CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT THE CAUSE FOR STATE HOUSING SHORTAGES…….

LOOK AT SOME COMPARISONS AND HYPOCROSIES

The homebuilder Lennar has new affordable homes for sale in San Antonio, Texas with nine different floor plans to choose from at a variety of price points – starting in the $130,000s.

In California, permits and development fees often total more than $130,000 before ground is even broken. A report published by UC Berkeley found that development fees can compromise up to 18% of the cost of a new home. In many jurisdictions, developers pay as much as $157,000 in fees on each single family home constructed, ahead of actual construction.

“Ranging in size from 466 to 1,950 square feet of living space, the homes at Republic Meadows offer one to four bedrooms and one to two-and-a-half baths,” Builderonline.com reported about the Lennar homes in San Antonio.

Compare the San Antonio housing to Sacramento’s  Lennar homes: the “high $400,000s” in South Sacramento, the “mid $400,000s in Natomas, and the “low $400,000s” in Rancho Cordova. These neighborhoods are standard track housing, middle-working class areas, and these are just the starting prices before any upgrades.

In California, housing “solutions” were offered by Apple, which promised $2.5 billion in affordable housing; Facebook pledged $1 billion in affordable housing funds; and Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) pushed his high-density housing bill, SB 50. Democrats have tried rent control, and mandating cities build a certain percentage of “affordable housing,” to no avail.

A flurry of eight related Assembly housing bills proposing to target development and impact fees claims to be a solution, but are word salads lacking any real solutions:

AB 1484: Provides a comprehensive reform of the nexus standards that cities and counties use to determine their fees.

AB 1924: Requires jurisdictions to assess fees on a per-square-foot basis, giving developers the option to build smaller, more affordable units without being penalized with multiple fees.

AB 3144: Provides state funding to reimburse local governments who waive impact fees on affordable projects.

AB 3145: Establishes a ceiling for development fees based on the median home price in a jurisdiction. Cities and counties that exceed this ceiling will be required to seek approval from the Department of Housing and Community Development, and justify the need to do so.

AB 3146: Requires cities and counties to report a wide variety of essential housing data to the Department of Housing and Community Development, including the number of new housing units that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy.

AB 3147: Ensures that certain impact fees are payable under protest. This allows for a developer to pay a fee they consider to be unreasonably high so they can continue construction.

AB 3148: Reduces the impact fees paid on affordable housing units that are built using the state’s density bonus program.

AB 3149: Modernizes the way that local agencies notify interested parties prior to levying a new fee or service charge or prior to approving an increase in an existing fee or service charge.

The Berkeley study addresses this:

“Our conversations with experts and stakeholders made it clear that some approaches would not be productive. Simply capping impact fees statewide, for example, could cut off much-needed revenue, resulting in lowered levels of public services and potentially incentivizing cash-strapped localities to block new housing altogether.”

“Over the course of 2017 alone, the national single-family and multifamily construction price indexes increased by 5.6 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively, compared to an average annual increase of 2.7 percent between 1990 and 2000. In that year, New York, San Francisco, San Jose/Silicon Valley, and Oakland ranked among the most expensive construction markets.”

“The cost of building a 100-unit affordable project in California increased from $265,000 per unit in 2000 to almost $425,000 in 2016. The same trends that increase costs for market-rate housing (such as land pricing, construction costs, and regulation) impact affordable housing. In addition, affordable projects are often subject to increased local scrutiny, further inflating costs. A 2014 study found that local government design requirements for affordable housing added an average of seven percent in total costs, and that community opposition (measured by holding four or more community meetings) increased expenses by five percent.”

While Gov. Gavin Newsom punishes cities he claims are not complying with the state’s affordable housing mandates, the California Legislature and governors have allowed more and more state mandates on all construction, including affordable housing: rooftop solar mandates and requirements that all new homes be “net-zero,” green homebuilding standards, fire sprinkler mandates, CEQA requirements, environmental impact studies, and many, many more.

Newsom even sued the Orange County city of Huntington Beach for failing to provide enough additional “affordable housing,” while his own home county of Marin has enjoyed a moratorium on affordable housing building requirements and will do so until 2028.

While former Gov. Jerry Brown signed the 2017 budget bill allowing Marin County to remain exempted from affordable housing requirements, he also signed SB 1333 in 2018 to eliminate a “housing loophole” that allows charter cities to reduce sites zoned for affordable housing, even if the action is inconsistent with the cities’ adopted general plans, which is a violation of the California Constitution.

