ReportWire

Tag: haney

  • Newsom and Trump have vowed to crack down on corporate home buying. A new bill aims to curb it

    [ad_1]

    In a rare moment of political alignment last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom and President Trump vowed to crack down on corporate home buying. Now, a new bill aims to make it a reality.

    Assembly Bill 1611, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) in January, would eliminate a “tax loophole” that Haney says corporate landlords and investment firms use to buy up single-family homes across the state.

    “It’s shocking to me that by design, our tax system lets large firms take advantage of tax breaks in order to outbid California families when buying homes,” Haney said. “They’re able to use a tax loophole to give themselves an upper hand.”

    The so-called loophole takes the form of a 1031 exchange — a tax-filing strategy that allows real estate owners to defer capital gains taxes when they sell an investment property, such as a single-family home, as long as they buy a similar “like-kind” property within 180 days. Essentially, it allows investors to replace one investment property with another, avoiding taxes in the process.

    The bill would ban companies that own at least 50 single-family homes from taking advantage of the tax break. It would apply to sales completed after Jan. 1, 2026.

    California has the second-lowest homeownership rate in the country at 56%, and Haney said corporations shouldn’t be shirking real estate taxes in the midst of a housing crisis. The California Department of Finance estimated that during the current fiscal year, the state lost $1.2 billion in revenue due to like-kind exchanges.

    Lenny Goldberg, the policy director for the California Tax Reform Assn., worked with Haney to develop the bill. He said he has viewed like-kind exchanges as a rip-off for years, but it’s an ongoing issue with a powerful lobby behind it.

    “They’re called like-kind exchanges, but they’re not actually like-kind,” he said. “You can exchange an office building for a hotel, or an apartment building for a single-family home.”

    He added that corporate investors aren’t buying up high-end neighborhoods; it’s mostly working-class or middle-class areas, where the affordability crisis is more acute.

    Goldberg said the ban would help in two ways. First, it would result in more tax dollars being paid by corporations. And second, it would stop allowing corporations to dominate bidding wars for homes.

    Currently, corporate owners can afford to bid more on a home than an individual, knowing that when they eventually sell it, they can avoid the capital gains tax by buying a different property, making it a more valuable asset. If they didn’t have access to that benefit, that advantage would be gone.

    He sees it as a modest proposal; a more ambitious effort would be to eliminate like-kind exchanges altogether. But this is a good place to start, and it still lets mom-and-pop landlords or investors who own fewer than 50 properties to take advantage of the tax break, he said.

    The corporate home buying trend became a focal point during the pandemic emergency, when low interest rates sent the housing market into a frenzy, and first-time home buyers competed with investors viewing the house as an asset, not a home. During the second quarter of 2021, 23% of home sales in L.A. County went to investors rather than someone wanting to live there.

    But data show that corporate ownership still makes up a much smaller share of the overall market. Analysis from the California Research Bureau showed that 2.8% of single-family homes in the Golden State are owned by companies that own at least 10 properties.

    The biggest chunk of that appears to be smaller mom-and-pop landlords rather than giant corporations. Companies with more than 50 properties own roughly 110,000 homes in California, whereas companies with 10 to 49 properties, which would be exempt from the ban, own roughly 235,000 properties.

    Haney said now is the right time for the bill, given the momentum provided by Newsom and Trump last month.

    Newsom vowed to take a tougher stance on corporate home buying in his final State of the State speech, saying that “it’s shameful that we allow private equity firms in Manhattan to become some of the biggest landlords in many of our cities.”

    It’s unclear which form the crackdown will take; Newsom said it means more oversight and enforcement, and potentially changing the tax code.

    A few weeks prior, Trump announced immediate steps to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes, but no specific actions have been announced.

    Haney said it’s also timely in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton fires, since data show that investors are flooding the market for burned-out lots, replacing longtime locals. A recent Redfin report said at least 40% of lot sales in fire-damaged areas went to investors in the third quarter of 2025.

    “It shows you that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Whatever your political leaning, you should want regular families to have access to homeownership,” Haney said. “Maybe this is one of the rare issues where there’s broad agreement across political stripes, and we can actually solve a problem.”

    A different bill addressing institutional investors, AB 1240, took a different approach. Introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José), it looked to ban investors that own at least 1,000 single-family properties from buying more homes in order to rent them out.

    Nine companies own more than 1,000 single-family homes in California. The largest is Invitation Homes, which owns more than 11,000 homes in the state and has faced a litany of lawsuits related to unpermitted renovations, unfair eviction practices and withheld security deposits.

    Lee’s bill passed the state Assembly last year but stalled after fierce opposition from real estate agents and the California Apartment Assn. It awaits a Senate committee hearing.

