<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>California &#8211; HOA ALLIANCE</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.hoaalliance.org/tag/california/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:32:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>A new law changes how heirs own, sell property together</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/a-new-law-changes-how-heirs-own-sell-property-together/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:32:51 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322993</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Teresa J Rhyne When families gather for the holidays this year, there may be a new topic of discussion. The California Heirs Property Partition Act went into effect Jan. 1, 2022. The act affects any property in California owned by tenants in common when 20% or more of the owners are relatives who inherited the property. In such a case, certain due process steps must be taken before a partition can occur and the price is set by the court with no discounts taken for minority shares or lack of marketability. This is a substantive change in the law. What is a partition of property? Before the Partition Act, if parties owned property together as tenants in common, any one of the owners could petition a court to partition that property. There are three types of partitions: —Partition in kind: physical division of the property into separate parcels, which allows for continued but separate ownership. —Partition by sale: a court-ordered sale of the entire property. —Partition by appraisal: Parties enter into a written agreement where one or more parties acquire the interests of others based on the appraised value. What was the problem? Supporters of the new law, including the American Bar Association, found that sales of such partition properties were one of the leading causes of land loss within Black and other minority communities. Consider a farm or parcel of land with several dwelling units on it, passed down through generations. Let’s say it’s owned by 14 cousins who each receive rental income from the property. One of the cousins, John, falls on hard times and needs to sell. A partition action could force a sale of the entire property if none of the other owners could afford to buy John out. Or, say he makes a quick sale to a non-related party — perhaps at a premium price. Then that buyer files for a partition and buys all of the other interests, usually at a discounted rate because each only owns 1/14 (known as a “minority share discount’). It’s also tough to sell a small interest (known as a “lack of marketability discount”). Suddenly, the family has lost the entire property and the income stream. The discounted purchase is a tactic used by developers to force out families for whom the property may have been the most significant asset. What does the Partition Act change? The act was signed into law to little fanfare. But it could have a wide-ranging effect. It grants heirs who have acquired an interest of such property a statutory right of first refusal to purchase or “buyout” such property in the event of a partition. It also provides for a mandatory, court-ordered appraisal of the property to determine its value, and it does away with any minority interest or lack of marketability discounts. Any owner seeking partition by sale is mandatorily subject to a buyout by remaining cotenants. In other words, if the developer who bought John’s share then files a court petition for partition by sale, the other owners have the right to buy the developer’s share in a proceeding overseen by the court. If the other owners cannot purchase the interest, the court may instead order partition “in kind” in order to preserve the interests of the heirs. In determining whether to order a partition by sale or in kind, the act requires the court to consider seven factors: (1) whether a partition in kind is practicable; (2) whether the partition in kind would substantially diminish the fair market value of the property as a whole; (3) evidence of the collective duration of ownership; (4) a co-tenant’s sentimental attachment; (5) the lawful use being made of the property; (6) the degree to which the co-tenants have contributed their share of property expenses; and (7) any other relevant factor. If the property is to be partitioned by sale, the sale must take place on the open market. As you can tell, the law is meant to preserve the interests of family members. Who does the act apply to? The law applies to any property that is “heirs property,” which is defined by four factors: Property is held by tenants in common (does not apply to joint tenancies or property owned by entities); No contractual ownership agreement exists; Some (does not have to be all) co-tenants acquired the title from a relative (during life or at death); and At least one of the following ownership interests is satisfied: —20% or more of the interests are held by relatives. —20% or more of the interests are held by an individual who acquired a title from a relative. —20% or more of the cotenants are relatives “Relative” is defined very broadly as an ascendant, descendant or an individual otherwise related to another by blood, marriage, adoption or state law. What should you do? If you own property with other tenants in common and one of the 20% interests mentioned above is met, you will be subject to the act (even if you aren’t one of the heirs/ family members). This could be a problem if you ever have a co-owner not paying their