Subscribe Donate

Tag: housing

Home | Newsroom |

Splashy proposals cannot replace what’s needed to address homelessness in California

California has had it with homelessness. Whether you believe it is far past time to address the housing shortage or just want to see people off the streets, there is a growing consensus that something must change. Governor Newsom and several members of the California Legislature want to address the crisis partially by way of a proposal called CARE Court. But is it the right approach?

The appalling growth of people experiencing homelessness is matched only by the complete inability of government, policymakers, or industry to fix it. As Winston Churchill once observed, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.” When it comes to solutions to the homelessness crisis, California has deployed many failed techniques, including poorly planned shelters and police harassment toward people on the street. One thing we know works — giving people enough money to afford rent, is repeatedly derided as “too expensive” (keep in mind, California is in its second year of much higher than anticipated budget surplus).

Solutions to homelessness are not as complex as we are often led to believe. We need to increase grants to adults who are disabled so they can afford rent, like what’s proposed in AB 1941 (Salas). We need to provide increased tax credits to families experiencing poverty, as proposed by AB 2589 (Santiago). We need to provide housing and support services to people coming out of incarceration, as proposed in AB 1816 (Bryan). And importantly, we need to provide permanent and ongoing rental assistance to low-income families and individuals so they can stay housed, as proposed by AB 2817 (Reyes). Those are the kind of policies that will make a visible difference on our streets and in people’s lives.

Governor Newsom’s new proposal is called “Care Court,” but it’s not about care, it’s about control – or at least the illusion of it. The proposal will make it easier for the state, cities, and counties to force people into treatment, and if they don’t go willingly, subject them to involuntary confinement. Here’s another way to think about it: the proposal presents a shiny new political solution that in practice blames and targets the victims of California’s economic, policy, and social failures without implementing proven solutions state resources should flow to – like permanent housing, support services, and more money for rent via programs like SSI, Guaranteed Income, and General Relief. Sure, those are expensive investments, but nowhere near the cost of the crisis playing out on California streets.

The legislative journey for the CARE Court proposal is about to start and it may very well pass through both houses, but in practice, it is likely to fail. Involuntary treatment does not work, especially without housing and services to follow it up. Western Center, ACLU California Action, Disability Rights California, and over 40 more organizations across California submitted an opposition letter to the legislative CARE Court proposal to highlight its fundamental flaws and to provide proven alternatives.

It’s not too late to do the right thing. California can provide large scale and ongoing rental assistance. Government can build thousands of units of affordable housing where the private market has failed. We can allow real rent control rather than the nod, nod, wink, wink version we have now. The one thing we can’t have is a system where the victims of policy incompetence are punished in such a potentially destructive way.

Western Center’s 2022 Legislative Agenda  

Western Center’s policy advocates are hard at work in Sacramento to pass this year’s slate of bills to make California better for everyone. Here is our full 2022 Legislative Agenda.

HOMELESSNESS

AB 1816 (Bryan): Reentry Housing and Workforce Development Program

(co-sponsored with Housing California, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Californians for Safety and Justice, People Assisting the Homeless (PATH), and Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership)

This bill will establish a funding source for permanent affordable housing and workforce development for formerly incarcerated people at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness. The bill is necessary to support people reentering society after incarceration to reduce recidivism and homelessness – 70 percent of Californians experiencing homelessness have a history of incarceration.

AB 2230 (Gipson) – CalWORKs: Temporary Shelter and Permanent Housing Benefits

(co-sponsored with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations)

This bill will make significant improvements in the CalWORKs Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) to minimize homelessness that CalWORKs families experience by repealing the limitations for receiving assistance through HAP. HAP is meant to assist families who have become unhoused and need immediate assistance. It is Western Center’s firm belief that families should not be burdened with additional program requirements to receive critical assistance for the health and safety of their family.

AB 2339 (Bloom): Emergency Shelters

(co-sponsored with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the Public Interest Law Project)

There are upwards of 160,000 people experiencing homelessness in California, and 72% are completely unsheltered. While some California localities provide enough shelter beds, in others, there are either no shelter beds or only a small number. AB 2339 strengthens housing element law to ensure that zones identified for shelters and other interim housing are suitable and available. The bill also requires jurisdictions to demonstrate sufficient capacity on the sites to meet the identified need for interim housing for those experiencing homelessness.

SB 1017 (Eggman): Keeping Survivors Housed

(co-sponsored with California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, Dr. Beatriz Maria Solis Policy Institute – Women’s Foundation of California, Family Violence Appellate Project)

This bill allows domestic violence survivors who are tenants to maintain their current housing and avoid eviction by expanding allowable documentation for lease termination policies, allowing survivors to use eviction protections when the abusive person is on the lease but no longer residing in the residence, and by allowing survivors who live with an abusive person to remain in the unit on the same lease terms while removing the abusive person.

California Emergency Rental Assistance Program

While not a bill, Western Center and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation are working to obtain an extension of the current eviction protections implemented in response to the pandemic. To prevent mass evictions, displacement, and economic instability, the state must extend these protections as hundreds of thousands of tenants wait for rental assistance from the state’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

HOUSING

AB 1911 (Gabriel): Affordable Housing Preservation Tax Credit

(co-sponsored with California Housing Partnership, California Coalition for Rural Housing, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and San Diego Housing Federation)

AB 1911 creates an Affordable Housing Preservation Tax Credit to support the preservation of tens of thousands of affordable housing units at risk of converting to market rate housing or displacing low-income tenants. California cannot afford to lose tens of thousands of affordable housing units in the midst of our current housing crisis. A targeted tax credit that encourages property owners to sell to affordable housing developers committed to long-term affordability would allow thousands of lower-income households to stay in their homes.

AB 2597 (Bloom, E. Garcia): Cool and Healthy Homes

(co-sponsored with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inner City Law Center, Leadership Council, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP)

AB 2597 will address a long-standing issue that is rapidly exacerbated by human-induced climate change: the safety of renters in their homes when outdoor temperatures rise. Excessive heat has a negative impact on health and quality of life and leads to an increasing number of deaths. State law has long required that rental units be able to maintain a safe indoor air temperature when it’s cold outside, but there is no analogous requirement that applies when the weather is hot. This gap leaves many renters living in homes that reach unhealthy and often dangerous temperatures indoors and disproportionately impacts low-income households and people of color. AB 2597 will update the state’s habitability standards to ensure that all rental units have a means of maintaining a safe indoor air temperature regardless of the temperature outside.

