ReportWire

Tag: Housing Crisis

  • After nearly three years, these Bay Area cities still lack a state-approved housing plan

    Nearly three years after the state’s deadline, a Bay Area county and three cities across the region still haven’t finalized their state-mandated housing plans, leaving them vulnerable to fines, loss of grant funding and the dreaded “builder’s remedy,” which can cost them control over land use decisions.

    San Mateo County and the cities of Half Moon Bay, Belvedere and Clayton have yet to secure state approval for their plans, which were due by Jan. 31, 2023.

    Every eight years, local governments across California are required to submit the plans, known as housing elements, which serve as roadmaps for how cities and counties aim to permit a specific number of homes across a range of affordability levels.

    Following decades of sluggish development and skyrocketing housing costs, state officials have significantly increased the homebuilding targets for most jurisdictions — and added new penalties for those failing to complete their plans on time.

    In total, the Bay Area’s 110 local governments are responsible for adding 441,000 new homes between 2023 and 2031, up from 187,990 in the previous eight-year cycle. So far, the region is far behind schedule in meeting the ambitious new goal, in part because of high interest rates and other market forces.

    Despite the threat of stricter penalties, housing advocates say the few remaining municipalities without completed housing elements appear to lack a sense of urgency in obtaining the state’s sign-off.

    “They’re mostly small and wealthy jurisdictions that probably feel they don’t have any obligation and that they can hire enough lawyers to get out of whatever obligation the state imposes on them,” said Matt Regan, a housing policy expert with the Bay Area Council, a pro-business group.

    Some local officials rejected the claim, saying they’ve worked closely with regulators to finalize the complex plans, which are typically hundreds of pages and outline a broad range of housing policies and practices.

    “There hasn’t been any foot-dragging happening in the city of Half Moon Bay,” said Leslie Lacko, community development director with the city.

    Earlier this month, the San Mateo County coastal city adopted a fifth draft of its plan to update policies on accessory dwelling units and other concerns from regulators. The city aims to submit the plan to the state officials this month.

    Since phasing in the new housing element rules, the state has only pursued serious penalties against a handful of cities, primarily in Southern California, for failing to secure approval for their plans. In 2023, state officials sued Hunnigton Beach, which has openly flouted the housing element process, putting it at risk of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in monthly fines.

    The state’s Housing and Community Development department did not provide a response to questions about whether the state would seek to impose penalties against any Bay Area jurisdictions.

    Still, Bay Area communities that were late submitting their housing plans have been subject to the builder’s remedy, a provision in state law that allows developers to push through massive housing projects that exceed local zoning limits. Local governments are only required to accept such projects during periods when the state determines their housing elements are out of compliance.

    As of last year, cities and counties across the region had received at least 98 builder’s remedy proposals, totaling more than 13,000 units. Despite a flurry of headline-grabbing applications and the subsequent uproar from suburbanites that the builder’s remedy would “Manhattan-ize” their communities, it remains unclear how many projects have actually broken ground.

    In Belvedere, however, one developer used the threat of a large builder’s remedy proposal to persuade local officials last year to approve a smaller, 40-unit duplex project along the affluent Marin County city’s waterfront.

    Even so, Belvedere has yet to complete its housing element. In September, regulators sent the city a letter urging it to complete a required rezoning process to allow for more housing, a key aspect of its plan. The letter also reminded the city about potential fines and penalties for noncompliance, including ineligibility for certain state housing and transportation grants.

    Ethan Varian

    Source link

  • Zohran Mamdani’s signature housing policy is widely loathed by economists. Here’s why | Fortune

    New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani swept to victory Tuesday evening on a platform of affordability, anchored by a plan to freeze rents across nearly 2 million rent-stabilized apartments. 

    But economists, universally, hate rent control. In a 2012 poll of top economists, just 2% agreed that rent-control laws have had “a positive impact” on the supply and quality of affordable housing. The Nobel laureate Richard Thaler even quipped in the survey that the next question should be: “Does the sun revolve around the Earth?”

    Why do economists revile a plan that seems to promote fairness and equity in a housing market that is clearly broken? 

    Seductive simplicity

    To most voters, freezing rents looks like common sense: If prices are out of reach, stop them from rising. But to economists, that’s like treating a fever by breaking the thermometer: It suppresses the symptom without curing the disease, the persistent shortage of housing.

    “Freezing rents doesn’t fix scarcity,” said David Sims, a Brigham Young University economist whose research on Massachusetts rent control remains a touchstone. “It just reshuffles who bears the cost.”

    Sims’s work examined the rent-control regime that once governed Cambridge, Mass., where tenants could stay indefinitely at below-market rents. The policy was meant to keep housing affordable, but it led to what he calls misallocation. 

    “People who could do better by moving tend to stay,” he told Fortune. “Older households hang on to large units they no longer need, while young families can’t find space. Over time, you end up with the wrong people in the wrong apartments.”

    When Massachusetts voters repealed rent control in 1994, property values in Cambridge rose 45%—not only for the deregulated apartments, but for entire neighborhoods. It turned out that years of capped rents had discouraged investment and dragged down surrounding property values, meaning that when controls were finally removed, landlords were empowered to upgrade and renovate their apartments. Neighborhoods that had been frozen along with the rents suddenly seemed to revitalize.  

    That dynamic is already visible in New York. According to the city’s Housing and Vacancy Survey, roughly 26,000 rent-stabilized apartments are sitting empty, many uninhabitable because renovation costs far exceed what landlords can legally recover. The state’s 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act caps recoverable renovation expenses at $50,000 spread over 15 years. Rehabilitating a century-old tenement can cost twice that, leaving owners little incentive to do anything but lock the door.

    Short-term relief, long-term pain

    Rent control’s immediate benefits, for current residents, are undeniable. It offers stability to tenants living paycheck-to-paycheck and reduces the risk of displacement. But over the long term, economists argue it functions the same way as throwing sand in the gears of the housing market. Landlords defer maintenance they can’t recoup, new construction slows, and the available housing stock quietly erodes.

    A 2018 Stanford study led by Rebecca Diamond, one of today’s leading experts in housing markets, found that when San Francisco expanded rent control in the 1990s, the supply of rental housing fell 15% over the next decade. Many landlords converted apartments to condos or owner-occupied housing to escape regulation. The policy helped existing tenants, but ultimately raised market rents citywide and accelerated gentrification, causing the opposite of what policymakers intended.

    “It’s not about pitying landlords,” Sims said. “It’s about understanding incentives. You can’t expect people to invest in something if they’ll never break even—just like you can’t expect tenants to volunteer to pay more rent.”

    For economists, the deeper problem with rent freezes is conceptual: They imply that affordability can simply be decreed against the logic of supply and demand. 

    “It creates this belief that the problem can be solved by fiat,” Sims said. “But rents are high because people want to live in New York. The only lasting fix is to make it easier to build more housing that people actually want.”

    He offers a visceral analogy of market pressures: Black Friday. People don’t wait in line for stores anymore on Black Friday, Sims said, but there was a time when, for a $1,000 TV at $200, there’d be a line around the block at 4 a.m., and only a few lucky people would get the TV.

