|
2. The Elimination of Redevelopment affordability covenants on existing below-market-rate
<br /> in California Undermined Many homes within redevelopment areas.36
<br /> Inclusionary Housing Policies
<br /> For approximately 289 California municipalities,
<br /> In late 2011, California governor Jerry Brown set in redevelopment-area-wide affordability requirements
<br /> motion the elimination of redevelopment agencies were the only policies tying affordablE homes to new
<br /> statewide. With their disappearance came not just market-rate development within the local jurisdiction.37
<br /> the loss of approximately $1 billion in local funds Their loss therefore leaves a big hole in the state's
<br /> supporting affordable housing, but also the loss of patchwork of inclusive housing policies, especially in
<br /> inclusionary requirements that were tied specifically to conservative municipalities.
<br /> redevelopment areas.33 This has had a major (though
<br /> less documented) impact on the inclusionary housing Another consequence of the elimination cf redevelopment
<br /> landscape in California. agencies has been reduced funding for the administration
<br /> of citywide inclusionary policies. This is because funds
<br /> Under state law, redevelopment agencies were required raised by redevelopment agencies through tax increment
<br /> to ensure that 15 percent of all new homes in redevel- financing and other mechanisms providei at least partial
<br /> opment areas were affordable to low- and moderate- support to many inclusionary housing administrative staff.38
<br /> income households. While jurisdictions were given a The city of Fremont,for example,has had tp lay off its entire
<br /> choice of how to achieve this threshold,many mandated housing staff, severely impacting the mE nagement of its
<br /> inclusionary housing in their redevelopment areas and/ inclusionary housing policy. In other cities, staff formerly
<br /> or required affordability from private developments responsible for managing just the local inclusionary program
<br /> seeking redevelopment assistance. have now had to take on successor agency responsibilities
<br /> as well,because these agencies are not allowed to allocate
<br /> State law is unclear on whether the 15-percent, area- tax increment funds for their own adminis_ration.39
<br /> wide affordability requirements remain in effect.34 As
<br /> a result, many jurisdictions are backing away from the Reduced staffing for inclusionary programs decreases not
<br /> inclusionary requirements they used to meet this stan- just the ability of a town or city to work closely with developers
<br /> dard, according to advocates.35 Furthermore, the State to help them meet inclusionary requirements,but also staff's
<br /> Department of Finance has taken the position that ability to monitor inclusionary properties over time to ensure
<br /> these requirements no longer apply. It is also up to the that they continue to be offered at affordable prices. In the
<br /> successor agencies that are winding down ongoing debt past, such limited oversight has led to jurisdictions losing a
<br /> repayment and other contractual obligations for the significant portion of their inclusionary rousing stock, on
<br /> redevelopment agencies to decide whether to enforce account of illegal sales or even foreclosures.40
<br /> z j �' 7 Fafirbanks Ridge Is a 13 building,204-unit ,, r.1 ., , ,
<br /> %: : ",' - affordable rental development integrated pt, �t�f
<br /> ,• ? t
<br /> into a larger master-planned community ,,''` .,E
<br /> in San Diego.It serves households earning
<br /> ash�c
<br /> , .k,` ' R up to 60 percent of median income.
<br /> vt: , t .?,.,. '- 41,', ,,: w , ..-'m-, ,,,,- ,;J --
<br /> . .$.,1' , V sfieg
<br /> j [[
<br /> f , ,..0,--- As. i FR
<br /> 4 tit 1 i c°^,
<br /> a3 � <. 3
<br /> II
<br /> I
<br /> KT _4 - — .; ' ' 40' 1111 o
<br /> 7
<br />
|