AB 2713 (Wicks): Tenant Protections: Just Cause Termination: Rent Caps

(co-sponsored with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation)

This bill cleans up loopholes in AB 1482, California’s first statewide just cause eviction protection and anti-rent gouging law. Since AB 1482 was enacted in 2019, several key loopholes (owner move-in, substantial renovation, and intent to remove the unit from the rental market) have been exploited by landlords attempting to evict vulnerable tenants. This law will require owners attempting to evict tenants for owner move-in to move into the unit within 90 days and stay at the unit for a minimum of three years. For owners attempting to evict based on substantial renovation, it will require owners to obtain the necessary permits for the renovations and justify why the improvements cannot be completed with the tenants in place. For evictions based on withdrawal from the rental market, the owner will be required to clearly explain in the notice to the tenant what the alternative use of the property will be and the necessary permits to convert the unit to the intended use. If the landlord does not meet those conditions post eviction, the tenant has the right to rent the unit under the previous terms of the agreement.

SCA 2 (Allen, Wiener): Public Housing Projects Two-year bill

(co-sponsored with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California Coalition for Rural Housing, California Housing Consortium, California Housing Partnership, California Association of Realtors, California YIMBY, Housing California, Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, and Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing)

SCA 2 will place the repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution on the ballot. Passed by voters in 1950, Article 34 requires a majority approval by the voters of a city or county for the development, construction, or acquisition of publicly subsidized housing. For decades the requirement has stifled the development of subsidized housing creating and perpetuating racially and economically segregated communities. The passage of SCA 2 would give voters an opportunity to eliminate an obstacle, enshrined in our Constitution, which currently undermines the ability to address California’s acute housing and homelessness challenges.

HEALTH CARE

AB 470 (Carrillo): Eliminating the Non-MAGI Assets LimitTwo-year bill

(co-sponsored with Justice in Aging)

This bill will clean up code for when the Medi-Cal assets test is eliminated on January 1, 2024, following the 2021 budget agreement that also raises the asset limits effective July 1, 2022.

AB 1355 (Levine): Expanding Independent Medical ReviewTwo-year bill

This bill will ensure more fairness in the Medi-Cal appeals process by expanding Independent Medical Reviews to all Medi-Cal members and services, and by standardizing the process state departments must follow when alternating judges’ decisions in fair hearings. Independent Medical Reviews use medical professionals with expertise in the medical service at issue, resulting in more favorable and clinically sound outcomes for patients than plan appeals and state fair hearings.

AB 1900 (Arambula): Share of Cost Reform

(co-sponsored with Bet Tzedek, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, Disability Rights California, Justice in Aging, and Senior and Disability Action)

This bill will make the Medi-Cal Share of Cost program more affordable by updating the maintenance need levels to 138% of the federal poverty level. Today, older adults and people with disabilities who are just $1 over the free Medi-Cal limit are forced to pay over $800 of their monthly income on health care and are expected to survive on just $600—the maintenance need level—to pay for rent, food, utilities, and all other expenses.

AB 1995 (Arambula): Eliminating Med-Cal Premiums

(co-sponsored with Children Now)

Medi-Cal premium requirements place an undue economic burden on families already living on very limited incomes and create barriers in access to care and unnecessary breaks in coverage for eligible individuals. This bill will ensure pregnant people, children, and people with disabilities can access the health care services they need to stay healthy by eliminating their monthly Medi-Cal premiums.

SB 644 (Leyva): Connecting Unemployed Individuals to Covered California & Medi-Cal

(co-sponsored with Health Access and California Pan-Ethnic Health Network)

This bill will require the Employment Development Department (EDD) to share with Covered California contact and income information about people who have recently applied for or lost unemployment, state disability insurance, paid family leave, and other EDD programs. This will allow Covered California to reach out and help enroll individuals in Medi-Cal or Covered California.

SB 923 (Wiener): Access to Gender Affirming Care

(co-sponsored with Break The Binary LLC, California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, California TRANScends, Equality California, Gender Justice LA, National Health Law Program, Orange County TransLatinas, Queer Works, Rainbow Pride Youth Alliance, San Francisco Office of Transgender Initiatives, The TransPower Project, TransCanWork, Trans Community Project, Transgender Health and Wellness Center, Tranz of Anarchii INC, Unique Woman’s Coalition (UWC), and Unity Hope)

This bill will improve access to gender affirming care for transgender, gender non-conforming, and intersex (TGI) people by mandating health plans require TGI cultural competency training for contracted providers, their staff, and the staff of health plans. It would also require plan provider directories to identify providers who offer gender affirming services.

FINANCIAL SECURITY

AB 1820 (Arambula): Labor Trafficking

(co-sponsored with Loyola Law School, SJI Anti-Trafficking Policy Initiative)

California has one of the highest rates of human trafficking in the nation, yet only two state agencies, the Department of Justice and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, are responsible for prosecuting human trafficking cases. This bill will provide the Department of Industrial Relations with statutory authority to investigate and prosecute claims of human labor trafficking. This a priority for Western Center because many workers who are victims of labor trafficking are exploited because of poverty.

AB 2052 (Quirk-Silva): CalWORKs Child Education Act of 2022

(co-sponsored with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations)

The pandemic has impacted the timeliness with which some children can complete high school. This bill will allow children receiving CalWORKs to obtain aid until age 20 if they are attending their last year of high school.

AB 2300 (Kalra): CalWORKs and CalFresh: Work Requirements

(co-sponsored with Legal Aid at Work, Women’s Foundation of California, and WorkSafe)

This bill will expand good cause exemptions for the CalWORKs welfare to work program to allow parents with children under two years old not to participate in welfare to work for up to 12 months. This bill incorporates many legal protections created by the legislature, like the Crown Act and domestic worker protections, into CalWORKs.