    [ad_2]

    Jack Flemming

    Source link

  • California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    California Assembly passes bill allowing Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes

    [ad_1]

    A bill that would allow Amsterdam-style cannabis cafes in California passed the state Assembly Monday afternoon on a 49-4 vote and is headed to the Senate. But even if the Legislature’s upper chamber approves AB 1775, legalization remains far from a sure thing.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a prior iteration of the bill in October, citing the state’s long-standing smoke-free workplace protections.

    The bill would authorize local jurisdictions to allow licensed cannabis retailers to prepare and sell non-cannabis food and nonalcoholic beverages. The bill would also allow the cafes to host live music and other performances.

    Under current state law, consumers can consume cannabis at a dispensary, but dispensaries can’t legally sell non-cannabis products like coffee and food, as is legal in Amsterdam.

    California’s symbolic position at the apex of weed culture has long been rivaled by the Dutch capital, where cannabis cafes have been legal since the 1970s.

    Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), who introduced the legislation, has framed it as a matter of fairness. He argues that the cafes would level the playing field for the state’s highly taxed and regulated legal weed industry, allowing legitimate businesses to compete with black-market sellers who don’t operate under the same constraints.

    “This is a bill that supports our legal small businesses that just want to diversify their businesses and do the right thing,” Haney said Monday on the Assembly floor. “The illicit illegal market is continuing to grow and thrive, while our legal cannabis market is struggling.”

    Haney cited the governor’s prior veto, saying he had been working to address Newsom’s concerns through amendments to the bill. The new version would prohibit cannabis smoking or vaping in “back of house” of lounges, where food is being prepared or stored, creating separation between where people are consuming cannabis and other work areas.

    Rather than taking a blunt statewide approach, the bill would put the decision to allow cannabis cafes in the hands of local jurisdictions. Should a jurisdiction decide to greenlight the lounges, it would have to hash out its own permitting process and regulations.

    West Hollywood put a licensing system in place several years ago, and a handful of cannabis lounges operate within the city’s 1.89 square miles. The West Hollywood businesses operate with workarounds that separate the food businesses, The Times has previously reported.

    No such licensing system exists in the city of Los Angeles.

    The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Assn. and the American Lung Assn. have all opposed the bill, raising concerns about the health effects of secondhand marijuana smoke. They argue that the bill would undo hard-fought workplace protections “by re-creating the harmful work environments of the past.”

    Marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access has argued that patrons and employees would face no health risks because of the highly regulated nature of such establishments.

    A Newsom spokesperson declined to comment on pending legislation.

    Staff writer Nathan Solis contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Sewage could be California’s next tool in fighting the opioid epidemic

    Sewage could be California’s next tool in fighting the opioid epidemic

    [ad_1]

    A California legislator is proposing a new law that would require routine tests of statewide wastewater for illicit drugs to better inform public health and law enforcement officials.

    Propelled by the success of epidemiological sewage testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials have continued to build on ways that wastewater monitoring can be used to inform policies and practices. In December, the National Institute on Drug Abuse announced a pilot program to test wastewater for illegal drugs and overdose reversing agents, such as Narcan, in 70 cities across the nation, including San Francisco and San Diego.

    Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would like to see that work expanded statewide to aid in the response to the ongoing opioid epidemic. Last year became San Francisco’s deadliest for drug overdoses, and in Los Angeles, fentanyl — the synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin — became the leading cause of the city’s rising overdose deaths.

    Haney’s new bill, AB 3073, would require biweekly testing of the state’s largest wastewater facilities for drugs, including fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and xylazine, an increasingly deadly drug also called Tranq. If passed, the law would create a process for the collection and testing of sewage, led by the State Water Board with the State Department of Public Health, which would publicly share the results.

    “Wastewater drug testing empowers us to be proactive and respond effectively and immediately when we see spikes in certain areas or of particular drugs,” Haney, chair of the state’s Select Committee on Fentanyl, Opioid Addiction and Overdose Prevention, said in a statement. “The state cannot simply wait for people to die before we act.”

    He said the wastewater results can provide “critical information to respond quicker to stop these drugs and intervene smarter and deploy resources with more precision.”

    The bill hasn’t yet been analyzed for its fiscal impact, but Haney’s spokesperson Nate Allbee said their office estimates that a test for each major plant — of which there are 250 statewide — would cost about $200. Done twice a week, which the bill said would provide sufficient data to analyze drug trends, the testing regimen would cost the state an estimated $100,000 a week.

    Testing wastewater for illicit drugs has been implemented widely in Europe for the past 20 years, Allbee said. He said this practice has helped local governments detect spikes in the use of certain drugs and identify new, potentially dangerous drugs entering the illicit market.

