The Assembly Democratic Caucus released a one-time, $1.3 billion
housing funding plan earlier this week. Counties will recall that
two key Assembly housing funding proposals from last year, both
supported by CSAC, stalled. AB 1335 (Atkins), which would have
created a new “permanent source” of funding for affordable
housing development through real estate recording fees didn’t
make it off the Assembly floor, while AB 35 (Chiu), which
would’ve have expanded the state’s affordable housing tax credit
program, was vetoed by the Governor.
In his veto message, the Governor argued that tax credits should
be considered as part of the budget process. The plan released on
Monday signal’s the Assembly’s intent to make a significant push
for affordable housing funding in this year’s budget debate.
The Assembly Democrats’ describe their plan as focusing on five
key priorities: rental housing for lower income working families;
homeownership opportunities and rental housing for working
families; affordable housing for rural California, including for
farmworkers and their families; seismic retrofitting of
“soft-story” homes that are at risk of collapsing in an
earthquake; and housing assistance and housing development for
homeless individuals and their families.
The
specifics of the plan include $300 million in low income
housing tax credits, which CSAC is supporting again this year, as
well as $200 million each for the multi-family housing program,
workforce housing grants to local governments, the Calhome grant
and loan program, and multifamily supportive housing.
A bipartisan group of Senators previously released their “No
Place Like Home” initiative, which takes a different approach by
using Mental Health Services Act funding to back $2 billion in
bonds for permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless
individuals experiencing mental illness.
Among other provisions, the Senate plan would also allocate
$200 million of interim funding over four years for supportive
housing and rent assistance.
CSAC will examine the proposals from both houses in light of our
policies on affordable housing and in the context of broader
general fund needs for county programs and communities.