fair share of taxes or upkeep, or otherwise causing problems. There are options if the parties do not want to be subject to the act. Consider: —A “tenants in common” written agreement that specifies the terms for buying and selling interests; or —Transferring the property to a limited liability company or a partnership. Both of these steps will take the property outside the purview of the Partition Act. Of course, the law also protects the heirs of property, so don’t be tempted by a lowball offer on that 1/20th interest in the farm that your great-grandmother left you. Related Articles Housing &#124; Donor-advised funds offer a charitable way to harvest a tax break and are growing in popularity Housing &#124; In a rocky year for investors, here’s a year-end primer on taxes and giving The California Heirs Property Act is new, so]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Irvine to move forward with new affordable housing project</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/irvine-to-move-forward-with-new-affordable-housing-project/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 18:18:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322776</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Yusra Farzan In 2019, Yesica Valle escaped an abusive relationship with her three children. Without a home, she turned to shelters or her friends’ and family’s garages around Orange County to live. “I don’t make enough money to afford regular rent prices with my one income,” Valle said. “They want you to make three times the (rent) amount, and then because I have three kids, they wouldn’t let me be in a one-bedroom apartment.” Valle now lives in the Salerno Apartments, an affordable housing community in Irvine after seeking help from Families Forward, a nonprofit organization that connects unhoused families with housing resources. She has lived in the apartment community since April 2021. “I don’t think there’s words enough to explain my gratitude and my thankfulness and the peace that my kids and I now have,” Valle said about living in affordable housing. Undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Great Park Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, CA, on Wednesday, December 21, 2022. The city council approved the dedication of a four acre site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard and tasked the Irvine Community Land Trust with developing the land for affordable housing. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG) Undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Great Park Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, CA, on Wednesday, December 21, 2022. The city council approved the dedication of a four acre site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard and tasked the Irvine Community Land Trust with developing the land for affordable housing. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG) The main entrance to the Alegre apartment complex off Visions in Irvine. The complex was the first permanent affordable housing complex built by the Irvine Community Land Trust. The Irvine City Council recently approved the dedication of a four-acre site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard and tasked the Irvine Community Land Trust with developing the land for affordable housing. (Matt Masin/Staff photographer) Salerno Apartments, an 80-unit affordable rent project, opened in March 2021. The Irvine City Council recently approved the dedication of a four-acre site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard and tasked the Irvine Community Land Trust with developing the land for affordable housing. (Courtesy: Irvine Community Land Trust) Undeveloped land on the southwest corner of Great Park Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue in Irvine, CA, on Wednesday, December 21, 2022. The city council approved the dedication of a four acre site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard and tasked the Irvine Community Land Trust with developing the land for affordable housing. (Photo by Jeff Gritchen, Orange County Register/SCNG) Irvine City Councilmember Tammy Kim, who has earmarked affordable housing as a top priority , joined her fellow council members last month in unanimously approving the dedication of a four-acre plot of Irvine Company land for affordable housing. The site at Sand Canyon and Great Park Boulevard will be transferred to the Irvine Community Land Trust — which has operated independently of the city since 2017, albeit with Kim on its board — to oversee the development of the land. Details for this project are still in the works, according to Kim, as the city is still in the process of transferring the land. The trust is still working to configure what type of property and how many units will be available on the site as well as to set a timeline for the project. “There (are) a lot of things we have to determine, including things such as building construction costs, mortgage interest rates, inflation, cost of living,” Kim said. Under the city’s 2006 Development Agreement with Irvine Company, the real estate developer is required to dedicate and convey 17 acres of land for affordable housing by Dec. 31. To date, it has conveyed approximately 10 of the 17 acres, in addition to the recently-approved four-acre spot. The 10 acres have been developed into Alegre Apartments , Sage Park and Salerno Apartments. A total of 252 units of varying sizes have been built. The deadline for the conveyance of the outstanding three acres was extended