AB 2277 (Reyes): CalWORKs for Survivors of Domestic Violence

(co-sponsored with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations)

This bill will remove barriers for accessing the CalWORKs program a critical social service that assists families in financial need, by waiving program requirements for survivors of domestic violence. Currently, counties have the authority to waive CalWORKs program requirements for survivors of domestic violence. However, despite their ability to do so, many counties do not. This bill will require counties to waive the requirements.

SB 996 (Kamlager): CalWORKs Asset Test and Work Limit

(co-sponsored with Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization)

This bill will eliminate the eligibility requirement for CalWORKs families to prove that they have less than $10,211 in their possession, and the 100-hour rule which requires parents to work no more than 100 hours to qualify for the program. Removing these archaic requirements will ensure that all eligible CalWORKs families can access the social service.

SB 972 (Gonzalez): Street Vendors

(co-sponsored with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Community Power Collective, Inclusive Action for the City, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, Public Counsel)

Street vendors are a part of California’s culture and have been for decades. In recent years, street vendors became part of the formal economy with the decriminalization of street vending in 2018. However, many street vendors who sell food are unable to obtain health permits from their local county health departments, so this bill will modernize the California Retail Food Code to reduce barriers for street vendors to obtain local health permits. Creating this pathway will allow street vendors to further enter the formal economy and put an end to fines issued to these entrepreneurs with limited incomes.

SB 1200 (Skinner): Enforcement of Judgments: Renewal and Interest

This bill will reduce the interest rate on unpaid debt from 10 percent annually to 3 percent annually. New York became the first state to reduce the interest rate on debt and California should follow the example.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

AB 1792 (Ward): Diversification of Grand Juries

Grand Juries play a critical role in the lives of Californians involved in the legal system — particularly people of color and those living in poverty who are over-policed. Currently, juries are disproportionately made up of retirees who can afford to take time off to serve. AB 1972 will diversify grand juries in California so they are representative of their populations and will ensure people are fairly compensated when they serve so jury duty is more accessible for Californians with low incomes.

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Governor Newsom’s 2022-2023 California Budget Proposal

Governor Newsom released his January proposal for the 2022-23 California state budget. In total, the administration projects a $45 billion surplus — a combination of higher revenue collections for the past two budgets and higher than anticipated revenue for the 2022-23 budget. As the governor noted in his press conference, if current economic trends continue, the surplus could grow even more by the time the proposed budget is revised in May. The budget includes a record $36 billion reserve.

SUMMARY

The governor’s proposed budget includes a historic investment in health care by expanding Medi-Cal eligibility for those currently excluded from the program due to immigration status, and by eliminating Medi-Cal premiums for children, pregnant people, and people with disabilities. It does not eliminate the burdensome “share of cost” that many people on Medi-Cal still pay as a monthly deductible.

The budget also includes expanded funding to house people experiencing homelessness, a large investment in health care related workforce development, and an expansion of proposals intended to reduce poverty such as increasing CalWORKs grants, passing on all child support to families formerly on public assistance, and expanding the state child tax credit to households with no reported income. The budget also proposes to fund 36,000 new childcare slots for working families, but this means approximately 150,000 families will remain on the waiting list.

Unfortunately, this proposal misses an opportunity to build on significant progress made through existing poverty-reduction initiatives. Despite the expiration of the very effective federal child tax credit increase, the governor’s proposed budget does not backfill that lost income for California families. It also fails to fund more stimulus payments for Californians with low incomes. Additionally, it does not provide a cost-of-living increase for the SSI/SSP grant as required by state law, and it does not accelerate the SSI/SSP grant restoration scheduled for January 2024.

The need for rental and utility assistance in California has greatly outpaced federal funds allocated to the state. While California was recently allocated an additional $62 million in federal funds to address the growing need, the state needs about $2 billion. The governor missed an opportunity to supplement the federal dollars with surplus from the General Fund. However, California will continue to advocate for additional funding from the federal government.

Despite the large surplus and number of proposed initiatives, the governor’s proposal uses just $20 billion for the needs of Californians. More than half of the surplus is being used to fund reserves and to pay off long term debt. Of the $20 billion being spent, the governor proposes to use 86 percent for one-time expenditures. The reluctance to invest in ongoing needs means proposals that could make a major impact, like funding a broadly available rental assistance program, are not part of the discussion. The legislature should review the governor’s budget with an eye toward meeting more of the short- and long-term needs of all Californians.

HEALTH CARE

The governor’s proposal expands Medi-Cal to all adults regardless of immigration status. This would make California the first state in the nation to cover all adults, and together with the recent increase in the income level for seniors and people with disabilities, as well as the scheduled elimination of the Medi-Cal assets test by January 1, 2024, all adults under 138 percent of the poverty level will be eligible for free, full-scope Medi-Cal. The governor’s proposal also eliminates premiums for children, pregnant people, and the Working Disabled Program, and expands Medi-Cal coverage of custom crowns for back teeth. In addition, there are affordability, provider payment, and workforce investments.