    “But housing isn’t like a $200 TV,” Sims observed. “Everyone kind of needs a place to live, but if housing is priced like the $200 TV, then there’s a bunch of people in that line who don’t get it.”

    That’s the thing about rent control, economists say: It benefits insiders at the expense of outsiders. Over time, it can deepen inequality by keeping younger, lower-income, or newly arrived residents locked out of regulated neighborhoods that effectively become closed clubs.

    Band-Aid policy in a broken market

    Supporters of Mamdani’s plan counter that New York’s crisis is so severe, temporary freezes are a moral necessity. 

    With median rents above $4,000, they argue, the city cannot wait for zoning reforms and construction projects that take years to materialize. But even sympathetic economists warn that without parallel measures to boost supply, a freeze simply defers the reckoning.

    “If you don’t pair a rent freeze with a credible plan to add housing,” Sims said, “you’re not solving the problem. You’re just pushing off accountability without really solving the underlying problem.”

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Op-Ed | Silencing Black, Latino and Asian communities won’t solve our housing crisis | amNewYork

    Before becoming Council Members, we first met years ago while organizing with tenants, fighting egregious rezonings and gentrification that was disempowering communities of color. We understood then, as we understand now, the need for affordable housing – we were in court rooms with tenants who were getting evicted after their rents skyrocketed. Our city’s diverse communities, especially our Black, Latino and Asian communities, have a major stake in the need for more affordable housing, and their voices matter as we make decisions about the development of our city.

    It’s why we, as representatives of these communities, have been among those leading the Council to approve the creation of historic amounts of new housing.

    The Council has approved over 94% of housing applications that have come before us to produce over 130,000 homes, and we have successfully pushed for these homes to be more affordable for the families and residents in our neighborhoods. As part of approving this new development, we have also secured billions of dollars in critical investments to confront persistent racial inequities in economic opportunity, health outcomes, and overall well-being in communities.

    Yet, it would be easy to find yourself confused about these realities based on the arguments being advanced to support Mayor Adams’ misleading ballot proposals 2, 3, and 4 in this election. 

    The misleading language voters will encounter on ballots hides the proposals’ impact: to take away communities’ power used to hold developers accountable for delivering truly affordable homes and investments for residents who molded our neighborhoods.

    The core argument in support of these proposals, like so much of the recent conversation about housing, has been deceptively simplified to be about creating homes. Those arguing in support of the proposals ignore any critical racial analysis and the history of how Black, Latino and Asian communities have been hurt most when they lacked power in development decisions.

    When the power to approve development was unequally concentrated in our city, Robert Moses used it to displace Black and Latino communities. Decades later, these working-class communities are still struggling to recover from the layered injustices. Mayor Adams’ Ballot Proposals 2, 3 and 4 risk leaving our city vulnerable to repeating this history. 

    The current democratic land use process emerged as a way to protect against these injustices, and was paired with successful efforts to increase racially equitable representation on the City Council. It took groundbreaking legal victories that were brought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to require New York City to have a City Council with adequate representation for racially diverse neighborhoods.

    Now that we have the most diverse City Council in history, with record representation for women, Black, Latino and Asian New Yorkers while approving record amounts of housing with demanded investments, it should raise alarms that there is an effort to take away this hard fought-for democratic power. It’s important that we question: who benefits when power that belongs to the people is taken away and placed in the hands of a few? And who is behind this?

    We know that Mayor Adams has sold our city to Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies– even going as far as to veto our bills that protect immigrants and workers of color to appease corporate interests and Donald Trump. At every turn, Mayor Adams has fought the City Council’s efforts to champion workers and make this city more affordable. These ballot proposals are more of the same. 

    We know that private development is needed to confront our housing crisis, and we understand that the land use process has problems that we must confront. However, powerful interests have never voluntarily ceded to the interests of Black, Latino and Asian communities without demands backed by power.

    It matters what we build and for whom. Simply building housing, without investing in our communities or ensuring truly affordable homes for racially diverse and working-class people, will not solve the housing crisis. It will only deepen historical injustices and widen inequity. We want housing that delivers a more equitable future, alongside opportunities that help working families raise their children, New Yorkers advance, and seniors age-in-place, right here in our city.  

    Mayor Adams’ misleading Ballot Proposals 2, 3 and 4 are a false promise that will undermine these goals.

    To deliver a just future for our city, we must remember our past, which is one that Black, Latino, and Asian New Yorkers don’t have the privilege of forgetting.

    By Sandy Nurse and Shekar Krishnan

    Source link

  • Inside the push to turn vacant city lots into affordable homes in Chicago

    The national median home price hit a record $407,000 last year, locking out many first-time buyers. But in Chicago, one architect is drawing up a solution to make homeownership more accessible. CBS Chicago’s Lauren Victory shows how he’s making homes affordable.

    Source link

  • Pleasant Hill city council moves forward with rezoning as neighborhood groups balk at proposal

    City leaders in Pleasant Hill moved forward with a proposed rezoning Monday night, as opponents packed a meeting to push back against the plan.

    Leaders said the rezoning needs to be done to align with its newly and already adopted 2040 General Plan and a state-mandate to address regional housing needs, but residents are concerned.

    “It’s going to change the whole dynamic of the city,” said Jeffery Thomas.

    Thomas has lived in Pleasant Hill for 42 years. He raised his son in the city and it’s his home. He says it’s special to him.

    “It’s a little bit more affordable,” said Thomas, describing the city. “It’s got the community feel to it. We have neighborhood block parties, barbeques, cookie exchange at Christmas time. We know everybody.”

    Now part of his street is on the list to be re-zoned, and Thomas feels it could change everything.

    “If somebody wants to sell, they’ll sell to a developer and then the next person will sell to a developer and the next person will do the same thing and then after they get enough land, they’ll build a 500-unit apartment building on it,” Thomas said.

    The city of Pleasant Hill says the rezoning needs to be done to add in more mixed-use and high-density zoned land. It’s required to align with its already adopted 2040 General Plan and with a state-mandated process to address regional housing needs.

    It would re-zone 1,072 parcels throughout the city.

    The city’s Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. But Thomas worries about the ramifications of the city growing so rapidly.

    “It’s going to bring in more crime, more homeless,” said Thomas.

    And he’s not the only one with concerns, so many people attended the meeting, there were two overflow rooms.

    A member of the community speaks at a Pleasant Hill City Council meeting in which a proposed rezoning plan was discussed, Oct. 20, 2025.

    CBS


    Rochelle Gardiner shared many of Thomas’s sentiments.

    “You go to these new developments, and every house looks the same,” Gardiner explained. “Pleasant Hill is not like that. Real cute, small little houses with good families that have lived there forever. Huge apartments mean more congestion, possibly more crime, just more people. We don’t have enough services for the people who already live here.”

    She’s lived in the city for 23 years, but Gardiner says the new zoning may encourage her to think about moving.

