[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: anzu.png (1.23 MB, 1280x720)
1.23 MB
1.23 MB PNG
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-housing-money-budget-20190110-story.html
>>
For 50 years, California has required cities and counties to plan for enough new housing so that residents can live affordably. But many local governments fail to approve new development, contributing to the state’s housing crunch. Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing a radical new step: punishing communities that block homebuilding by withholding state tax dollars.

Newsom unveiled his proposal Thursday at his state budget presentation, which also included more than $2 billion in new funding for housing and homelessness initiatives. The governor said his aggressive approach speaks to the depth of the state’s problems, which have forced millions of Californians to pay more than half their income on rent, pushed home prices to new highs and added thousands to the homeless population.

“This is a new day and we have to have new expectations, new requirements,” Newsom said, noting that California’s highest-in-the-nation poverty rate is largely driven by escalating housing costs.

The governor’s proposed spending would pay for emergency homeless shelters, subsidize new development for low- and middle-income residents and provide grants to cities and counties to spur more homebuilding, among other ideas. Newsom said he has spoken with Silicon Valley tech leaders, whose industry has fueled strong job growth in the state, about contributing an additional $500 million to support his administration’s affordable housing efforts.
>>
Newsom pledged to revamp housing supply goals set by the state, which require cities and counties to plan every eight years for enough new development to accommodate projected population growth. A 2017 Times investigation showed that although state law requires local governments to plan for housing, it does not hold them accountable for resulting homebuilding.

On the campaign trail, Newsom called for 3.5 million new homes to be built in the state over seven years, which would more than quadruple current production levels. The governor said his administration would develop new homebuilding targets for every region and, for the first time, hold local governments to meeting those goals with financial penalties.

State transportation revenue would be withheld from cities and counties that did not perform, he said.

“If you’re not hitting your goals, I don’t know why you get the money,” Newsom said.

Housing advocates praised Newsom’s plans, calling them a departure from former Gov. Jerry Brown, who rarely pushed for big-ticket housing policies and cut low-income housing funding during the depths of the state budget crisis.
>>
>>337930

The proper procedure for /news/ is for the OP to quote the entire article or at least relevant portions, so his readers know WTF he's going on about.

Do NOT just shit out a link to who the fucks knows what and expect your readers to do the leg work.

Mod/janitors, this shit needs to be addressed.
>>
“This is exactly the kind of bold visionary leadership on housing issues that the state needs and frankly we have lacked for the last eight years,” said Matt Schwartz, president and chief executive of California Housing Partnership, a nonprofit advocate for low-income housing. “The proposals won’t fix the system overnight. But they’re smart and strategic.”

Newsom’s plan to enforce homebuilding goals in cities and counties with financial penalties would mark an incursion by the state into how housing is approved at the local level. The governor is sure to face broad pushback on the idea, which is already raising concerns from transportation advocates.

In his budget news conference, Newsom proposed withholding revenue generated from Senate Bill 1, 2017 legislation that increased the state’s gasoline taxes to pay for road repairs and transit improvements. When pressed, Newsom said state transportation dollars overall, and not necessarily gas tax money, would be held back from local governments.

Newsom’s comments prompted opposition from all sides of the gas tax effort. Those behind the tax increase, such as the League of California Cities and Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose), who authored the legislation, said the plan would go against the will of the voters. And some who were against the gas tax increase were similarly critical. GOP Senate leader Patricia Bates of Laguna Niguel called withholding transportation funds from communities “a bait-and-switch.”
>>
Many reasons why homebuilding is slow across the state are outside local government control, including the ability for developers to get financing and the costs of labor and construction materials. It will be difficult for Newsom to develop a system of financial incentives and penalties for cities and counties that takes into account all these factors.

For instance, city and county restrictions on homebuilding are more consequential in the Bay Area — which has seen 750,000 new jobs added but just 167,000 new homes built over the last eight years, according to construction industry statistics — than in parts of the state where there’s been less economic development, said David Garcia, policy director at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

“In the Central Valley, most, if not all, of their cities are not meeting their [housing production] goals,” Garcia said. “It has nothing to do with them being exclusionary or not welcoming housing and everything to do with market forces and the lack of money to fund affordable housing.”

Garcia believes it is necessary for Newsom to try to break down local resistance to new development, but he said it will be hard to determine which cities and counties should forfeit funding.
>>
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he was overjoyed when he received a briefing on Newsom’s plans Wednesday night. Last year, Garcetti and other big-city mayors mounted a campaign to persuade Brown to support new homelessness funding; Newsom addressed the issue immediately.

“In the past, it’s felt like pulling teeth,” Garcetti said. “This time, it’s what a partnership feels like.”

Garcetti also said he was not worried that Los Angeles would face penalties for not approving enough housing. The city is currently behind on meeting existing targets for low-income housing production, and Newsom’s new goals almost certainly will result in significantly higher numbers overall for Los Angeles and other urban areas. But Garcetti said he could not imagine a new target that would be too ambitious for the city to meet.

“I don’t think they will be unrealistic,” he said. “I think they will be stretch goals, and we will have stretch goals whether the state gives them to us or not.”

