AB 725 Aims to Help Middle Income Californians

Many attempts have been made, and are still being made, to help lower income people to acquire affordable housing. We haven’t been worried about higher-income housing; those who can even consider affording it don’t particularly need the help. But there’s a group we’ve mostly been forgetting about: the dwindling middle class. The income gap has increased dramatically, but there are still those few who earn too much to get subsidies, yet too little to afford higher priced housing.

To this end, California lawmakers have passed AB 725, which modifies California zoning laws to allow for more moderate-density housing in metropolitan and suburban areas. 25% of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation must be for moderate income housing zoned for 4 or more units. Interestingly, a further 25% must be for above-moderate income housing, also zoned for 4 or more units. This is potentially because there could be significant backlash from a major drop in home values in areas that are already primarily high income neighborhoods.

AB 725 definitely has its flaws, though. Of course, it does little to nothing to further affordable housing, only increasing the density of housing, but that wasn’t the objective. The more pressing issue is that there are no provisions to improve infrastructure for higher densities, fund new constructions, or guarantee that new constructions will qualify for the required income range. Essentially, California lawmakers are saying “You better do this,” without providing any assistance in making it feasible.

Photo by Terrah Holly on Unsplash

More: https://journal.firsttuesday.us/sacramentos-plans-to-house-californias-missing-middle/75582/

New Foreclosure Law Aims to Give Renters Fair Chance at Homeownership

SB 1079, also known as “Homes for Homeowners, Not Corporations” has now been signed into law, and becomes effective January 1, 2021. The law seeks to balance out the advantages that corporations and Wall Street have in bulk purchasing foreclosed homes. We saw the devastating effects of this type of corporate greed during the Great Recession, and California lawmakers don’t want a repeat of that.

To this end, the new law does a couple things. Firstly, bulk purchasing is much more difficult, as bundle auctions will no longer be allowed except as permitted by security instruments. Second, eligible bidders and tenant buyers will have 45 days after the trustee sale to beat out the highest bid. Importantly, not listed among eligible bidders are for-profit corporations. Also of note, an eligible tenant buyer need only match, not exceed, the highest bid, and if they do so before the trustee sale ends, the sale is final. Though it doesn’t affect chances of homeownership, SB 1079 also increases fines for owners failing to maintain vacant properties.

Photo by Artem Beliaikin on Unsplash

More: https://journal.firsttuesday.us/foreclosure-requirements-shift-in-california/75113/

California gets revised eviction protections under AB 3088

AB 3088 was signed into law, extending eviction moratoriums to January 31, 2021, under certain conditions. While tenants will still be responsible for unpaid amounts after this date, they cannot be evicted for missing payments between March 4 and August 31. For rent due between September 1 and January 31, tenants will be required to pay at least 25% of the amount owed each month to be immune to eviction. Tenants also are not immune to eviction for causes unrelated to missing payments.

In order to be eligible for these protections, tenants will also need to declare financial distress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This could be in the form of loss of income, increased expenses related to performing essential work or to health care, child care, elderly care, disability, or sickness, or some other category, but must be a result of the pandemic. This declaration also applies to 15-day eviction notices the tenant may receive. If no response is provided, the tenant may still be evicted.

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

More: https://journal.firsttuesday.us/ab-3088-new-eviction-protections/72951/

Microunits may be permitted in some multi-family areas

California bill AB 3173, introduced in February, would require some cities and counties to permit microunits in areas zoned for multifamily residences. The city or county must have a population of 400,000 or more to qualify for this requirement. Because of the way zoning laws operate, the bill would not apply on city land in a city with a population under 400,000 even if the county has a population over 400,000. The bill also establishes size and affordability requirements for the microunits.

Using 2019 population estimates for cities and the 2010 Census data for counties, the bill would apply in 8 cities and 21 counties. Eligible cities are Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, Long Beach, and Oakland. It’s possible that Bakersfield, with an estimated population of 384,145 last year, has now passed the 400,000 mark. Eligible counties are Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Santa Clara County, Alameda County, Sacramento County, Contra Costa County, Fresno County, Kern County, San Francisco County, Ventura County, San Mateo County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Sonoma County, Tulare County, Solano County, Santa Barbara County, and Monterey County. It’s very likely that Placer County, with a population of 398,329 at the 2010 census, has now surpassed the requirement.

Photo by Lachlan Gowen on Unsplash

Read the full bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB3173

Recent changes to California UBI bill

California proposed a Universal Basic Income bill in February, which would be administered by the State Department of Social Services, called AB-2712. This May, AB-2712 was amended, establishing new requirements for eligibility as well as shifting administration to the Franchise Tax Board.

Under the amended UBI bill, the CalUBI Program would be an opt-in program that granted $1000 per month to eligible California residents over the age of 18. The amount is unchanged from the February version, but the amended bill establishes new requirements. The new requirements are:

-Currently reside in California
-Lived in California for the past 3 consecutive years
-Not currently incarcerated in a county jail or state prison
-Income no greater than 200% of the median per capita income in the county of residence

In addition, the amendments make this income non-taxable under state tax law, and won’t affect income eligibility for state programs. Rather than a flat value-added tax of 10% proposed by the original bill, the amended bill gives the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration until July 1, 2024 to report on the feasibility of a value-added tax.

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

See the full bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2712