    “Unfortunately, yes,” said Gardiner when asked if she would move. “Everyone in our neighborhood has been talking about how sad that would be, but it might be a possibility that this is not the community we moved to.”

    Thomas is also considering it. His son lives in Tennessee and it’s starting to look more appealing to him.

    “Yeah, absolutely,” said Thomas. “Everybody here is angry.”

    The City Council voted to approve the rezoning by a vote of 3 to 1, with one member of the council abstaining. The council said they need to approve it to keep it consistent with the 2040 General Plan and the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

    Councilors said they will be reviewing the General Plan so they can possibly amend it in the future and then amend the zoning for some of the parcels. 

    Amanda Hari

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill allowing for more homes near transit to help address California housing costs

    Gov. Gavin Newsom is signing a bill that would allow for more homes to be built near transit stations, in an effort to address California’s high housing costs.

    In a statement Friday, the governor said he is signing Senate Bill 79, a measure sponsored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

    “For too long, California has poured billions into transit without building the housing density needed for those systems to reach their potential,” Newsom said.

    The governor said having more homes near transit would provide multiple benefits, including boosting ridership, cutting traffic and pollution, lowering housing costs and expanding access to jobs, schools and services.

    Newsom added, “The world looks to California for leadership — it’s time to build modern, connected communities that fulfill California’s promise, meeting the needs of today and the next generation.”

    The signing of Senate Bill 79 is the latest attempt to increase homebuilding to tackle the state’s housing costs, which remain among the highest in the country. Earlier this year, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, which reforms the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up the building of housing and infrastructure.  

    Years in the making

    In a separate statement, Wiener, said, “In California we talk a lot about where we don’t want to build homes, but rarely about where we do — until now. SB 79 unwinds decades of overly restrictive land use policies that have driven housing costs to astronomical levels, forcing millions of people to move far away from jobs and transit, to face massive commutes, or to leave California entirely.” 

    Wiener, who was first elected to the State Senate in 2016, has proposed multiple zoning reform bills aiming to boost the number of homes near transit, including Senate Bill 827 in 2018 and Senate Bill 50 in 2020. Both attempts failed to gain passage in the legislature.

    Senate Bill 79 passed the legislature last month with a 43-19 vote in the Assembly and a 21-8 vote in the State Senate.

    Where does SB79 apply?

    According to supporters, SB79 sets standards for allowable housing development within a half mile of train stops and bus rapid transit stops that meet specific criteria. The measure applies only to a handful of counties designated as an “urban transit county” in California, including Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

    For qualifying “Tier 1” stops, which includes stops along BART, Caltrain and LA Metro’s B & D lines, housing up to 9 stories can be built adjacent to a transit stop, up to 7 stories will be allowed within a ¼ mile and up to 6 stories will be allowed between a ¼ and ½ mile of a stop.

    Qualifying stops in “Tier 2”, which include some light rail lines such as Sac RT and San Francisco Muni, some stations on Metrolink and some rapid bus transit lines, housing up to 8 stories would be allowed next to the station, 6 stories within a ¼ mile and 5 stories within ¼ and ½ mile.

    In his signing statement, Newsom also pushed back on claims that the bill impacts any efforts to rebuild homes that were damaged in the Palisades and Eaton fires that devastated Southern California in January, saying there are no transit stops that qualify for the measure in the burn scars of either fire and that the measure has additional safeguards for fire-prone areas. 

    A map provided by the Los Angeles Planning Department showed where the measure could apply in the state’s most populous city, showing no transit stops in Pacific Palisades were covered.

    What people are saying about the bill

    Supporters called it a long-overdue step to boost housing supply and reduce costs. Opponents, however, warned that it could lead to overdevelopment and diminish the voices of local communities. 

    “It’s got the kind of quaint charm of an older city, a hometown vibe,” said Xander Pisano, who moved to San Francisco’s Glen Park neighborhood about eight months ago. “It’s also got the kind of edginess of a city on the outskirts.” 

    Pisano said he loves his neighborhood but worries how it might change if high-rise apartment buildings are built around the nearby Glen Park BART Station. Still, he understands the need to make housing more affordable.

    “If it can lower the rent, that’s always a good thing,” he said. “But with that, there are pluses and negatives as well.”

    One of the main supporters, the non-profit California YIMBY organization, spent eight years pushing for the bill before the governor signed it into law.

    “It’s a moment of validation. It’s a moment of celebration,” said Matthew Lewis, communications director for California YIMBY. “And really, it’s a moment for the work to get started in actually implementing these laws.”

    “The affordability part of it is the big scam,” said Susan Kirsch, founder and director of Catalyst for Local Control, a group that opposed the legislation. “[These buildings] have no assurances, no promises of meeting the needs for those people who are living on minimum wages.” 

    Supporters like California YIMBY disagreed, arguing that the law addresses the state’s long-standing housing shortage through basic economics of increasing supply to help bring down prices. 

    Office-to-home conversions, ADU building bills also approved

    In addition to SB79, Newsom announced the signing of several other measures to boost home construction, including Assembly Bill 507 by Asm. Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), which would streamline the conversion of office towers into housing.

    “Across California, commercial real estate is taking a hit. Offices are losing tenants, property values are falling, and cities are bracing for a financial crunch. AB 507 offers a solution: turn unused office space into desperately needed housing,” said a statement from Haney’s office.

    Newsom also signed Senate Bill 543 by state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton), which seeks to streamline the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small homes also known as backyard cottages or casitas.

    “California needs to build housing to help make our state more affordable. And one of the most effective ways to address our housing affordability crisis is to accelerate the construction of low-cost housing, like ADUs and junior ADUs,” McNerney said in a statement.

    Tim Fang

    Source link

  • California Lawmakers Propose Overhaul of L.A.’s Mansion Tax

    Lawmakers in Sacramento look to make changes to the 2022 bill

    1316 Beverly Grove Pl
    Credit: (Via Zillow/The MLS)

    State lawmakers proposed a new bill to overhaul measure ULA or L.A. ‘s ‘mansion tax’ on Tuesday. 

    The new bill, SB-423, aims to take out parts of ULA that critics have said do more harm than good to the current housing market. By reducing the taxes imposed by Measure ULA for people looking to sell commercial buildings constructed in the last 15 years, think apartment buildings, offices, and shopping centers. 

    Measure ULA was originally intended to raise taxes on high-value properties and funnel that money into affordable housing projects and programs to alleviate homelessness. The measure was passed by city voters in 2022, and since April 2023, the city has levied a tax on sales of properties worth $5 million or more. 

    The ‘Mansion tax’ did not only apply to celebrity single-family houses in the hills, but also commercial buildings, including apartment complexes. While backers say that it is working as intended, those who oppose the tax say that it is having a much larger impact on slowing the development of new housing. This leads to making affordability worse in an already tight housing market. 

    With the higher increase of taxes on higher-value property, it can scare away developers, leaving L.A. with less housing than it started with. 

    Mott Smith, adjunct professor of real estate development at the USC Price School told LAist, “The units that we need to support all the households coming into the city — or that have to move and deal with their lives — those aren’t happening,” he said. “And when we squeeze the housing supply, the poor feel it the most.”