to June 30, 2023. Madelynn Hirneise, Families Forward’s CEO, connects families — “the hidden population, the hidden homeless here in Orange County” — with coveted affordable housing units and has worked closely with the Irvine Community Land Trust for nearly two decades. Some families sleep in O’Neill Regional Park, telling their kids they’re camping, she said; others squat in apartment units or sleep in a vehicle when they know there is no street sweeping. Affordable housing in Irvine Irvine forgoes property taxes to convert 1,000-plus units to middle-income housing New affordable home project in Irvine could be last to be hindered by large property tax burden Alegre Apartments is Irvine’s first permanent affordable housing complex Affordable Sage Park community readies to welcome new homeowners in Irvine And because they are not always on the streets, families can be overlooked in the homeless count, Hirneise said. In addition to homelessness, there is a critical need to address those at risk of becoming unhoused, according to community leaders. In Irvine, said Cesar Covarrubias, the executive director of the local nonprofit Kennedy Commission, the daytime population is three to five times larger than the nighttime population because people cannot afford to live in the city and therefore commute to work. Kim, too, has recognized a “big gap in supportive housing” for those on the brink of homelessness. In some instances, she said, people make too much money to qualify for very low-income housing, but are only a paycheck away from eviction. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation is a California state-required process to ensure cities and counties plan for enough housing for all income levels. In the last RHNA cycle (2014-20), Irvine was required to plan for 2,239 moderate-income housing units; 2,034 low-income housing units; and 2,817 very low-income housing units. An analysis by the Kennedy Commission, which focuses on housing, showed that the city has exceeded its]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Housing first’ is a failed approach to chronic homelessness in California</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/housing-first-is-a-failed-approach-to-chronic-homelessness-in-california/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322233</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Susan Shelley How much money is enough to solve the homelessness crisis, and on what should it be spent? Every poll shows that Californians list homelessness as a top concern, and the posturing by politicians has reached theatrical proportions. For example, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on November 3, five days before the statewide general election, that he was pausing the distribution of what remained of the third round of grants under the state’s Homelessness Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. “Californians demand accountability and results, not settling for the status quo,” the governor said five days before the November election, citing the “urgency of this moment.” The funding was released two weeks later. According to the governor’s office, the state has provided “over $1.5 billion of flexible emergency aid to address homelessness through the Homeless Emergency Aid Program and the first two rounds of HHAP funding.” That $1.5 billion is just part of “a $15.3 billion, multi-year state effort to turn the tide on homelessness,” the governor’s office said. Before releasing the grants that he decided to “pause,” Newsom called local leaders to Sacramento for a meeting and instructed them to make plans that “must include a landscape analysis” and “outcome-driven results and strategies” with “clear metrics.” The local plans must also “identify all existing programs and all sources of funding.” That answers any questions about how the money should be spent. It could cost $15 billion just for consultants and bureaucrats pushing paperwork from desk to desk. Novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “When you’re on the wrong premise, you will always achieve the opposite of what you intend.” She could have been explaining California’s homelessness problem, growing worse by the hour as billions of dollars are spent to improve it. Consider the “housing first” premise that is deeply embedded in federal, state and local funding. “Housing first” holds that the solution to the growth of sprawling tent encampments on sidewalks and other public spaces is  to construct and award free supportive housing to individuals without requiring sobriety, mental health treatment, job training, school attendance or anything else as a condition of receiving or keeping that housing. There is no evidence that this model works at all to reduce homelessness in a community. The “housing first” program in Utah that was promoted as a success was exposed in 2015 by economist Kevin Corinth as a successful statistical trick — the number of “chronically homeless” people fell only because the definition of “chronically homeless” was changed. The policy did not “end” chronic homelessness as advertised. But advertising makes it happen, and in Los Angeles, voters have just approved Initiative Ordinance ULA, a tax on real estate transfers. Starting April 1, 2023, property sold for more than $5 million, which typically will include apartment buildings, shopping malls and other places where the prices paid by tenants and consumers pay the bills, will be taxed an amount equal to 4% of the sale price. Property sold for $10 million or more