Medi-Cal

  • Health4All: The governor’s proposal expands full-scope Medi-Cal coverage to an estimated 700,000+ undocumented adults ages 26 through 49, effective no sooner than January 1, 2024, with estimated costs of $819 million total funds ($614 million General Fund) in FY 2023-24 and $2.3 billion total funds ($1.8 billion General Fund) at full implementation.
  • Zero out premiums: The proposed budget includes $53 million total funds ($19 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23 and $89 million total funds ($31 million General Fund) ongoing and trailer bill language to reduce premiums to zero for Medi-Cal and other Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs. This includes Medi-Cal premiums for children above 160 percent of the poverty level, the 250 percent Working Disabled Program premiums, as well as the premiums for pregnant women and infants under the Medi-Cal Access Program (MCAP) and County Children’s Health Insurance Programs (C-CHIP).
  • Justice-related initiatives: The proposal includes $50 million total funds ($16 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23 to implement the CalAIM justice-related initiatives with implementation beginning January 2023. This includes pre-release applications, pre-release “in-reach” services, and coordinated re-entry. There will also be trailer bill language to extend the duration of suspension of Medi-Cal benefits when an individual is incarcerated to increase the likelihood that coverage is maintained.
  • Dental Lab Processed Crown (AKA Custom Crown) Coverage: The budget includes $37 million total funds ($13 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23 and trailer bill language to update adult coverage requirements to include lab processed crowns for posterior teeth, in place of stainless-steel crowns. Also related to dental, the administration proposes to extend dental managed care contracts and procure new contracts no sooner than January 1, 2024.
  • The governor’s proposal includes the following provider payment investments:
    • Proposition 56 Supplemental Provider Payment Backfill: To address declining tobacco revenue, the proposal includes an increase of $29 million from the General Fund to fully fund remaining Proposition 56 payments at their current level in FY 2022-23.
    • Equity and Practice Transformation Payments: To close health equity gaps in preventive, maternity, and behavioral health care measures and address gaps in care arising out of the pandemic, the proposal includes $400 million total funds ($200 million General Fund) in one-time funds, aligning with the goals of the Medi-Cal Comprehensive Quality and Equity Strategy.
    • Elimination of Certain AB 97 Provider Payment Reductions: The budget includes $20 million total funds ($9 million General Fund) in FY 2022-23 and $24 million total funds ($11 million General Fund) ongoing to eliminate AB 97 payment reductions for nurses, alternative birthing centers, audiologists/hearing aid dispensers, respiratory care providers, durable medical equipment, oxygen and respiratory services, chronic dialysis clinics, non-emergency medical transportation, and emergency air medical transportation.
  • Discontinue Child Health and Disability Program (CHDP) and Expand Children’s Presumptive Eligibility (PE): The Department is proposing to sunset CHDP by July 1, 2023 via trailer bill language and replace with the Children’s Presumptive Eligibility Program, which will include all Medi-Cal providers.
  • Mobile Crisis Services: The proposal includes $108 million total funds ($16 million General Fund) and trailer bill language to add qualifying 24/7 community-based mobile crisis intervention services as a Medi-Cal benefit as soon as January 1, 2023. The benefit will be implemented through county behavioral health delivery systems by multidisciplinary mobile crisis teams in the community.

Other Health Proposals 

  • Office of Health Care Affordability: The proposal reappropriates funding for the Office that was originally included in the 2021 Budget Act (originally $11.2 million in 2020-21 and $24.5 million in 2022-23) and proposes statutory changes for its establishment. The Office is charged with increasing cost and quality transparency, developing cost targets for the health care industry, enforcing compliance, and filing gaps in market oversight.
  • Covered California: The proposal continues to deposit into a reserve fund to be used for future Covered California affordability programs the $333.4 million General Fund that would have been used for Covered California state premium subsidies (not currently needed due to American Rescue Plan Funds).  The administration intends to work with the Legislature to determine the best use of these funds based on the recent AB 133 affordability report produced by Covered California, after determining what ongoing federal support will be available. In addition, the proposal continues to include $20 million General Fund in 2022-23 to support the One-Dollar Premium Subsidy program, which zeros the cost of Covered California consumers for health plans due to federal policy concerning abortion coverage.
  • Behavioral Health Bridge Housing: The proposed budget includes $1.5 billion General Fund ($1 billion in FY 2022-23 and $500 million in FY 2023-24) for behavioral health bridge housing to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness with serious behavioral health conditions by purchasing and installing tiny homes and providing time-limited operational supports in various bridge housing settings.
  • Workforce Development: The proposal includes $1.7 billion in Care Economy Workforce investments, including $350 million General Fund to recruit and train 25,000 new community health workers as well as additional health care providers.

HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS

In total, the governor’s 2022-2023 budget dedicates $9 billion for housing and $8 billion for homelessness. Largely building on last year’s efforts, this budget proposal attempts to chip away at the housing and homelessness crisis by streamlining production, increasing housing accountability, and funding homelessness solutions through a climate focused lens.

This “Housing as a Climate Strategy’’ focuses on preservation and production of affordable housing near schools, jobs, transit, density, and community hubs to fight climate change. Despite the well-placed investments in climate resilient housing, the budget falls short in supporting struggling Californians from eviction with the notable lack of state funding for eviction protection. The budget also proposes to battle the state homelessness crisis with an eye toward housing and behavioral health. While on the surface this plan addresses the long-standing need for better mental health for the unhoused community, it plays on the trope that all people experiencing homelessness have mental health conditions, rather than recognizing the very tangible fact that most Californians simply cannot afford the high cost of living, which has steepened since the start of the pandemic.

The governor is also increasing funding for “beautification” and “hazardous material removal” in encampments, which translates to increased sweeps, harassment, and further ostracization of people experiencing homelessness. With another budget surplus, we hope the budget’s May revision will use the additional funding to preserve and increase affordable housing, prevent needless evictions with increased funding for California’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program, and provide tangle solutions to get people off the streets and into safe, stable, affordable, and permanent housing.

Affordable Housing and Climate 

  • $300 million one-time General Fund for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program to support land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects for infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • $100 million one-time General Fund to expand affordable housing development and adaptive reuse opportunities on state excess land sites.
  • $100 million one-time General Fund for adaptive reuse incentive grants to remove cost impediments to adaptive reuse (e.g., structural improvements, plumbing/electrical design, exiting) and help accelerate residential conversions, with a priority on projects located in downtown-oriented areas.
  • $500 million in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits.
    • $4.6 million in farmworker Housing Assistance Tax Credits.
  • $200 million one-time General Fund for the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to provide loans to developers for mixed-income rental housing, specifically for households with incomes between 30 percent and 120 percent of the Area Median Income.
  • $200 million one-time General Fund for the Portfolio Reinvestment Program to further preserve targeted units in downtown-oriented areas and continue increasing the state’s affordable housing stock.

Mobile Home Rehab

  • $100 million one-time General Fund for HCD’s Mobile Home Park Rehabilitation and Resident Ownership Program. These funds will finance the preservation and development of affordable mobile home parks.

Infill Housing

  • Infill Infrastructure Grant Program—$500 million one-time General Fund ($225 million in 2022-23, and $275 million in 2023-24).

Emergency Rental Assistance Program

  • California requested an additional $1.9 billion in federal funding to address the growing need for rental assistance and utility assistance for Californians. California was allocated an additional $62 million from the U.S. Department of Treasury. While grateful that California was allocated 30 percent of the total federal reallocation, this amount is woefully short of the need.  Currently, California needs almost $2 billion more than what we were originally allocated, and the need is growing. California will continue to advocate with the federal government to obtain additional rental and utility assistance.