    Tara Nguyen

    Source link

  • How some Nevada voters see the affordable housing crisis

    How some Nevada voters see the affordable housing crisis

    Las Vegas — For nearly a year now, 32-year-old renter Mason Cunha and his realtor have been struggling to find the right home in Las Vegas at the right price.

    What’s keeping Cunha from purchasing a home?

    “It just doesn’t really make sense right now to buy a home with the interest rates where they are, and with the inventory what it is,” Cunha said.

    Vice President Kamala Harris has said that if she wins the general election in November, she plans to work with the private sector to build three million new homes and rental units.

    Cunha, a Harris supporter, is in favor of the proposal.

    “I think it’s going to definitely help, if you were to double or triple or quadruple the inventory,” Cunha said.

    Harris is also proposing outlawing price fixing by corporate landlords and giving first-time homebuyers who have paid their rent on time for two years with up to $25,000 in down payment assistance.

    “I would want to review what the qualifications are for that,” said 32-year-old Andrew Lum of Las Vegas, a wedding DJ and married father. “Where is that $25,000 coming from?”

    Lum sold his home when his family expanded. He now rents a bigger house but he can’t afford to buy. Lum says his life was better when former President Donald Trump was in office.

    “In 2020 we were able to buy a home,” Lum said. “We were able to buy it at an interest rate that was possible. We were able to buy it with, you know, minimal down payments.”

    Trump’s plan involves reducing mortgage rates by slashing inflation. Trump has also said he would open limited portions of federal lands to allow for new home construction, a plan the Biden administration is already enacting. As an example, one such 20-acre plot in Las Vegas was recently transferred from the federal government to Clark County, and now it has been designated for affordable housing.

    According to the Congressional Research Service, 80.1% of the land in Nevada is owned by the federal government.

    Trump has also said that that his promised mass deportations will make more housing available. It is an argument that both Lum and Cunha don’t seem to agree with.

    “It just seems a little farfetched to me that all the houses are being purchased by immigrants,” Lum said.
     
    “I think everything that Trump says has to be taken with a really aggressive grain of salt because he is known to inflate the truth,” Cunha said.  

    Carter Evans


    headshot-600-carter-evans.jpg

    Carter Evans has served as a Los Angeles-based correspondent for CBS News since February 2013, reporting across all of the network’s platforms. He joined CBS News with nearly 20 years of journalism experience, covering major national and international stories.

    Source link

  • For 20% of California, half the paycheck or more goes to housing

    For 20% of California, half the paycheck or more goes to housing

    “How expensive?” tracks measurements of California’s totally unaffordable housing market.

    The pain: Housing eats up at least half of paychecks in one-fifth of California households.

    The source: My trusty spreadsheet looked at the latest Census Bureau stats tracking household expenses in 2023, focusing on what government experts call “extreme burdens” – folks paying 50% or more of their income for housing.

    The pinch

    California is by far the nation’s largest housing market, so it’s not terribly surprising that it’s also home to the most households spending half of their income on shelter – 2.7 million, or 14% of the nation’s 19.3 million. Next is Texas at 1.7 million, Florida at 1.6 million, New York at 1.5 million and Pennsylvania at 687,900.

    What’s distressing is the size of the 20% slice of the Golden State’s population that it represents. That’s the largest slice among the states, and well above the 15% slice nationwide.

    New York and Hawaii are next in shares of households spending half-plus on housing at 19%. Then comes Florida and Nevada at 18%. Texas was No. 14 at 15%.

    And where is it the hardest to find deeply housing-pinched households? North Dakota and West Virginia were at 9%, South Dakota at 10%, and Iowa and Missouri at 11%.

    Pressure points

    Jonathan Lansner

    Source link

  • The number of Denver homes for sale keeps going up this summer

    The number of Denver homes for sale keeps going up this summer

    A home for sale in Washington Park West. Jan. 4, 2024.

    Kevin J. Beaty/Denverite

    Denver’s housing market is languishing this summer.

    The number of homes for sale keeps rising as high borrowing costs slow down deals. In July, inventory shot up 68 percent compared to the same time last year, according to a report from the Denver Metro Association of Realtors.

    Inventory has been rising for months. Spring and summer are typically the busiest times for house hunters, but activity has been relatively slow throughout the summer.

    The glut of available homes is a result of buyers sitting on the sidelines with mortgage rates the highest they’ve been in decades. But for those that are willing – and able – to stomach higher interest rates, there’s more to choose from in and around Denver than there has been in years.

    “Buying now allows for a thoughtful search with room for negotiation and a refinance at a later date,” the association wrote in the report. “Some price ranges, and areas of town, have become a buyer’s market due to the number of available options.”

    Borrowing costs could start falling soon. U.S. central bankers are signaling that they’ll be ready to cut interest rates when they meet again in September now that inflation appears to be largely under control. That could make it a home more affordable, but it’s also likely to increase competition from other buyers.

    Prices have declined slightly while people wait for mortgage rates to come down. The median price dipped to $600,000 last month, down about $1000 from the month before. That’s still roughly $10,000 more than the same house would have cost at this time last year.

    Source link

  • Minnesotans struggle to find secure housing due to rent spike, new report shows

    Minnesotans struggle to find secure housing due to rent spike, new report shows

    Housing prices have gone up in the Twin Cities


    Housing prices have gone up in the Twin Cities

    01:48

    MINNEAPOLIS — Too many Minnesota families are struggling to put a roof over their heads. A new report from the State of the State Housing found that median rent jumped by 8% in the last year.

    “Housing is a basic human need, everyone needs a place to lay their head at night,” said  Minnesota Housing Partnership Executive Director Anne Mavity.

    According to the report, half of all renting families pay more than they can afford for housing. It also showed that evictions were up 8% over the previous year. That only adds to this tragic number: Close to 20,000 Minnesotans struggling with homelessness on any given night.

    “Across Minnesota we are actually 114,000 units short that are available and affordable to our lowest income community members,” Mavity said.

    Mavity says affordable housing means no more than 30% of your household income.

    “For the folks who are serving us our coffee in the morning for the folks who are taking care of our kids taking care of my mom right now those essential jobs don’t pay enough to afford an average two-bedroom apartment,” Mavity said.

    She says it’s not their fault, the state’s housing system is broken and work is underway to repair it.

    “There is a broad spectrum of need and people who are looking for housing and sometimes that supportive housing and you need case management you need support for addiction and sometimes we just need affordable units,” said the Executive Director of the PERIS Foundation Carla Godwin.

    Lydia Apartment and Anishinaabe Apartments are examples of how organizations are working to fix the problem.

    “The price to build in terms of development is often standing in the way and so we have public and private partners trying to figure out the way forward in those types of situations and try to figure out how to get enough units built, ” Godwin said.

    Reg Chapman


    reg-chapman.png

    Reg Chapman joined WCCO-TV in May of 2009. He came to WCCO from WNBC-TV in New York City where he covered an array of stories for the station including the Coney Island plane crash, the crane collapse on the city’s east side, 50 shots fired at motorist Sean Bell by New York Police, and a lacrosse team assault at Fairfield High School in Connecticut.

