Surplus land: former military base land.
The bill imposes strict regulations on local agencies concerning the sale or transfer of surplus land, calling for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses in developments on former military lands. It specifies that at least 25% of the newly developed residential units must be reserved for lower-income households, ensuring that the project contributes to affordable housing goals. Furthermore, penalties for non-compliance can reach 30% of the land’s final sale price, escalating to 50% for subsequent violations, thus emphasizing accountability in land disposal processes.
Assembly Bill 2319, introduced by Mia Bonta, focuses on the disposal of surplus land, particularly former military base lands conveyed by the federal government to local agencies. Under current law, surplus land must adhere to specific disposal requirements. AB 2319 seeks to expand the definition of exempt surplus land, specifically including land that meets certain conditions, including the expected development of at least 1,400 residential units that contain some degree of affordability for lower-income households.
The sentiment around AB 2319 appears largely supportive among advocates for affordable housing and sustainable land use policies. Proponents argue that the bill is an essential step towards addressing California's housing crisis and promoting equitable development in communities previously served by military installations. However, the bill may also face criticism or concern from local agencies that might perceive the mandated requirements as overly burdensome or restrictive on their ability to manage land use autonomously.
Notable points of contention include concerns among some stakeholders who believe the stringent requirements could hinder local innovation in land use development. There may be apprehension regarding how these regulations impact local economic development strategies or the specific needs of communities. Balancing the imperative for affordable housing with local agency autonomy remains a core area for discussion, as local governments strive to respond effectively to unique community needs while adhering to state mandates.