will be taxed at the rate of 5.5%. The measure was promoted as a solution to homelessness in Los Angeles. This new real estate transfer tax will raise an estimated $600 million to $1.1 billion per year, depending on how many properties in Los Angeles are sold. An appointed governance board will spend the money on homelessness housing and related services, but none of the money may be spent on temporary housing or emergency shelters. The law on the power to clear encampments in California and other western states is controlled by the decision in the Martin v. Boise case, in which the Ninth Circuit held that it is unconstitutional to arrest people for sleeping on the sidewalks unless there are a sufficient number of shelter beds available. The court’s ruling didn’t require individual apartments. If California had spent $15.3 billion on the premise that sleeping on the streets should never be an option, therefore the state’s first priority must be to get people off the streets and into safe shelters and temporary housing, where they can be triaged into services that will help them get well and get on their feet, the crisis might have been over by now.It’s not too late. Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan\_Shelley Written By: Susan Shelley &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>HOA Homefront: Are board meetings with no notice or agenda properly open?</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/hoa-homefront-are-board-meetings-with-no-notice-or-agenda-properly-open/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322122</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Kelly G. Richardson Q: Our HOA continues to have meetings without posting a proper notice, no agenda. The directors receive an agenda, but the members do not. Is this considered an illegal meeting? And if so, do all the discussions and votes taken at this meeting need to be redone at a properly noticed meeting?  — B.B., San Clemente A: Boards may not discuss or act upon any non-emergency items unless that item was on a published agenda at least four calendar days before the meeting, per Civil Code Section 4930(a). There are two exceptions — emergencies (Section 4930(d)(1)), or if something arose after agenda posting, requires immediate action, and a two-thirds vote of the directors to add it to the agenda (Section 4930(d)(2)). The agenda must be sufficiently specific to allow members a reasonable opportunity to determine if they wish to attend the deliberations or even to address the board during the open forum. In about 2016, a landowner partnership sued the Rancho Santa Fe Association regarding the denial of its proposal to develop some land within the association. One of the partnership’s arguments was that the board did not adequately disclose the topic on the published agenda; therefore, the HOA’s decision was invalid. At the appellate level, the court in 2018 issued its decision in Golden Eagle Land Investment LP v. Rancho Santa Fe Association, ruling in part that the HOA’s agenda was sufficient to inform the members of the topic to be discussed. Agendas should be fair and reasonably informative to the members served by the board. Q: We saw your writing which clearly explained HOA boards must follow Civil Code 4090(b). However we have been told the governor’s July, 2022 proclamation states California is in “emergency” status and it replaces 4090(b). My reading is that the proclamation speaks to be prepared if Monkeypox becomes an epidemic. Our board is advised that it is in “emergency” status and does not have to follow Section 4090 and can maintain virtual-only meetings. What is correct? — L.B., Martinez. A: There continue to be many erroneous statements on this issue, creating further confusion for California HOAs. In short, the Davis-Stirling Act requires that, if the board is meeting using telephone or virtual platform, there must be a physical location where someone can observe the meeting without using the telephone or virtual platform. Last year, an emergency bill was passed in September, creating a new section 5450, which allows purely virtual meetings to occur during times of declared local or state emergency. However, there isn’t ANY emergency allowing the application of the statute, because the declared emergency does not make the in-person meeting unsafe or impossible. I am not aware of any California jurisdiction that in 2021 or 2022 has barred in-person HOA meetings from occurring – so the statute does not presently apply. Consequently, HOAs cannot have purely virtual open board meetings and must comply with Civil Code Section 4090 by having a physical location at which a member can attend. It is unfortunate that there is so much noncompliance with the statute. HOAs must catch up and return to in-person or hybrid meetings in order to comply with the law and also provide the greatest transparency to their members. Kelly G. Richardson CCAL is a Fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers and Senior Partner of Richardson Ober LLP, a California law firm known for community association advice. Submit column questions to kelly@roattorneys.com. Written By: Kelly G. Richardson &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>To solve California’s housing shortage, build dense communities in unincorporated areas</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/to-solve-californias-housing-shortage-build-dense-communities-in-unincorporated-areas/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2022 19:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322063</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Marc Joffe Many Southern California cities are struggling to implement state mandates to increase housing production. Yet while the state needs more housing, it is politically challenging to squeeze more units into fully built out cities whose residents are accustomed to single family homes. To thread the needle, governments should encourage new dense developments in unincorporated areas. As the Register reported last month, most southern California cities missed a deadline to secure state approval for new, more permissive zoning plans. Last year, Huntington Beach lost a court battle against state housing mandates after incurring millions of dollars of litigation costs. While state government likely has the legal and financial resources to ultimately force local compliance in most cases, the inevitable foot dragging will delay needed increases in housing supply. To accelerate progress, the state should consider giving counties the option to meet a portion of their cities’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation by authorizing projects in unincorporated areas. While it is true this approach will lead to development on land currently zoned for open space or agriculture, the amount of land that would need to be rezoned could be limited by building relatively dense communities on these land parcels. It may seem counterintuitive to build dense communities in unincorporated areas that are relatively far from rail lines and workplaces. But such communities may be attractive to the growing ranks of remote workers and retirees around the state. Historically, high density residential development has been associated with urban downtowns and transit-oriented development. Residents in these settings can walk or ride to their workplaces without relying on cars and the greenhouse gases they produce. But with the rise of remote work, it may be possible to create dense, walkable communities relatively far from existing downtowns or rail lines. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees started working from rural areas in such “Zoom towns” as Bozeman, Montana, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Truckee, California, and New York’s Hudson Valley. If they can work productively from such far-flung locations, employees could also work in rural portions of suburban counties. Meanwhile, a growing proportion of California’s baby boomers is entering retirement. Many of the new retirees are leaving the state in search of lower housing costs. Some may welcome the option to remain in California, albeit with less space, to be near children and grandchildren. Clusters of midrise apartment buildings and townhouses with such onsite amenities as restaurants, coffee shops, gyms and coworking spaces located in rural parts of suburban counties should be attractive to many remote workers and their families, as well as empty nest retirees, especially if priced at a substantial discount to comparable units in nearby cities. These new communities would be surrounded by open space, yet they would be close enough to corporate offices to permit one or two days of commuting per week. Although not on a rail line, they could be readily served by coaches which would have adequate capacity for workers commuting less frequently. Retirees could also use these buses to visit cities, connect with family and attend medical appointments. To err is human, but to really foul up a rental market requires rent control While other southern California counties have more unincorporated areas that could be rezoned for relatively dense projects, Orange County has land along the Foothill Transportation Corridor (CA-241) and Ortega Highway (CA-74). The latter area already hosts a relatively dense development, offering proof that this concept is practical. Rienda Village at Rancho Mission Viejo is being developed in an unincorporated area of Orange County just five miles from San Juan Capistrano. The project includes one- and two-bedroom flats priced from the low $500s, which is relatively affordable by area standards. If counties let developers create additional dense villages in their unincorporated areas while limiting red tape and permitting fees, California could have more market-rate housing, at more affordable market rates. Marc Joffe is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute focusing on state policy issues. Written By: Marc Joffe &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>At last, some productive housing legislation</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/at-last-some-productive-housing-legislation/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2022 17:03:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=322001</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thomas D. Elias A major share of the solution to California’s long-running housing shortage has been obvious and inevitable for two years and should never have been even slightly controversial: From the earliest days of COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns, when millions of white-collar employees were sent to work at home rather than in the offices of law firms, insurance companies, stock brokerages and many other enterprises, most of those workers have loved the change. Companies that want them back in the office even part-time have seen resignations by the score as workers move to employers that allow unfettered telecommuting. Among other things, this creates billions of unused square feet in