Unlawfully restrictive covenants: affordable housing.
The bill amends Section 714.6 of the Civil Code to grant county recorders the responsibility to notify property owners promptly when a modification document concerning restrictive covenants is submitted. This streamlining could lead to a reduction in delays for housing projects and assist in meeting the growing demand for affordable housing in communities that are currently facing significant housing shortages. Additionally, it establishes a legal framework that allows property owners to communicate modifications to interested parties through certified mail notifications.
Assembly Bill No. 911, introduced by Assemblymember Schiavo, addresses the issue of unlawfully restrictive covenants that may hinder the development and establishment of affordable housing projects in California. The bill clarifies existing laws that allow property owners to modify or remove restrictive covenant language that limits the number of residents or the type of housing that can be developed. The intent is to make it easier for owners of affordable housing developments to establish that certain restrictions are unenforceable, thereby facilitating the increase of affordable housing options in the state.
The sentiment surrounding AB 911 seems to be generally positive, particularly among housing advocates and legislators who see it as a necessary step to combat housing crises. However, as with many housing-related legislative measures, there may be concerns from property rights advocates or owners of existing developments regarding the implications of modifying or removing covenant restrictions. This bill highlights the intricate balance lawmakers must navigate between fostering development and respecting existing property rights.
While the primary aim of the bill is to enhance affordable housing development, it also places new obligations on county officials. This aspect has raised questions about whether such additional responsibilities will strain local resources or result in further bureaucratic bottlenecks. Critics may be worried about the potential for disputes arising from modifications and the timeline for challenging recorded modifications as stipulated by the bill. Overall, the contention lies in how effectively the bill can promote affordable housing while balancing the interests of various stakeholders.