    Reg Chapman

    Source link

  • Overnight fire at Novato homeless encampment believed to be arson

    Overnight fire at Novato homeless encampment believed to be arson

    PIX Now morning edition 7-30-24


    PIX Now morning edition 7-30-24

    11:15

    An early morning fire Tuesday at least partially destroyed a temporary encampment at Lee Gerner Park in Novato.

    Novato police said they responded around 3:30 a.m. to a report of a fire near Novato Creek at the park.

    Police said the fire spread quickly, burning several tents, the perimeter fence, and a large tree in the center of the camp.

    Residents were evacuated safely and no injuries were reported. Police said firefighters quickly extinguished the fire, preventing it from spreading to nearby businesses.  

    Police said investigators are treating the fire as arson. Anyone with information about the fire can contact police at (415) 897-4361. 

    CBS San Francisco

    Source link

  • Letters: Housing bond | Resolving ambiguities | Harris critique | Get serious | Cruel order | Best hope

    Letters: Housing bond | Resolving ambiguities | Harris critique | Get serious | Cruel order | Best hope

    Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

    $20B housing bond
    should be voted down

    The $20 billion housing bond that will be on the Nov. 5 ballot is like snake oil.

    Only as little as 72% of the $20 billion housing bond will be spent to actually build affordable housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households. Ten percent can be spent on grants for “transportation, schools, and parks.” Notably, only 80% of the proceeds of the bond issue need to be spent in the county funding the bonds. Thus, Contra Costa County residents could end up paying for parks in San Mateo County.

    The decision to place the bond on the ballot was made by the MTC, which includes unelected, unaccountable officials and is therefore like taxation without representation. We can and must do better.

    Nick Waranoff
    Orinda

    Critique of Harris
    applies to others

    Re: “Democrats deserved contest, not coronation” (Page A7, July 25).

    In his critique of Kamala Harris, Bret Stephens mentions high staff turnover during her time as vice president and the fact that she failed the bar exam on the first try.

    Regarding turnover, he should have started by looking at the mile-long list of senior and mid-level Trump people who quit or were fired.

    As for the bar exam, Harris is in good company. Others who took the exam more than once include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Michele Obama, John F, Kennedy Jr., and former California Governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson.

    He also claims she has been a bad campaigner. He’s entitled to his opinion, but her first speech in Milwaukee looked pretty impressive to me, in contrast to Donald Trump’s 93-minute meandering speech at the Republican convention.

    John Walkmeyer
    San Ramon

    We must get serious
    after record heat

    Re: “Last Sunday was hottest day on Earth in recorded history” (Page A2, July 24)

    That alarming headline was corrected the next day online: “Sunday was hottest day on the planet – no, wait, it’s Monday.” Things are just starting to warm up.

    It is now obvious that the cost of this heat — both in dollars and in human lives — far outstrips the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Are we going to follow Ben Franklin’s advice: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Or John Paul Jones, “I have not yet begun to fight”? We need to get serious, folks.

    Cliff Gold
    Fremont

    Newsom’s order to
    sweep camps is cruel

    Re: “Newsom orders sweeps of camps” (Page A1, July 26).

    The scary truth is most Californians are only a few bad breaks away from homelessness. The unlucky blow may come from a wildfire or, worse, an unexpected medical bill. Insurers profit most off denying coverage, that is, if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance in the first place.

    Capitalism turns housing into a scarce commodity and then blames people who lack it. Rather than treating the unhoused as untouchable, we should give them security and more chances. It is the Christian thing to do and a humane imperative.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order to sweep away homeless encampments is cruel. It does nothing to solve the systemic problems that cause homelessness in the first place. And by treating other people like trash, the Ggovernor has proven he’s garbage.

    Alan Marling
    Livermore

    Harris win is best hope
    for multiracial society

    I was one of 50,000 Black men on a call for Kamala Harris, a day after 44,000 Black women got together. I haven’t seen this level of excitement since Barack Obama in 2008. Black women and men being this energized is how we will win the fight for a multiracial democracy.

    Letters To The Editor

    Source link

  • Opinion: Despite noble intentions, California’s environmental law is hurting Latinos

    Opinion: Despite noble intentions, California’s environmental law is hurting Latinos

    Latinos in California face significant disparities in income, homeownership and education compared with their counterparts in other states with substantial Latino populations such as Texas and Florida.

    Our state’s housing crisis is a big part of the explanation, and one cause of the crisis is the perversion of a well-intentioned 1970 law, the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. It has evolved into the most potent legal tactic to stifle housing development, contributing to high costs and limited affordability. Even when a proposed development can overcome the legal barriers, the homes finally approved are unaffordable to working families because a complex web of regulatory environmental mandates and fees add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of each new home or apartment.

    This is an obstacle to upward mobility for all Californians, especially young people — which in this state means especially Latinos, who are 40% of the population and make up more than half of residents under 18. CEQA needs to be reformed to put the American dream back within reach for young Californians.

    The value of homeownership is profound, providing both housing and the long-term stability of being part of a neighborhood and school community, not to mention generational wealth and a nest egg. However, California is a hard place to achieve that dream. In 2022, only 46% of Latino households here owned their homes, compared with 51% nationwide. Rates were 59% in Texas, 55% in Florida and more than 70% in New Mexico.

    With median California home prices soaring past $900,000 in April, California’s housing policy choices have made homeownership a distant dream for most younger residents and for most hard-working Latino families, many of whom do not inherit wealth from their parents’ home equity and who are not on a path to pass along appreciated home equity to their children.

    CEQA, intended as a progressive environmental policy, now clearly undermines the economic potential of California’s Latino population. This process began in the 1970s, when a largely white, upper-class environmentalist movement emerged as a dominant political force. CEQA was enacted to minimize environmental harm from public works projects such infrastructure, but a 1972 court ruling expanded it to cover home building. After thousands of subsequent CEQA lawsuits, it now even applies to home remodeling.

    This law has strayed far from its intended purpose and needs to be reined in. Virtually anyone — even those with no direct interest in the project or the environment — can sue to block housing for any reason. Cases can be filed anonymously. Sometimes one real estate company even sues to block another’s project for competitive reasons.

    The state government’s Little Hoover Commission has urged the Legislature to exempt all infill housing from CEQA, which would allow more homes to be built on underutilized lots in areas that already have many homes. The commission also called for an end to anonymous CEQA lawsuits, a ban on lawsuits filed for non-environmental reasons, and the clarification and expedition of the CEQA process.

    Although California’s Legislature has enacted almost 200 laws since 2017 intended to boost housing supplies and reduce bureaucratic costs and delays, lawmakers have not reined in CEQA abuse. They also never authorized most of CEQA’s judicial mission creep. In its current interpretation, the law has come to be biased against changes to private views, against temporary construction noise during daytime hours and against common urban species such as seagulls and robins. Housing policies designed to overcome these CEQA obstacles, such as prioritizing infill high-density housing near transit, are economically infeasible in almost all of California while more affordable homes, in areas where Latino homeownership is actually increasing, continue to be pummeled by anti-development advocates.