office towers and sprawling commercial complexes, even though developers continue building more and more new office space, much of which remains vacant long after completion. At the same time, estimates of housing need have varied from 1 million to 3.5 million units over the last five years, but fewer than 400,000 new ones arose in that time. As long ago as April 2020, this column began urging lawmakers to add two and two and get four: Convert empty office space to housing of all types and prices, from ground-floor studio apartments to 30th-floor penthouses with sweeping ocean views and much of the housing crisis can be solved. These could be rental units or condominiums. Either way, people would be housed without new building footprints or depredation of existing neighborhoods where homeowners have invested their life savings. Sure, there will be complications. Building conversions will require plumbing and electric revisions, changes to existing floor plans and construction of new elevator shafts so hoity-toity residents of the top floors won’t have to mix with the lower-income folks below. But that is a whole lot easier and cheaper and less controversial than tearing down existing homes or building new subdivisions, which involve purchasing land at California’s high price levels. There could also be complications involving local zoning. But any bureaucratic problems could be quickly solved by state lawmakers — and now they have done it. As long ago as early 2021, bills began arising in the Legislature to enable all this and make building permit approvals for conversions automatic or nearly so. Before this fall, they all died in committee, generally opposed by building trade unions that wanted all conversions to pay union wages. The unions also believed new housing would generate far more jobs than makeovers. Meanwhile, stock prices of many real estate investment trusts that own office towers and other now vacant commercial property dropped as leases expired and were not renewed, or had to be revised to include less space. At the same time, local property tax bases are threatened by the lowered values of those same properties, including stores of all sizes vacated because of pandemic shutdowns and growing online commerce. All these real and nascent crises finally forced legislative leaders to act. Two proposed bills enabling housing conversions of both big box stores and office space had been held up by the fact that unions finance many Democratic campaigns and the Democrats who run Sacramento didn’t want to cross them. That changed. One new law, introduced as AB 2011 by Oakland Democratic Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, allows virtually unlimited conversions along major streets but does not require union labor, just “prevailing wages.” The carpenters’ union backed this one, figuring its members would get plenty of work from conversions. The other, introduced as SB 6 by Salinas Democratic state Sen. Ana Caballero, requires both union hiring and prevailing wages. AB 2011 requires conversions to include a large component of affordable housing in conversions, while SB 6 furthers market-rate housing. Both will take advantage of the high vacancy rates, allow real estate trusts to sell off unused property at respectable prices and create tens of thousands of units far more quickly than building in new areas or rebuilding older neighborhoods. The bottom line: It took years for legislators and their union backers to see the obvious and take advantage of the housing solution created by pandemic-induced workplace changes. But these two measures should get the state moving toward a real housing solution and away from unsuccessful patchwork approaches. Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com Written By: Thomas D. Elias &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>California’s ‘racist’ Article 34 remains an obstacle to affordable housing</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/californias-racist-article-34-remains-an-obstacle-to-affordable-housing/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2022 15:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=321860</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ethan Varian When voters in three Bay Area cities get their ballots in the mail next month, they’ll be asked whether their cities should be allowed to help build more desperately needed affordable housing. The reason for seeking voters’ permission? A 72-year-old provision in the California Constitution requiring local governments to get community approval before developing, buying or funding “low rent housing” – a law that voters across the state will choose whether to repeal in 2024. Article 34, passed by a statewide ballot initiative in 1950, has blocked affordable housing for decades while creating costly hurdles for developers and local officials who want to build homes for low-income residents. The amendment was the result of a successful campaign by the state’s real estate industry, which drummed up racist fears about public housing and neighborhood integration. “There was a time, and it still exists today because of (this provision), where it was OK to just blatantly say we don’t want Black people in our neighborhoods – and that’s the legacy of Article 34,” said Oakland City Councilmember Carroll Fife, who introduced the city’s affordable housing measure. If approved, three measures would clear the way for new government-developed housing, as well as for additional affordable homes built by private developers that