Newsom’s proposed new spending on housing totals $2.3 billion. That includes $1.3 billion for cities and counties in financial incentives to permit and plan for new homes and support local homeless housing efforts. The remaining $1 billion is split between loans for developers who build homes for moderate-income families and tax credits to subsidize low- and moderate-income housing construction.
>>
>>337934
>The proper procedure for /news/ is for the OP to quote the entire article or at least relevant portions, so his readers know WTF he's going on about.
>Do NOT just shit out a link to who the fucks knows what and expect your readers to do the leg work.
>Mod/janitors, this shit needs to be addressed.
Yeah, thanks for breaking up the flow of that with your post. All you had to do was refresh the page in a minute instead of immediately auditioning for the job of hot pocket taste-tester.
>>
Unless there's a paywall up, posting the whole article into threads is and will always be retarded.
>>
>>337949
Some people don't want to give the clicks and shit, which I get. What I don't get is why someone would be so desperate to do it for free that they couldn't wait literally no more than a minute before sperging out. All he wound up doing was make reading the article more annoying for the people he's trying to advocate for because now they have to skip his brown nosing to keep reading.
>>
>>337951
If it's worth the five minutes of your time it takes to read the article they've earned the two cents or fucking whatever your visiting their site pays them.

Never understood even fucking once why people are so against visiting websites unless it's an actual honeypot.
>>
>>337952
I think most do it for political reasons. I find it understandable cause personally I would never give sites like Breitbart or Salon traffic since a lot of their "news" is actually more akin to opinion, or the article title is misleading.
>>
>>337934
>>337943
IMO, I prefer hen the poster only post the most important parts of the article. I don't like much the wall of text formula.
>>
>>337952
Look up the word "boycott" it's very similar in theory
>>
>>337934
>and here it is folks, this morning's contender for the 'most useless post' award! Give him a hand!
>>
>>337934
Most retarded post of the thread

>>338013
A challenger appears!
>>
>>338053
CA ranks among the highest in per capita household income too.
There are homeless people in CA because it has among the highest costs of living of any state, because lots of people, rich people, want to live in California. Blue states tend to sensibly structure health insurance and food safety nets so that poor people don't have to live like invalids.

CA is also a net contributor to the federal budget. Red states complain about CA while simultaneously accepting funding from wealth produced in CA.
Blue states are engines of high tech industry. Robotics, biotech, pharma, AI, software. Why do companies want to be in CA, MA, and blue America in general? Because people want to live there. Investing in infrastructure, public transportation, education, EPA, social safetynets, produces better social outcomes, and makes for communities that people want to live in.
When Amazon chooses HQ2, it doesn't give a shit about lowest tax rate. It goes to a place people want to be.

>Most welfare
oh no Americans have sensibly structured health insurance and food safety net whatever will happen to our country
>>
>>338053
you can say that with a straight face while schools aren't opening in red states because there's not enough money for pencils
>>
>>338053
Highest trade thoroughfare
Highest tax revenue
Center of tech development
Home to the multibillion dollar film industry

Also how is most welfare a bad thing
>>
>>338063
>There are homeless people in CA because it has among the highest costs of living of any state
Directly attributable to Democratic policies for 50 years
>CA is also a net contributor to the federal budget.
To bad it makes a larger portion of the population destitute than any other state
>>
>>338053
Look at the butthurt Republican, look at him and laugh at whatever inferior state he comes from.
https://www.kcra.com/article/california-governor-gavin-newsom-offers-144b-budget-sees-big-surplus/25843833
>>
>>337930
Unironically a good idea. Local development regulations are killing housing affordability
>>
>>338063
>>338065
>>338067
>>338094
He got you good eh? Truth hurts eh?
>>
>>338013
Blablablablabla
>>
>>338013
>Would be wise to have a convention of states and kick that spic infested land of sodomites out.
pls do. we'll take our 5th largest economy and stop giving gibs to the red states
>>
>>339040
No, it's a fucking bad idea dude.
We'd be subject to US foreign policy.
>>
>>339044
lol, that and the US congress and president would probably be red indefinitely. but that sweet 12% of US GDP and possibly more by routing chinese trade through california would be pretty sweet to have free reign on. overall probably a bad idea
>>
>>339040
>>339044
>>339048
If you need a reason why California secession is a terrible idea. It's because it's back and mainly pushed by the Russians. In fact, some of the people pushing for the campaign, have ties to Russia. Just like the people who lead Brexit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-calexit-back-again-20180424-htmlstory.html
>>
>>339059
not surprised, i had thought about that possibility a while back but had totally forgotten about it. its hard to remember that american strength is important to keep russia in check, and that russia is the real enemy, when faced with the gerrymandering and election fraud of the republicans
>>
>>339060
Because of Trump, the Republican party is a puppet of Putin now so you might as well considered the R to stand for Russia.
>>
Went homeless for a few days because every resident got hung up on some part of my application which lead to the homes being occupied or not being approved until after my lease was up. Housing in California is a joke. Im lucky to find a one bedroom for under 1k a month and I don't even live in San Fran or LA
>>
>>339059
>muh vodkaniggers

Maybe some Californians just hate leftists and spic subhumans?

I know I do, I live in Florida and these mongrel parasites are everywhere.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.