Formerly Incarcerated Housing

  • $10.6 million one-time General Fund over three years to the Returning Home Well program that will provide transitional housing to parolees at risk of housing insecurity or homelessness.

Legal Services for Renters

  • $40 million investment in legal assistance for renters and homeowners.

Homelessness

  • $2 billion one-time General Fund, multi-year grant to cities, large counties and Continuums of Care working with the California Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH). Cal-ICH will work with grantees on their homelessness accountability plans.
  • $500 million one-time general fund dollars in housing encampment resolution efforts that will expand program jurisdictions investment in short- and long-term rehousing strategies for people experiencing homelessness.
  • $25 million in Clean California and $20.6 million for hazardous material removal at encampments.
  • $1 million investment in homeless youth programs.
  • $1.5 billion in General Funds over two years dedicated to resources to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people experiencing homelessness who have behavioral health conditions. This funding will be administered through DHCS’ Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure program to purchase tiny homes and facilitate bridge/transitional housing. Such funding can also be used for bridge housing including an expansion of Project Homekey Acquisition.
  • $5 million for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA).

PUBLIC BENEFITS & ACCESS TO JUSTICE

CalWORKs Grants

The governor is proposing a 7.1 percent grant increase to CalWORKs grants starting October 1, 2022. The funding for the increase comes from Child Poverty Subaccount, a stream of revenue dedicated to CalWORKs grant increases. As a result of the 7.1 percent increase, maximum CalWORKs grants will equal 54 percent of the federal poverty level. For families not subject to sanctions, timed off aid or with an ineligible adult, the grant levels exceed the deep poverty level, which means a reduction in the well-documented, long-term negative impacts of deep poverty on children. Despite the increase in the grant level, the administration’s budget does not fulfill the commitment to increase CalWORKs grants so that no child is living in deep poverty. The so-called AU+1 approach requires significantly more investment than this budget provides. Below is a chart which shows current grant amounts, grant amounts with the 7.1 percent increase, the percent of the federal poverty level, what the grant would need to be to ensure an end to deep poverty, and lastly, the gap between the current grant and an end to deep poverty.

Workforce Development

The administration is proposing two major investments in workforce development. One is a $1.5 billion Proposition 98 General Fund effort to support the development of college and career pathways focused on education, health care, technology, and climate-related fields. Promoting pathways that allow students to move seamlessly from high school to college and career will improve the number of students who pursue and achieve post-secondary education and training.

The governor is also proposing to invest $1.7 billion over three years in care economy workforce development—across both the Labor Agency and California Health and Human Services Agency—that will create more innovative and accessible opportunities to recruit, train, and hire, and will advance an ethnically and culturally inclusive health and human services workforce, with improved diversity and higher wages. These programs will target students such as those in CalWORKs welfare to work.

Safety Net Reserve

The budget provides no increase in the safety net reserve, maintaining a $900 million level. While this amount represents an important safeguard against Medi-Cal and CalWORKs program reductions in lean budget years, the continuing growth in spending in both programs might require additional funds to preserve the effectiveness of the reserve.

Child Support Pass Through

The governor is proposing a major change to child support rules by allowing all child support paid by non-custodial parents to go to families formerly receiving CalWORKs or Medi-Cal. For decades it has been state policy for the state to retain any child support for the state to pay off the cost of providing welfare and medical benefits. In short, the state has reimbursed itself and made the families live with less income. When fully implemented, these families are estimated to receive an additional $187 million. While the idea of passing through all child support is certainly welcome, it is notable that the administration is proposing to do this only for families no longer receiving government assistance. The governor chose not to allow a 100 percent pass through to families currently on aid. The legislature may wish to consider expanding this proposal to pass through all child support to all families.

SSI/SSP Grants

The administration did not propose an increase in the SSI/SSP grants for 2022-23 budget, citing last year’s agreement to a two-step increase in SSP funding to restore grant cuts made by the state in the 2010 and 2011 budgets. The first of these grant increases went into effect on January 1, 2022, and in conjunction with a federal cost of living increase for the SSI portion of the grant, SSI/SSP grant levels went from $954 a month up to $1,040 a month for a single individual. The second step of grant increases is set to go into effect in January 2024.

In 2018, the legislature and then Governor Brown agreed to provide a state cost of living adjustment on the SSP portion of the grant beginning in January 2023. While that agreement is subject to funding in the budget, the administration chose not to include it in the January budget. As it currently stands, SSI recipients would not see any increased state funding for two years. The legislature may wish to consider whether to accelerate the second SSP increase to 2023 or to provide a cost-of-living adjustment.

Home Visiting

The administration proposes to increase funding for Home Visiting by $50 million ongoing for the Department of Public Health (CDPH) to expand the California Home Visiting Program and the California Black Infant Health Program, serving approximately 6,000 additional families over five years on top of 3,700 currently served by the Home Visiting Program and 1,650 served by the Black Infant Health Program. The administration does not propose increased funding for the CalWORKs Home Visiting program, which was cut in 2020 during the early days of the pandemic. The budget proposes greater flexibility for home visiting models offered to meet the diverse needs of families across the state, expands home visiting services to additional counties, and makes them accessible to families with the highest need. Additionally, this proposal will support early literacy by including books and early literacy programming provided by home visitors, and will be further supported by a $350 million General Fund investment to recruit, train, and certify new community health workers.

Earned Income Tax Credit

The administration is proposing to allow families with zero reported income to be eligible for the $1,000 state child tax credit so long as the family would otherwise be eligible. The concept of a zero-earnings tax credit potentially opens the door for allowing people receiving SSI, SSDI, and Social Security to get the same state assistance that families receive from the state EITC and Child Tax Credit.

Civil Assessments

The administration is proposing to reduce the impact of fines and fees on low-income Californians by reducing civil assessments from a maximum of $300 to a cap of $150. Civil assessments are imposed on people in criminal and traffic courts when they fail to appear for a hearing, or they fail to pay a fine in a timely fashion. Legal service advocates tell us that many clients receive multiple civil assessments that increase the amount they owe and make it even harder to pay court ordered fines and fees. While this proposal goes part way in meeting the goals of legislators and advocates, as proposed, civil assessments would still impact Californians with the lowest incomes most, and leaves open the question of whether retroactive civil assessment debts would continue to be subject to collection.