receive public funding, a far more common way to create low-income housing. Oakland’s ballot measure would allow 13,000 additional affordable units. Berkeley’s would greenlight 3,000 low-income units. And South San Francisco’s measure would allow new affordable homes totaling 1% of existing units in the city limits each year for an eight-year period. None would approve or dedicate funding to any individual developments. Opponents, including residents and taxpayers groups, say the measures will inevitably lead to misuse of public funds. The Alameda County Taxpayer Association described the Oakland measure as an effort “to make the voters believe that something good would actually result, rather than more waste and misuse.” While such measures tend to pass in the Bay Area, housing advocates say Article 34 still triggers unnecessary costs and delays for developers who must comply with the law and for local governments needing to fund elections in order to plan for new affordable housing. “It creates significant barriers to our ability to solve our housing crisis because it makes it a lot harder to build publicly funded housing for low-income people,” said State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat from San Francisco, who co-sponsored a bill to repeal Article 34. Wiener’s bill, overwhelmingly approved by lawmakers in August, will put a statewide measure on the 2024 ballot asking voters to eliminate the “completely racist provision.” Despite lawmakers’ support, Weiner acknowledged it will be a challenge to win over voters, who he said tend to be wary of giving up their right to decide local issues. Three past efforts to repeal or weaken Article 34 all failed. The last attempt was in 1993. But Wiener said initial voter research suggests once people learn about Article 34’s discriminatory roots and its impact on affordable housing, a majority support its repeal. Article 34 was approved shortly after the establishment of the federal Housing Act of 1949 banning racial segregation in public housing – a provision that set many White communities on edge. Residents in the Northern California coastal city of Eureka spearheaded the amendment to stop the housing authority there from using federal money to develop low-income housing. They partnered with the California Real Estate Association, which paid for the campaign to pass the measure, pitching the amendment as essential to preserving White neighborhoods. Over the years, cities and counties have found legal workarounds to the provision. The main strategy is for local governments to ask to create a certain number of affordable units without needing to specify the developments or their location. The language can be included in housing bond proposals and ballot measures, such as the ones coming before voters this year. Additionally, publicly backed projects where less than 49% of units are affordable are exempt from Article 34. Still, ensuring developments don’t run afoul of the law can add between $10,000 and $80,000 to the cost of building an affordable unit, according to state officials. And projects sometimes fail to get off the ground in part because of that increased expense and uncertainty. Sarah Karlinsky, a housing policy expert with the Bay Area urban think tank SPUR, said the referendum requirement is one of various laws and policies some wealthy communities historically have used to keep out low-income housing. “If a goal is to build affordable housing in all communities in California, this does not help achieve that goal,” Karlinsky said. Going forward, the state is beefing up enforcement efforts to ensure local governments meet their affordable housing targets, whether or not Article 34 is repealed. State officials in 2019 said the six-county Southern California region needed 1.34 million new homes by the end of the decade. The California Association of Realtors, the successor organization to the California Real Estate Association, is now a primary backer of repealing Article 34, in part to rectify the group’s role in enshrining the law in the state constitution. Sanjay Wagle, senior vice president of government affairs for the association, said the group is still working to decide how much it will spend on the repeal campaign. The aim will be to convince voters the provision is a relic of the state’s racist past that continues to hinder new affordable housing. “That’s where polling comes in to decide: Is this a $5 million campaign, or is this a $40 million campaign?” he said, “Because we don’t know how much education is going to be necessary.” Written By: Ethan Varian &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New limits recommended for building homes in high-risk wildfire areas in California</title>
