Land use: housing element: regional housing need: noncompliant cities and counties: penalty.
If enacted, AB1350 will directly impact local government statutes relating to land use and housing. Specifically, municipalities that do not meet at least one-third of their allotted housing needs will face financial penalties, limiting their ability to collect certain fees related to building projects. This seal on financial consequences is intended to encourage local jurisdictions to prioritize housing projects that serve lower-income populations, effectively shifting some responsibility for housing shortfalls from the state to local entities. Additionally, the bill mandates that noncompliant local governments stop imposing development fees that exceed 20% of the fees for market-rate projects.
Assembly Bill 1350, introduced by Assembly Member Friedman, focuses on updating housing elements within California's regional planning framework. The bill aims to address the housing crisis by imposing stricter compliance measures on cities and counties that fail to meet their regional housing needs for low-income and very low-income housing. It establishes penalties for noncompliant entities, including the requirement to pay a fine that is deposited into a newly created Regional Housing Needs Assessment Compliance Fund, which is designated for grants to compliant municipalities. The bill becomes effective on January 1, 2021, aiming to enforce accountability in housing development.
The sentiment surrounding AB1350 is mixed. Supporters view it as a crucial step to alleviate the statewide affordable housing crisis, commending its commitment to enhancing access to housing for low-income residents. These proponents argue that by holding local governments accountable, the bill would foster more equitable housing development. Conversely, critics express concern over potential overreach, arguing that imposing penalties on local governments could unintentionally exacerbate existing tensions regarding land use regulation. They highlight the challenges many municipalities face in meeting their housing targets, suggesting that the punitive measures may harm local governance and community engagement.
The bill's core contention arises from its enforcement mechanism: the penalties imposed on noncompliant cities and counties. While the goal of increasing low-income housing availability is widely recognized as necessary, critics argue that penalties without adequate support may not effectively address the deep-rooted factors contributing to housing issues. Additionally, concerns regarding the feasibility of compliance, particularly in regions with limited resources or ongoing housing debates, are echoed among opponents. This aspect of the bill raises significant discussions around balancing state authority and local autonomy in the realm of housing policy.