Property tax: welfare exemption: affordable housing.
If enacted, AB84 will significantly alter the landscape of property tax exemptions in California. By allowing properties financed by 501(c)(3) bonds to qualify for partial exemptions, the bill is poised to incentivize investments in affordable rental housing. The bill clarifies criteria under which properties can maintain their exemption status even if the occupants' incomes increase, provided they remain below certain thresholds. This provision is expected to help retain affordable housing availability amidst rising living costs, thus mitigating displacement risks for lower-income residents.
Assembly Bill No. 84, titled 'Property tax: welfare exemption: affordable housing', aims to amend Sections 214 and 259.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to enhance tax exemptions for properties serving lower-income households. The bill expands the existing partial exemption available for properties used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes owned by nonprofits to include those financed by qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. This change aims to encourage the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing, making it easier for nonprofit entities to provide housing for low-income families.
The general sentiment surrounding AB84 appears positive, especially among advocates for affordable housing and nonprofit organizations. Proponents support the bill as a necessary step to alleviate California's housing crisis by facilitating nonprofit activity in the housing sector. However, there could be concerns regarding the critical balance between public access to information and the need to protect sensitive personal and financial information related to the welfare exemption claims, as the bill mandates confidentiality of certain affidavits.
One notable point of contention with AB84 is its potential implications for public access to information. The bill includes findings made to comply with constitutional provisions regarding public access, indicating that some limitations will exist in order to protect personal financial information. This could lead to discussions around transparency versus privacy in the governmental processes related to public records and agency meetings. While supporters see this as a means of protecting individuals, critics might argue that it undermines public scrutiny of governmental transactions involving tax exemptions.