AJR4 responds to the troubling trend identified in the bill where home ownership rates in America have reached a 50-year low, with the current rate sitting at just 63.1 percent of all households. The cancellation of the mortgage fee reduction was argued to have serious implications, particularly for low-income families trying to secure their first home. The reinstatement of this fee reduction could potentially save eligible California homeowners an average of $860 a year, thus making housing more accessible and preventing economic barriers to home ownership.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4 (AJR4), authored by Cervantes, seeks to urge the President of the United States to reinstate a mortgage fee reduction that was established under the previous administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development. The resolution highlights the critical importance of home ownership as a fundamental aspect of economic security for the middle class and as a means of wealth accumulation, asserting that homeowners possess a net worth significantly greater than that of renters. It is noted that home ownership positively influences social outcomes, helping children from owning families excel academically and socially.
The sentiment around AJR4 appears supportive, particularly among those who advocate for housing equity and economic access for all Californians. There is a recognition of the adverse effects that the cancellation of the mortgage fee reduction has had on first-time home buyers, especially among millennials, who constituted a significant demographic utilizing the program. However, the resolution merely calls on federal action and does not have legislative power on its own, placing it in a symbolic position.
While AJR4 calls for the reinstatement of the previous mortgage fee reduction, it does not confront the broader issues surrounding the housing crisis directly. Some may argue that merely reinstating fees is a temporary fix and does not address larger systemic problems related to housing affordability in California. Additionally, not addressing potential funding sources for the proposed reductions leaves open questions about the feasibility of the measures outlined in the resolution.