Republicans argued against the housing exemption in the trailer bill, and asked why Marin was allowed to ignore its own housing needs, and instead export its housing obligations to neighboring counties.

“But Democrats who posture as fierce advocates for more housing, even those carrying high-profile housing bills, such as Sens. Toni Atkins and Jim Beall, voted for it and Gov. Jerry Brown signed it,” Dan Walters reported. “For at least another decade, therefore, Marin’s residents can smugly assume that their bucolic lifestyles will not be marred by having more neighbors who don’t make as much money and, you know, just don’t fit in.”

Nearly every attempt to reform the California Environmental Quality Act has been met with a wall of resistance. Instead, lawmakers simply vote to exempt powerful and wealthy development projects from CEQA: Sacramento’s Golden1 Center for the Kings basketball team; San Francisco’s Warriors arena; and the Inglewood Chargers/Rams Hollywood Park stadium, to name just a few.

Meanwhile, infrastructure projects, affordable housing, and even transportation projects come under extreme “environmental” scrutiny.

This housing shortage in California was created by California government and politicians, through and through. These pretend “fixes” only add to the burden.

DAWG SAYS: POLITICS GET US INTO MANY OF THESE PROBLEMS BUT MANY STILL THINK POLITICS WILL GET US OUT…….

TRUMP: NO FUNDS FOR SANCTUARY CITIES…….

A SHOWDOWN IN FRONT OF SCOTUS LIKELY……

President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would withhold money from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions after a U.S. court ruled that his administration could block federal law enforcement funds to states and cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan granted the move on Feb. 26, but three other federal appeals courts have agreed to uphold an injunction against the withholding of such funds, setting up a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“As per recent Federal Court ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities. They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!” Trump tweeted, although he gave no other details.

The 2nd Circuit overturned a lower court ruling directing the release of federal funds to New York City and the states of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington. The states and city sued over a 2017 policy conditioning receipt of the funds by state and local governments on their giving federal immigration officials access to their jails, and advance notice when immigrants in the country illegally are being released from custody.

Three federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco have upheld injunctions barring enforcement of at least some of the administration’s conditions on the funds. The latest ruling set up a possible battle at the U.S. Supreme Court, which often resolves legal disputes that divide lower courts.

The Republican president, who is seeking re-election in the Nov. 3 election, has taken a hardline stance toward legal and illegal immigration. His battle against Democratic-led “sanctuary” jurisdictions focuses on laws and policies making it harder for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to find and arrest immigrants they consider deportable.

DAWG SAYS: CITIES AND STATES CAN CHOOSE TO DO AS THEY PLEASE, BUT THERE MAY BE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DEPEND ON FEDERAL FUNDS.

SENATOR MAKES VEILED THREAT AGAINST SCOTUS…….

Schumer warns Kavanaugh and Gorsuch they will ‘pay the price’

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the two Trump-appointed conservative Supreme Court justices “will pay the price” for “awful decisions” in abortion rights cases.

Schumer addressed justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in front of a crowd at the Supreme Court and appeared to threaten Senate Republicans and the administration if the court voted in favor of the Louisiana abortion law that could result in the court revisiting the protections provided in the Roe v. Wade ruling.

“I want to tell you, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, you have unleashed a whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said as the judges hear opening arguments on the case Wednesday. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Schumer suggested there would be an electoral blowback in the general election after the court reaches a decision, which is expected in late June.

“We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologies that you’re going to be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again,” Schumer said. “You’re gone in November.”

 The comments immediately drew criticism from GOP lawmakers, such as Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who said Schumer was threatening the judges.

“Did Senate Democrat leader Schumer just threaten two conservative justices?” he tweeted. “Where is the media?”

Schumer spokesman Justin Goodman accused critics of deliberately misinterpreting the senator’s remarks.

“Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” Goodman said in a statement.

“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices [Sonia] Sotomayor and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”

The Louisiana law in the case before the justices requires doctors who have the ability to perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic where the doctor provides care. A nearly identical law from Texas was struck down by the court four years ago.

The case is the first major test of Roe v. Wade under the now-conservative majority Supreme Court.

DAWG SAYS: THIS SHIT JUST KEEPS GETTING UGLIER AND UGLIER, IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.