    The upside-down mindset of current environmental policy ends up being anti-people and anti-environment. The California Air Resources Board, whose policies are enforced via CEQA, counts jobs and people who move out of a city or county as “greenhouse gas emission reductions” — even when these jobs and people relocate to states and even countries with far more lax environmental standards. California’s lost jobs and population would most likely increase global greenhouse gas emissions. So much for California’s climate change “leadership.”

    Agencies and advocates promoting this “de-growth” agenda through CEQA share the “no growth” dogma of the environmentalists of the 1970s, which then and now really means “no growth of ‘those people.’” The intention is racist, and the effect is racist. The housing crisis hits Black and Latino Californians hardest, as even CARB and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office now expressly acknowledge.

    California cannot address its housing and homelessness crisis without building millions of new homes that are actually affordable to California’s working families — and doing so much faster, without the counterproductive legal barriers that add delays and costs.

    CEQA reform is key to this. A good start would be an immediate moratorium on CEQA lawsuits based on any theory not expressly authorized by a statute or regulation. The governor simply needs to direct agencies, and urge the courts, to follow the law and reject those claims.

    Today’s far more diverse Legislature ought to be able to do more as well, serving all Californians better than the sea of white male leaders and judges who have for so long been captured by NIMBY environmentalists.

    It’s time we admit the failures of CEQA’s expansion and start making the policy changes needed to restore the American dream of homeownership for a younger, more diverse California.

    Soledad Ursúa is an elected board member of the Venice Neighborhood Council. Jennifer Hernandez is a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight. Ursúa is the lead author of, and Hernandez is a contributor to, the recent report “El Futuro es Latino.”

    Jennifer Hernandez and Soledad Ursúa

    Source link

  • Bay Area receives $14 million in state grants to combat youth homelessness

    Bay Area receives $14 million in state grants to combat youth homelessness

    The Bay Area is receiving $14.3 million from the state to help homeless families with children and unhoused young adults find lasting homes.

    The awards are part of the latest rounds of two statewide grant programs, which Gov. Gavin Newsom announced this week.

    “These grants are critical for helping to connect some of the most vulnerable Californians with access to housing,” Newsom said in a statement. “Many of these young adults don’t have the support of friends or family that most of us take for granted.”

    The money will help local agencies provide housing and services for young adults under 25, prioritizing those currently or formerly in the foster care or probation systems. It will also help add transitional housing beds, bolster job training programs and offer financial assistance for homeless families with children.

    The awards include $5.6 million (two grants) for Santa Clara County, $2.1 million for San Francisco, $1.9 million for Alameda County, $1.8 million for Oakland, $1 million for Sonoma County, $626,040 for Contra Costa County, $280,768 for Livermore, $283,050 for Solano County and $173,160 for San Mateo County.

    In applying for the grants, local governments had to demonstrate a need to help homeless families and young adults into housing. It was not immediately clear why some jurisdictions received more money than others.

    Across the Bay Area, an estimated 37,000 people experience homelessness on a given night.

    In Santa Clara County, the local county with the largest homeless population, there are roughly 360 homeless families with children and about 760 homeless youth under 25, according to the most recent count last year. More than 80% stay in homeless shelters.

    In Oakland, officials plan to use the grant money in part to add 8 beds at the Courage Housing Transitional Home. The home shelters women and children who’ve survived domestic violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

    “The program provides residents with a safe space to heal, grow, and engage in comprehensive services related to professional development and career placement, economic resources, and preparation for permanent housing placement,” Raven Nash in Oakland’s Community Homelessness Services Division wrote in an email.

    Livermore aims to use its grant to add three 4-bedroom transitional housing units for homeless families at the Leahy Square affordable complex east of downtown. Families will receive job training support in finding permanent housing.

    “By leveraging this grant, we can provide stable housing and vital support services to some of Livermore’s most vulnerable families,” Paul Spence, Livermore’s assistant city manager, said in a statement.

    Ethan Varian

    Source link

  • Could a $20 billion bond measure help solve the Bay Area’s affordable housing crisis?

    Could a $20 billion bond measure help solve the Bay Area’s affordable housing crisis?

    This November, Bay Area voters could decide on an unprecedented bond measure to raise up to $20 billion for as many as 90,000 desperately needed affordable homes across the nine-county region.

    Ahead of a crucial vote by a regional agency next week to put the measure on the ballot, the mayors of three of the Bay Area’s largest cities gathered in San Francisco on Thursday to rally support for the proposal.

    “If you’re concerned about homelessness, this is the measure to support,” San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan said. “If you’re concerned about the high cost of housing and the high cost of living, this is the measure to support.”

    San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín were also at the event, held at an affordable housing complex near the Chase Center arena in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood.

    Absent was Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was a no-show after the FBI raided her home early Thursday morning.

    Across the Bay Area, some 1.4 million residents — 23% of all renters — spend more than half their income on rent, according to regional officials. Meanwhile, an estimated 37,000 people in the region are homeless on any given night — more than the entire population of Menlo Park.

    To alleviate the region’s chronic affordable housing shortage, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, established by the state legislature in 2019, has worked for years to put the bond measure on the ballot. The measure now needs approval from the finance authority’s board — made up of local elected and appointed officials — on June 26 before going to voters.

    While the board is expected to approve the measure, there remains some uncertainty about the final bond amount. The financing authority has proposed either $10 billion or $20 billion.

    The bond would be funded by a new tax on businesses and homes. For a $20 billion bond, the tax would come to $19 per $100,000, or about $190 a year for a home with an assessed value of $1 million.

    The vote comes as the state is pushing Bay Area cities and counties to approve more than 441,000 new homes by 2031, a roughly 15% increase in the region’s total housing stock. More than half of the new homes must be affordable to low- and middle-income residents.

    On Thursday, Breed said that soaring interest rates and other economic headwinds currently holding back construction underscore the need for more affordable-housing funding.

    “How are we going to get the much-needed affordable housing units done without the financial support?” she asked.

    Some mayors also pointed to the shrinking role the federal government has played in subsidizing affordable housing in recent decades as a reason the measure is needed.

    “Local mayors are right to complain,” U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat representing the South Bay, said in an interview.

    Khanna said he supports the bond measure, adding that if President Joe Biden is reelected, he plans to push the administration to make housing a high priority.

    If approved, a $20 billion bond measure would allocate $4 billion to creating a regional fund to finance affordable projects. The rest would be split among the Bay Area’s nine counties and five of its largest cities to determine how to boost affordable housing.

    Santa Clara County would receive $2.4 billion, San Mateo County $2.1 billion, Alameda County $2 billion and Contra Costa County $1.9 billion. San Francisco would see $2.4 billion, San Jose $2.1 billion and Oakland $765 million.