California Food Assistance Program

The administration proposes phasing in the expansion the California Food Assistance Program to all Californians ages 55 and older, regardless of immigration status. This year’s budget proposal includes $35.2 million for initial planning phases of the expansion and allocates $113.4 million annually starting in the 2025-26 budget year for the full expansion.

Golden State Stimulus/Grants

The administration chose not to provide another round of pandemic stimulus payments. These payments, which went out to low- and moderate-income households, were instrumental in allowing families and individuals to absorb some of the costs of the pandemic and to give breathing room in household budgets. The grants were also a method for the state to reduce state expenditures below the Gann Limit, which caps the amount the state budget can increase from year to year. The governor noted in his press conference that the door is not closed on this and it may be under consideration for the May Revise.

For questions, contact:

  • Public Benefits/ Access to Justice: Michael Herald, Director of Policy Advocacy – mherald[at]wclp.org
  • Food Access: Christopher Sanchez, Policy Advocate – csanchez[at]wclp.org
  • Health Care: Jen Flory, Policy Advocate – jflory[at]wclp.org; Linda Nguy, Policy Advocate – lnguy[at]wclp.org
  • Housing: Cynthia Castillo, Policy Advocate – ccastillo[at]wclp.org; Tina Rosales, Policy Advocate – trosales[at]wclp.org

State Failed to Offer Legal Aid to State Rent Relief Applicants

“Madeline Howard says the action may be too little too late. She’s a senior attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “It’s inevitable that many people who needed assistance at this point have already been harmed, have already been evicted from their homes, so it’s going to be too late.”

Listen Here

Panel discusses end of eviction moratorium

“Annenberg School of Communication’s Center for Health Journalism hosted a webinar Wednesday to discuss the implications of the moratorium’s end, as well as other pandemic aid programs. The panelists focused on the effects the end of these programs will have on low-income communities, discussing which tenants are most at risk, why some tenants have faced challenges to access aid and how journalists can use the power of storytelling to convey the tenants’ struggles.

Michelle Levander, the founding director of the Center for Health Journalism, moderated the webinar and introduced the panelists — Peter Hepburn, assistant professor of global urban studies and urban systems at Rutgers University, Kriston Capps, staff writer for Bloomberg CityLab in Washington, D.C. and Tina Rosales, an advocate on the housing team of the Western Center on Law and Poverty.”

Panel discusses end of eviction moratorium

Desigualdad en vivienda se intensifica en California

“Tina Rosales, de Western Center on Law & Poverty, llamó a que haya más inversión en organizaciones de la comunidad en materia de vivienda equitativa; además, señaló la importancia de tener una creciente disponibilidad en “soluciones y servicios generales para las personas en situación de calle.”

“Es importante, también, contar con apoyo del gobierno para obtener ayuda en el pago de alquileres,” añadió.”

Desigualdad en vivienda se intensifica en California

What the heck is ‘Land Use’ policy and why should I care?

When I was 14, my parents picked up our lives in the Bay Area and re-located to a mostly white suburb outside of Sacramento. I immediately felt like an alien landing on a different planet for the first time. Everything was bigger — the roads, the cars, the homes, the parking lots. The houses had manicured lawns and were painted in a similar muted color palate. But for all that extra space, the people were hidden. No busy crosswalks, no large freeway overpasses, no parks packed with children and families.

When searching for furniture to furnish our new two story home (a complete and utter dream of mine) we found ourselves in a crowded RC Willey. “Mom, I think we’re the only brown people in here,” I said to her under my breath.

The awareness of being outnumbered had never struck me before, yet suddenly I was cognizant that this place was very different than the places I lived before. When we returned to visit my grandmother in Richmond on the weekends, I noted the apartment complex among apartment complexes. The liquor store on the corner (we didn’t have those in walking distance in my suburb), and the close proximity to the freeway. I’ve recently realized that this was not by accident, but by purposeful decisions made federally, statewide, and locally. As it turns out, the invisible force behind the makings of our surroundings and communities is land use policy.

When I joined Western Center in January of this year as a housing advocate, I thought a lot about my own experiences and recollection of community against the backdrop of our current housing and affordability crisis. The state of California has an astronomical lack of affordable homes, with a recent study showing that we’ll need “1.2 million more affordable homes by 2030 – approximately 120,000 per year – to keep pace with demand.”[1] According to the Department of Housing and Community Development, California is producing only 80,000 units on average each year – and only a tiny fraction of those affordable to renters with extremely low-incomes. That gap is alarming when you consider how dire the consequences are for priced out Californians.

On any given night, there are upwards of 150,000 unhoused Californians sleeping on the street or in their cars. We’re falling behind in building the affordable units needed to house them, and decades of land-use and related policies have incentivized the production of market rate development over affordable, subsidized housing.

Widely seen as a “statewide” crisis affecting all Californians, the housing crisis acutely impacts Black and indigenous communities, as well as people of color generally (BIPOC). California has seen a maddening increase in levels of homelessness among communities of color; notably, Black people represent only 6.5% of the state’s population, but account for nearly 40% of California’s unhoused.

Black people, Native Americans, and Latinos are more likely to experience homelessness and overcrowded housing than white people[2]. They are more likely to be low-wage workers, more likely to be rent-burdened, and more likely to contract and die from Coronavirus[3]. Clearly, the housing crisis is also a race and equity crisis.

The data is overwhelming, and California has taken strides to confront the problem by reexamining its approach to housing and development. In response to the clear lack of affordable housing units available and a growing narrative that the source of the crises is a lack of housing supply, legislators have introduced a large slew of bills related to housing production and land use.

But what is land use policy? As I continue to learn in this policy arena, the more I realize it’s been a tool used to advance racist and exclusionary policy, which has led to a segregated California. But I’ve also learned that land use policy can be a tool to address the problems its created.

At its most basic level, land use policy is the control, rights of property, and act of mapping and planning land by its ideal use. One can imagine how a small city would choose to build a water tower near a river, for example, or choose to build homes and parks far from an industrial waste site. An umbrella term, land use encapsulates a set of tools and laws that dictate where we build, how we build, and for whom.