		<link>https://www.hoaalliance.org/new-limits-recommended-for-building-homes-in-high-risk-wildfire-areas-in-california/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HOA Alliance]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[California HOA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HOA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.hoaalliance.org/?p=321807</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Paul Rogers One of California’s top elected officials on Monday announced steps to limit how housing and other developments can be built in areas that are at the highest risk of wildfire, a move that follows a series of deadly, destructive blazes in recent years, but also comes amid the state’s persistent housing shortage. At a news conference in San Diego County, state Attorney General Rob Bonta released guidelines for local governments to follow when they are deciding whether to approve subdivisions in the “wildland urban interface” — places where structures and other human development meet undeveloped lands and heightened wildfire risks. Under Bonta’s guidelines, developers should not be allowed to build on steep slopes in such fire-prone areas, and they should construct adequate water supplies there, cluster buildings near roads, and be required to use fire-resistant building materials beyond what state building codes require in the riskiest areas. Made worse by a warming climate that has increased the severity of heat waves and droughts, fires around Lake Tahoe, the Wine Country, Sacramento Valley, Southern California and the Santa Cruz Mountains in the past five years have burned thousands of homes and killed dozens of people. “This is the new normal,” Bonta said. “When it comes to development we can’t continue business as usual. We must adjust. We must change.” Monday’s guidelines are voluntary. But not following them carries legal risk. Bonta’s predecessor, former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, joined several lawsuits by environmental groups in recent years to block large projects on the grounds that developers and local government officials did not adequately study wildfire risk or take steps to reduce it, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act, a powerful law signed by former Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1970. Bonta continued those lawsuits after he took office last year. Building industry officials said Monday that the guidelines could be helpful in informing developers and local officials as they design new housing projects. “We have a housing crisis. We aren’t building enough,” said Dan Dunmoyer, president and CEO of the California Building Industry Association. “So we need to find a way to get to yes. Our goal is to use this guidance to get to yes. Hopefully others won’t use it as a path to keep it at no.” After some of the most severe fires, particularly the 2018 Camp Fire that killed 85 people and destroyed much of the town of Paradise in Butte County, some state lawmakers have attempted to limit or ban entirely new construction in areas that Cal Fire classifies as “very high wildfire hazard severity zones.” But most of those measures have been defeated in Sacramento. Last year, Senate Bill 55, by State Sen. Henry Stern, D-Los Angeles, which would have banned development in those areas, failed amid heavy opposition from the building industry. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 182, a measure that would have mandated more evacuation routes, vegetation management and strict building codes for new developments in high-risk fire areas. That bill, by former State Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, passed the Assembly 70-1 and the state Senate 35-2. In his veto message, Newsom said he supported many of the goals, and that other state agencies were working on them, but that the bill “creates a loophole for regions to not comply with their housing requirements.” “Wildfire resilience must become a more consistent part of land use and development decisions. However, it must be done while meeting our housing needs,” Newsom wrote. Environmental groups on Monday cheered Bonta’s actions. “The solution to California’s housing needs is not to put more people at risk of injury and death from wildfires,” said Peter Broderick, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group. Broderick and other environmentalists say they support more housing, particularly in existing urban areas. Building on open range lands and up against forests and fire-prone hillsides increases traffic in rural areas, strains water supplies and heightens wildfire risk, they say. In January, the center and other environmental groups — joined by Bonta’s office — won a court case to block a proposed luxury development in Lake County on the grounds that developers and county officials did not properly study or offset fire risk, among other issues. That plan, called Guenoc Valley, proposes to build five resort hotels, a golf course, spas, polo fields and 1,400 luxury homes on 16,000 acres about 15 miles north of Calistoga in southern Lake County.Related Articles Similarly, the Sierra Club and other groups won a lawsuit in 2020 to halt construction of a 1,100-home gated community, the Otay Ranch Resort Village, east of Chula Vista in San Diego County, using a similar wildfire safety angle. Both the Lake County and San Diego County sites had burned in the past 15 years in major wildfires. “We’re completely in favor of housing where you should build housing,” said Peter Anderson, chairman of the conservation committee of Sierra Club San Diego. “We’re not in favor of building housing that requires long commutes, more greenhouse gases, more traffic and more fire risk.” Dunmoyer, of the building industry association, noted that the most deaths in any California fire, roughly 3,000, came after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco. Modern housing is built to strict fire-resistant standards, he said. “If we are going to not build where the propensity for fire or disaster can occur, we are not going to build in California period,” he said. “Every square inch is prone to earthquake, fire or flood. It comes down to whether we can mitigate for that, and the answer is yes. We think it can be done.” Written By: Paul Rogers &#124; Source:]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
