Public housing: unrestricted multifamily housing.
The legislation impacts state laws related to housing by establishing uniform regulations for public acquisitions of multifamily properties. This legislation reflects a statewide concern regarding housing affordability, asserting that such regulations apply universally across all cities, including charter cities. The bill aims to prevent local entities from acquiring unrestricted multifamily housing unless they adhere to investors' standards, thereby addressing concerns about housing safety and affordability.
Assembly Bill 1850, introduced by Assembly Member Ward, aims to regulate the acquisition of unrestricted multifamily housing by public entities in California. The bill stipulates that no city, county, or other local governmental body can acquire such housing unless certain criteria are met. These include ensuring that the required rent for all units post-conversion is at least 10% lower than the average rent for the prior year and 20% lower than the fair market rent for at least half the units. Additionally, the units must be affordable and occupied by low- or moderate-income families for a term of 55 years, subject to a regulatory agreement with a public entity.
Sentiment surrounding AB 1850 appears to be cautiously supportive among advocates for affordable housing, who see the bill as beneficial for increasing protections for low- and moderate-income families. However, there are concerns among some local government officials and real estate developers who argue that it may complicate or hinder the ability of local jurisdictions to manage their housing markets effectively. Overall, the bill reflects a tension between state-level uniformity in housing standards and local control over housing policy.
Notable points of contention include the bill's restrictions, which critics argue could limit local flexibility in addressing unique housing needs. The specified requirements for public entities could also lead to an increased burden on local governments tasked with determining compliance with regulatory agreements and monitoring the affordability of units in the future. These issues contributed to the bill failing passage in committee despite a majority of votes, indicating a complex debate over the balance of state oversight and local autonomy in housing policy.