Those decisions not only create the physical makeup of cities and towns, but also have implications for our wellbeing and overall health. For example, living near a freeway and other pollution sources are shown to reduce a person’s life expectancy, and lead to a multitude of health problems and birth defects. Where we live is just as important as how.

Land Use: A Racist Beginning

In many ways California represents the epicenter of housing policy in the United States. In 1904, Los Angeles was the first city in the nation to implement land use restrictions.[4] Initially prohibiting industrial uses in residential districts, Los Angeles soon divided itself into areas designated for certain uses, also known as zoning. Cities across the country began to zone their land for different sets of uses: single-family homes, multi-family homes, industrial plants, multi-purpose areas. In addition to designating uses, cities created requirements related to the size, height, and appearance of buildings.[5]

1904 represents the beginning of zoning ordinances on paper, but the act of designating space for specific uses or people was in place for much longer and has a racist and exclusionary history. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cities across the United States implemented policies to control where Black people and immigrants lived. Single family housing, houses that could be sold for much higher prices, were favored over multi-family homes. Early on, single family homes became a commodity designated for white people, while people of color were pushed into denser, less desirable areas. Racially exclusionary zoning policies are the foundation for the racial and economic segregation that we see in our communities today.

The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision finding overt racialized zoning to be unconstitutional challenged in 1917. Louisville, Kentucky had a city ordinance prohibiting Black people from buying a home or occupying any location in majority white neighborhoods. When William Warley, a Black man, attempted to purchase a home in a majority white neighborhood, the local ordinance was used to prevent him from completing the purchase. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court where the justices voted unanimously to strike down explicitly racist zoning requirements across the U.S.

Despite that win, the same practices were perpetuated through other means and proxies. Emerging from the Buchanan decision was an acceleration of the practice of racially restrictive covenants. Rampant until 1948 when the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional, racial covenants were private agreements that put limits on who could purchase a property based on their race or religion.[6] Almost all racial covenants prohibited the selling of homes to anyone other than a white non-Jewish person.[7] The stipulations on the contracts were so severe that if the contract was violated and the home was sold to a person of color, the property would return to the original homeowner.[8]

In addition to exclusionary zoning and racial covenants, perhaps the most damaging policy is one known as redlining. After suffering a financial collapse in 1929, the United States was thrown into the grips of the Great Depression, subsequently spurring action on a variety of policies in an attempt to reform the economy. The federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in response to an onslaught of home foreclosures, which overhauled mortgage and lending practices to spur home buying.[9]

HOLC deliberately assessed neighborhoods and adjusted their lending practices using a race-based risk model. Maps of neighborhoods, divided by color-coding, marked whether a neighborhood was desirable (green=all white neighborhood) or (red=’high risk’ and containing people of color). Black people were denied loans and housing opportunities en masse. The policy proved to be one of the largest state-sanctioned discrimination plans in history. “Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government issued $120 billion in home loans, 98% of which went to whites.”[10]

For better or worse, the American Dream was idealized as a house with a large yard, and that dream was purposely denied to Black people, people of color, immigrants, Jewish people, people who were disabled, and many more. The dark history of redlining is directly connected to negative environmental impacts, and wealth gaps affecting people of color that still reverberate today and lead to severe COVID-19 impacts in Black communities.

Despite identifying the wrongs of the past, our institutions are only recently coming to terms with their role in continuing segregation trends, and directly atoning for them. In March of 2021, Evanston, a small town in Illinois, agreed to provide Black residents with reparations to be used towards housing. A first in the nation policy, Evanston recognized the damage their housing policies have had on their Black residents, proclaiming, “The Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program (“The Program”) acknowledges the harm caused to Black/African-American Evanston residents due to discriminatory housing policies and practices and inaction on the part of the City.”

The U.S.’s history of racial segregation, whether enshrined in law or not, permeates all housing policies and our lives today. Reparations are one way to directly correct past failures of government, but there is still not a clear understanding of all the ways governments have or can deal with those harms, or how land-use policy might now be used to build a better future.

Turning the Tide – The Building Blocks of Affordable Housing Development

In the middle to late 1960’s, the confluence of political and civil rights movement and the Vietnam War culminated in powerful anti-discrimination legislation. Shortly after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s Assassination in 1968, then President Lyndon Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited the use of race, religion, national origin, sex, handicap and family status as a means to deny a person rental housing or financing.[11] A year after that, California passed The Housing Element Law which required local and state governments to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community for the first time.[12]

Breaking that down: Each municipality in California must have a roadmap for growth in their community called a General Plan. The General Plan is comprised of seven elements: housing, land use, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, and safety. When the Housing Element was added in 1969, it signaled a commitment to build appropriately for the future. The Housing Element Law began the trend of “inclusionary zoning” – zoning that accounts for the needs of people with low incomes, as opposed to “exclusionary zoning,” which is used to describe policies that effectively make it impossible for people with low incomes to live in a place.

The Housing Element law was further refined and strengthened in 1980, and ensures that local planning consider the amount of housing stock available to all income levels, and plans on ways it can lower regulatory barriers to meet housing production goals for each income level.[13] The amount of units needed per income level is described as the cities’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Housing Element law is the main vehicle through which the state affects local housing and land use policies, and includes considerations for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. [14] It’s important to note that despite Housing Element law requiring planning, it does not require that the actual housing be built. That distinction is important and partly explains why California has historically lagged behind in meeting its affordable housing goals. Despite the state’s best efforts to compel local jurisdictions to plan for low-income multi-family housing or public housing, in practice, affordable housing developments are vehemently opposed and face a myriad of challenges in order to gain approval.

Incentivizing the Right Kind of Development

In addition to Housing Element Law, there needed to be an incentive to build low-income housing. The answer came in 1976, when California policymakers passed the most sweeping affordable housing incentive bill, known as the Density Bonus Law (DBL). DBL is currently California’s best tool to leverage and expand affordability, yet it remains unknown to most Californians and is severely underutilized.