    A recent report by researchers with the housing nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners found the bond could help build 433 already-approved affordable projects totaling more than 40,000 units, many of which lack enough funding to complete. That includes more than 10,000 units in both Santa Clara and Alameda counties. Officials estimate the bond would also help build tens of thousands more new units.

    Affordable housing is reserved for those earning less than a specified amount, generally a percentage of an area’s median income. That can be as much as 120% of the median income or as low as 15% or 30%. In Santa Clara County, 30% of the median income is $38,750 for a single person, according to the state housing department. Residents typically spend about 30% of their income on housing costs, though the amount can vary.

    Local officials could also use the bond money to help build homeless shelters, including tiny homes, motel conversions, group shelters and managed-encampment sites.

    Earlier this year, San Jose, which under Mahan has made building new shelters the centerpiece of its homelessness response, agreed to spend about 28% of its potential bond money on shelter options. In an interview, Mahan said affordable housing is too expensive and takes too long to build to be the primary strategy to fight homelessness.

    “I’m not going to support an approach that’s only going to support one strategy, especially one that’s the slowest to get people off the streets,” Mahan, a voting member of the finance authority board, said in an interview.

    Ethan Varian

    Source link

  • Homelessness in San Mateo County jumps 18% even as more people get shelter beds

    Homelessness in San Mateo County jumps 18% even as more people get shelter beds

    San Mateo County’s homeless population spiked 18% over the last two years, according to the latest official estimate, even as local officials added around 300 shelter beds to help people get off the street.

    The tally released Wednesday identified 2,130 homeless people countywide. More than half lived outdoors, in vehicles or in other places not meant for habitation. The rest stayed in shelters.

    Despite the increase, local officials credited the opening of two shelters in Redwood City and San Mateo with boosting the number of homeless people with a roof over their heads. The county found 985 people were staying in shelters, a 38% jump from 2022.

    “This means fewer individuals in less safe situations such as on the street or in tents,” Claire Cunningham, director of the county’s Human Services Agency, said in a statement. “And shelters provide case management and supportive services to help residents move toward permanent housing.”

    The new numbers stem from the county’s latest biennial “Point-In-Time” homelessness census, taken by a team of volunteers and service providers on a single night in January.

    Across the Bay Area, Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties also conducted counts early this year. Alameda County recently reported its homeless population had dipped by 3% to 9,450 people, though Oakland’s population swelled by 9%. San Francisco, meanwhile, saw its number of homeless residents rise 7% to more than 8,300.

    Contra Costa County’s numbers are expected soon, while Santa Clara County, which took its tally last year, will not count again until 2025.

    The estimates, despite widely seen as an undercount, are crucial to helping cities and counties plan their homelessness response and determine how much state and federal funding they can expect receive.

    Despite unprecedented billions of public dollars spent in recent years to combat homelessness, getting people off the streets remains a grave challenge as rising housing costs, job losses, and mental health and addiction issues force others out.

    Ethan Varian

    Source link

  • Workers displaced by shooting priority for new Half Moon Bay housing project

    Workers displaced by shooting priority for new Half Moon Bay housing project

    The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to provide nearly $6 million for much-needed affordable housing for farm laborers, which would prioritize families displaced by a mass shooting last year that killed seven people.

    The money will be used to purchase manufactured homes for farmworkers. At least 19 families who were displaced by the shooting in Half Moon Bay will be given priority.

    A total of 28 of the 45 to 50 units at Stone Pine Cove, a 22-acre property zoned for multiple affordable housing buildings, will be set aside for agricultural workers.

    “Every family deserves a safe and healthy place to live,” said Supervisor Ray Mueller, who represents District 3, where a majority of the county’s farmland is located. “We must absolutely create opportunities for farmworkers to live in San Mateo County, as well as invest resources in stabilizing the agricultural economy that provides for farmworking jobs.”

    The money is coming from the state-funded Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant.

    Last month, San Mateo County resubmitted its housing plan, officially known as the “housing element,” with updates emphasizing farmworker housing as one of its top priorities.

    Ryan Macasero

    Source link

  • San Jose to clear 1,000 homeless people from creeks and waterways

    San Jose to clear 1,000 homeless people from creeks and waterways

    For decades, homeless people have camped along San Jose’s 140 miles of creeks and rivers. Now, at the direction of state regulators, city officials are devising an ambitious plan to move about a thousand people into shelter by the middle of next year.

    On Friday, before a line of tents near Coyote Creek, Mayor Matt Mahan announced the plan in response to a state mandate to clear encampments polluting the city’s watersheds.

    “What they’re telling us, which is what I’ve been saying all along, is that the status quo is unacceptable,” Mahan said.

    To ensure homeless people have a place to go, the mayor and a handful of City Council members pledged to continue adding shelter space across the city, including a newly proposed group shelter with about 1,000 beds south of downtown.

    Officials said the clean-up and shelter effort — which could start in earnest in about six months and must be completed by June 2025 — will cost tens of millions of dollars at a time when the city’s budget is already stretched thin.

    But they maintain that the hefty price tag is worth it, not just to meet environmental requirements but to ease the human suffering on the street and ensure that neighbors feel safe visiting city parks and trails.

    “We must treat this like the emergency that it is,” Mahan said. “This is going to be hard. It’s going to be challenging, and it’s going to be expensive.”

    Pedro Reyes, who lives along the grassy floodplain near Coyote Creek and Tully Road, said he’d be open to accepting a bed at the new shelter. But Reyes, 39, added he’s also comfortable staying outside, despite tending to recent stab wounds after he said he was attacked at his encampment.

    Besides, he said he doesn’t think he needs help. And even if he did, he finds it hard to trust people offering support.

    “I can’t believe it when people are talking to me, like, sweet,” he said. “I don’t trust anyone.”

    On Tuesday, the City Council is set to vote to direct officials to devise plan details, including which areas along waterways across the city need to be prioritized for clean-up and where no-camping zones could be established to prevent homeless people from returning. The city has an estimated 6,340 homeless residents, about 70% of whom are unsheltered.

    The agency forcing the city into action is the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has recently ramped up pressure on cities across California to move encampments out of sensitive waterways that often empty into the ocean. It’s threatening San Jose with litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in daily fines if it fails to comply.

    The city has long struggled with what to do about encampments along its creeks and rivers, dating back at least 10 years when it took multiple attempts to clear hundreds of people from a massive Coyote Creek encampment known as “The Jungle.”

    More recently, the city cleared around 200 people from parts of Coyote Creek to make way for a flood protection project. In February, it set in motion plans to create a no-encampment zone along the downtown stretch of the Guadalupe River after clearing dozens of tents and RVs from the area.

    Homeless advocates say clearing camps can be traumatizing for unsheltered people, who can be torn from encampment communities and forced to part with their possessions. Without providing a roof over their heads, advocates say, encampment sweeps do little but push homeless people into new neighborhoods.

    “If you’re going to abate, you have to have a place for them to go,” said Todd Langton, founder of the Coalition for the Unhoused of Silicon Valley. “It’s common sense. It’s humanity.”

