. For communities planning to make public transit investments in the future, the brief concludes by discussing housing policies intended to ensure that households of all incomes benefit from the improved accessibility.