The law is famously complicated, but exists to motivate developers to build affordable units by offering them concessions and bonuses in exchange.[15] The concept behind DBL is simple – it’s a give and take model that allows developers to increase the density of their project (adding more units), if they include housing dedicated to low-income and sensitive groups. It’s a win for the developer because “denser” buildings contain more units that the developer can make money on, and it’s a win for cities because desperately needed low-income housing gets built. Additional sweeteners are included, like lowering minimum parking requirements, reduced fees, expedited permitting, and eased height, transportation, and parking requirements.[16]

DBL and other laws that focus on public actions creating public benefit are examples of land value capture policies.[17] Simply put, land value capture ensures that a community can reap the benefits of a private, public, or government investment. When you remove constraints that allow a larger project to be built on a site than would otherwise be allowed under local zoning or you remove parking requirements or other things that save money, you create additional value. That value is then used to subsidize the affordable units. If a developer wants to take advantage of low prices in a low-income neighborhood to build housing, that developer should have to provide the surrounding neighborhood with the value of more affordable units.

Gentrification and Displacement

Fairly often, the response to the affordable housing crisis is build, build, build. Many believe that by adding more housing stock to the market, the housing demand will lower and so will housing costs. Unfortunately, the price of rental housing isn’t entirely driven by demand, it’s driven by profit.

Envision a plot of land zoned for a single family home — a developer could sell that home for $100,000. But if the developer can create a 10-unit high rise on the same plot of land (known as up-zoning), they can multiply profits by 10. However, up-zoning does very little to support affordability, and in turn can exacerbate gentrification in low-income communities.

Take for example, cost pressures in the Bay Area. When certain industries moved close by, housing production increased, but the majority of homes were financially out of reach for longstanding communities. Building without the promise of affordability will always lead to higher rental prices. High rises and homes that are only inhabitable for people with moderate to high incomes do nothing to support people with low incomes, and those close to homelessness. Instead, it displaces community members and fuels gentrification.

Land Use Going Forward

I’ve named only a few historical anecdotes, concepts, and factors at play in California. Land-use policy as a whole is rarely mentioned in political speeches or the evening news, but the implications are far-reaching. Not one state in the U.S. has a large enough supply of affordable housing for people with the lowest incomes.[18] That devastating statistic has been true for too long.

Housing advocates across the nation are doubling down on efforts to expand equitable development and land use incentives to address the crisis at hand. To dismantle racist structures that minimize opportunities for BIPOC, we must re-commit to building equitably, which means using incentives and backstops like the Density Bonus Law and No Net Loss statute. Land value capture schemes should be employed in local land use policies as a tool to force the market to account for the most vulnerable.

Equity takes work. History shows that it’s not enough to simply end the practice of segregation or redlining; it takes effort and diligence to dismantle structures that continue to perpetuate racist and inequitable trends. An equity-centered approach to housing development and land-use policy requires local community input, a focus on affordable housing preservation, land value capture, and anti-gentrification measures. When someone says the answer is to build, you must ask: how? And for whom? A well thought out and nuanced vision for our housing stock is needed now.

I have the great fortune of having a roof over my head, in a community that I truly enjoy. I fundamentally believe that all people deserve that same benefit. As I continue my role here at Western Center, I hope to learn more and bring others along with me as I de-mystify land-use policies so we can fight back against longstanding injustices and build a healthier, stronger future.

Land Use Terminology:

  • Land Use — The planning, control, and rights of property.
  • Zoning — Tool used to govern “uses” (e.g. residential, commercial, or industrial), the size of buildings, and how buildings relate to their surroundings, including other buildings, open spaces, and the street.
  • By Right — “By right” development refers to a project that is permitted under zoning rules and is approved administratively without discretionary local government review. Because it relaxes the review process, it’s often seen as a positive tool to ensure that affordable units get built.
  • Infill Development — Building within unused and underutilized lands within a community, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. “Urban infill” implies that existing land is mostly built-out and what is being built is in effect filling in the gaps. Example: Re-purposing an empty parking lot
  • Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) — Pronounced “reena.” Regional number of housing units needed to meet the housing needs of people in four income categories: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. This number is critically important in completing a jurisdiction’s Housing Element.
  • Land Speculation — Purchasing undeveloped or affordable land and holding it for an indefinite amount of time in order to sell it when the value of the property significantly increases. Example: A developer purchasing an empty lot in a downtown city core and selling it for significantly higher once the surrounding community becomes gentrified.
  • Inclusionary Zoning — Municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable for people with low to moderate incomes.
  • Exclusionary Zoning — Local land use zoning practices that effectively bar low- and moderate-income households from finding adequate housing in a given jurisdiction.[19]
  • Land Value Capture — Policy approach that allows communities to recover land value from development projects.

 

[1] https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CaliforniaHousingNeedsReport_2021-CHPC.pdf

[2] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/inequality/

[3] https://ucla.app.box.com/s/t8x503d781kfmocclgdgeibielo0q234

[4] https://www.planning.lacity.org/zoning/new-code

[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-19/the-birth-of-zoning-codes-a-history

[6] https://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr11042.pdf

[7] https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/how-prop-14-shaped-californias-racial-covenants

[8] https://lapl.org/collections-resources/blogs/lapl/los-angeles-land-covenants-redlining-creation-and-effects

[9] https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Crisis-Response-Recovery-March-2021-Final.pdf

[10] https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f167b251809c43778a2f9f040f43d2f5

[11] https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/aboutfheo/history

[12] https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml

[13] http://www.pilpca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PILP-California-Housing-Element-Manual-Law-Advocacy-and-Litigation-4th-Edition-January-2019.pdf

[14] https://wclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Affordable-Housing-Manual-Chapter-07.pdf

[15] https://srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/18475/Density-Bonus-Policy-White-Paper?bidId=#:~:text=The%20California%20State%20Density%20Bonus,and%20growing%20affordable%20housing%20needs.&text=Density%20bonuses%20and%20associated%20incentives,constructing%20affordable%20or%20specialized%20units

[16] http://californialanduse.org/download/Terner_California_Residential_Land_Use_Survey_Report.pdf

[17] https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/Flyer-Land-Value-Capture.pdf

[18] https://nlihc.org/housed?utm_source=NLIHC+All+Subscribers&utm_campaign=e8706eab54-CTA_040621&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e090383b5e-e8706eab54-293365962&ct=t(CTA_040621)

[19] https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/exclusionary_zoning_updated.pdf?1602716263