    Under a 2018 federal court ruling, local governments across the Western U.S. are expected to at least offer shelter before clearing encampments. However, after frustrated officials petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to modify or do away with the mandate, the justices agreed to review the rule later this year.

    Mahan, who’s expected to sail to reelection next week, has made adding tiny homes, safe overnight parking spots and other “interim” shelter options with supportive services a centerpiece of his push to end street homelessness.

    Critics of that position argue that shelter, while needed, is but a temporary solution that won’t help many people out of homelessness without significantly more investment in permanent affordable and supportive housing. A city report from last year found that about half of the roughly 900 people who stayed in interim shelters in 2022 moved on to permanent housing.

    Mahan and his allies on the council respond that faster and more cost-effective solutions are needed because building low-income homes can take years and cost as much as $1 million for a single unit.

    “For far too long we have enabled unsafe, inhumane, and dangerous living conditions for the unsheltered by relying on woefully slow and brutally expensive projects,” Councilman Bien Doan said in a statement.

    Doan on Friday announced the proposed 1,000-bed group shelter for his district, south of Highway 280 between Highways 101 and 87. Doan’s office declined to give potential locations and did not immediately respond to a question about how much it could cost.

    Ethan Varian

    Source link

  • This California couple wanted a $500,000 starter home. Here are their 3 choices

    This California couple wanted a $500,000 starter home. Here are their 3 choices

    Christopher Park and Kristyn Reano relax in their new home in Vallejo, Calif. with their rescue dog Raili, Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    When Christopher Park turned 28 — the age his dad was when he bought his first home — he started to wonder: Could he ever do the same?

    Gaining a foothold in his hometown, the waterside city of Benicia in the Bay Area, isn’t as easy today as it was 30 years ago for his parents. They bought their house in 1993 for $205,000, and have seen its value soar to $800,000.

    “I knew I would never get to Benicia,” the e-commerce manager at an industrial manufacturer said.

    But Park was still set on buying a home in the Bay Area. To save money, he moved in with his parents for a few years. When he finally moved out, it was to live with his girlfriend, in an apartment attached to her parents’ home in Vallejo.

    After getting engaged in 2023, Park and his fiancée, Kristyn Reano, a water treatment operator, started to take a more serious look at the housing market.

    Homes in Benicia were only getting more expensive, with the median-priced home growing 54% since 2015 to $788,943 from $512,544, according to Zillow.

    Nearby cities presented more options within their $500,000 budget. The couple was drawn to Vallejo — not far from Marin County, where Reano had recently taken a job — and the industrial city of Martinez in Contra Costa County.

    While Park was open to looking at condos, starter homes for many these days, Reano was adamant that they buy a single-family home. They were also willing to consider places that required a little fixing up, since Reano’s dad, an experienced builder, had offered to help them work on an older home.

    Here were their options:

    No. 1: A Recently renovated ranch in Vallejo

    Christopher Park and Krysta Reano considered this recently renovated ranch in Vallejo.
    Christopher Park and Krysta Reano considered this recently renovated ranch in Vallejo.

    This three-bedroom home in South Vallejo had recently been fixed up by a home flipper. It was about 1,500 square feet, plus a 400-square-foot finished attic, and sat on the largest plot of land on the street, measuring a quarter acre. The home had just one bathroom, though, and a small kitchen. The asking price was $550,000 (reduced from $650,000).

    (Photo courtesy of NavigateRE)
    (Photo courtesy of NavigateRE)

    No. 2: Open-concept 3-bedroom in Benicia

    While searching for a home they could afford, Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano looked at this fixer upper in Benicia, Calif., photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
    While searching for a home they could afford, Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano looked at this fixer upper in Benicia, Calif., photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    This 1,100-square-foot home was in Benicia, not far from Park’s parents. It included one bathroom and three bedrooms, one of which had been converted from a garage space. It was a 20-minute walk from downtown. The home, which had been sitting on the market for several months by the time the couple saw it, was listed at $530,000.

    No. 3: A fixer-upper in Martinez

    While searching for a home they could afford, Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano looked at this home in Martinez, Calif., photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
    While searching for a home they could afford, Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano looked at this home in Martinez, Calif., photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    This 1,564-square-foot home, built in 1926, was located on a corner lot at the top of a hilly residential street in Martinez. It came with three bedrooms, two baths, and a single garage space — but needed a full interior and exterior renovation. The house was the only one well within their price range, listed at $299,000 — but it was unclear how much renovations would cost.

    Christopher Park and Krysta Reano considered this fixer-upper in Martinez, where they would be required to do extensive renovations.
    Christopher Park and Krysta Reano considered this fixer-upper in Martinez, where they would be required to do extensive renovations. (Courtesy Photo / Ron Melvin, Keller Williams)

    Here’s what they chose:

    The recently renovated 3-bedroom in Vallejo

    Kristyn Reano and Christopher Park enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
    Kristyn Reano and Christopher Park enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    On their first tour of the house in Vallejo, Reano fell in love with the open-concept living room, where she could imagine her large family congregating for holidays and celebrations.

    While the Benicia home was in the ZIP code that Park and Reano wanted, the inspections revealed a major termite issue and an aging roof. “It was enough to scare us away,” Park said. “This was clearly opening up a can of worms.”

    Although they love Martinez’s downtown and industrial vibe, the house there would have required extensive renovations, too.

    “It felt like far too much work, and we didn’t want to live in a construction zone for the next year,” Park said. “I’m not going to hurt myself with more debt to fix up a house.”

    Buying a turn-key property would allow them to move in right away, rather than stressing about a budget for renovations. Noticing that the flipper for the Vallejo home had already reduced the price from $650,000 to $550,000, Park reasoned he might be willing to go even lower. They offered $525,000 — but the seller wouldn’t budge.

    Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
    Christopher Park and his fiancee Kristyn Reano enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    “I was so determined to beat out the boomers,” Park said. “They were going after this house because they’re trying to downsize — and we are just trying to get into something for the first time.”

    The couple submitted an offer for $550,000, putting down 19.5%, which Park received as a gift from his parents. They closed in 20 days.

    “I just didn’t want more offers on this house,” Park said.

    The down payment gift from Park’s parents allowed the couple to save a small nest egg for home improvement projects. Eventually, they plan to install another bathroom in the back of the house, which could cost around $12,000 — but they’re not rushing to start those projects anytime soon.

    The home was slightly out of their budget of $500,000 — and high interest rates also mean higher monthly payments. Park and Reano plan to refinance their mortgage when rates drop, so they can get out of their 7.5% interest rate and $3,800-a-month payment.

    Christopher Park and Kristyn Reano enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)
    Christopher Park and Kristyn Reano enjoy their new home in Vallejo, Calif., Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2024. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

    Still, the couple says the price is worth it to be so close to family. Reano’s parents are a short 3-minute drive away.

    Reano and Park realize how lucky they are to buy a home near their hometown, especially when so many of their friends are still renting, or have had to move out of the area.

    “We have this generational guilt,” he said. “I figured I would be renting a room for the rest of my life. Everything else has been a cherry on top.”

    Kate Talerico

    Source link