    “Despite the fact that the United States is experiencing an unprecedented deadly epidemic from drug overdoses, we are way behind the curve in adopting wastewater-based drug testing” to combat the opioid epidemic, Haney said. “Other countries have proven that testing wastewater for illicit drugs allows public health departments to identify trends in drug use in neighborhoods and proactively target public health interventions in communities before overdose deaths occur.”

    Wastewater testing continues to be one of the most reliable sources for tracking COVID-19 spikes.

    Haney’s bill isn’t yet scheduled for a committee hearing, but Allbee said it should be heard by the Assembly Health committee in the coming weeks.

    [ad_2]

    Grace Toohey

    Source link

  • Bill to make more rentals pet friendly would put an end to ‘no dogs allowed,’ lawmaker says

    Bill to make more rentals pet friendly would put an end to ‘no dogs allowed,’ lawmaker says

    [ad_1]

    All dogs may go to heaven, but California landlords aren’t as accommodating.

    Pet owners can have a tougher time finding apartments because of the surfeit of landlords who don’t allow dogs, cats or other animals in their buildings. A new bill, however, seeks to open more apartments to renters with pets.

    The legislation, in fact, would allow landlords to ask about pet ownership only after a tenant’s application has been approved, says Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), author of the bill.

    Haney’s proposal would end blanket bans on specific pets, he said, adding that the measure would help ease California’s housing crisis.

    Haney introduced Assembly Bill 2216 earlier this month, which he said in a news release requires landlords to “have a reasonable reason[s] for not allowing a pet in a rental unit.”

    “I’ve heard from many constituents about the incredible hurdles and challenges they faced in finding homes simply because they own pets,” Haney told The Times on Wednesday. “They’ve been repeatedly denied because they have a dog — even if their dog is an emotional support animal — and they need accommodations.”

    Haney said he found inspiration from a British bill introduced in Parliament in May that makes pet ownership “an implied term of an assured tenancy,” unless “the landlord reasonably refuses.”

    Haney said that landlords’ restrictions on pets are crippling for the majority of California renters.

    He noted that nearly 70% of the state’s 17 million renting families are pet owners and, of those, nearly 3 million live in Los Angeles County.

    Statistics on pet ownership vary.

    The American Veterinary Medical Assn. said that, in 2020, 45% of all U.S. households owned dogs and 26% owned cats. Among those, 39% of all renters favored canines and 29% preferred felines.

    A widely cited 2014 Apartments.com survey placed pet ownership among renters at 72%. The Humane Society also lists 72% of renters as pet owners.

    What is indisputable, Haney said, is the low number of rentals in California that say they are “pet friendly.” His staff identified daily listings over the course of a week on real estate website Zillow that showed 21% of available rentals in San Francisco allowed pets, and 26% in Los Angeles.

    “California pet owners are over two-thirds of renters, and they’re excluded from units,” Haney said. “I’m a huge supporter of building access to housing, and this is a housing issue.”

    Andrea Amavisca, a senior legislative advocate at the California Immigration Policy Center, said she and her partner spent more than a month trying to find a two-bedroom rental unit in Sacramento that permitted their small mixed-breed dog.

    “Landlords that initially liked our application would suddenly stop answering our calls once they found out we had a dog,” Amavisca said in a statement. “Or others would require a pet deposit close to $1,000 that would put the unit totally out of our budget.”

    Amavisca said it was unfair that nearly every landlord “had a different pet policy with fees that varied based on discretion,” meaning they could charge what they pleased. Some charged only $20 a month, while others asked for $100 and some wanted four-figure cleaning deposits.

    Haney’s bill does not address fees, and the legislation wouldn’t bar landlords from excluding certain types of pets.

    “We’re not saying every landlord should have to accept every animal,” Haney said.

    Haney’s bill defines “a common household pet” as “a domesticated animal, including a dog or cat, that is commonly kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes.”

    When asked if boa constrictors, lizards, fish or other legally acquired pets met the definition, Haney said the bill was centered on “companion animals” such as dogs or cats.

    Calls and emails to the California Apartment Assn. and the Apartment Assn. of California Southern Cities seeking comment on this bill were not returned.

    California Oaks Property Management, which manages residential and commercial properties in Ventura County, listed a series of cons regarding pet ownership in a 2023 post to landlords that included property damage, noise complaints and liability issues from possible animal attacks.

    California Oaks recommended that landlords charge an added deposit of $250 to $500 depending on breed.

    Haney said he expected to receive some pushback from landlords.

    “I understand some will be concerned about the potential of taking on renters with pets that do damage in ways they want to avoid,” he said. “I’m open to dialogue.”

    Haney said his bill would also help bring roughly 829,000 tenants who are hiding pets from landlords into the sunshine.

    The bill is in its infancy and has yet to be referred to an Assembly committee, according to state legislative records, although it may come up for a hearing March 9.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew J. Campa

    Source link