Surplus state real property: affordable housing and housing for formerly incarcerated individuals.
By prioritizing local agencies and nonprofit sponsors for purchasing surplus state real property, SB 240 encourages the development of affordable housing at reduced costs. The change is significant as it allows these agencies to acquire land for housing projects geared towards low- and moderate-income families, as well as housing solutions for those recently released from incarceration. Additionally, the bill exempts such developments from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, which traditionally impose time-consuming and costly review processes intended to evaluate environmental impacts, thus expediting the establishment of these housing projects.
Senate Bill 240, authored by Senator Ochoa Bogh, aims to amend Section 11011.1 of the Government Code concerning the disposal of surplus state real property. The bill facilitates the process whereby state-owned surplus properties may be sold or leased to local agencies and nonprofit housing sponsors at less than fair market value, particularly aimed at creating affordable housing and providing housing for formerly incarcerated individuals. The intent behind this measure is to alleviate the housing crisis in California by promoting the development of affordable housing projects through streamlined access to surplus properties.
The sentiment surrounding SB 240 is largely supportive among housing advocates who view it as a crucial step in addressing the ongoing housing affordability crisis in California. Advocates believe that providing housing options for vulnerable populations, such as the formerly incarcerated, is not just a moral imperative but also a means of reducing recidivism and enhancing community stability. However, concerns have been raised by some regarding the potential long-term use and stewardship of the properties once sold, specifically ensuring that they remain affordable and serve the intended populations.
Noteworthy points of contention include the exemption from CEQA, which some critics argue may lead to unregulated developments that could overlook important environmental assessments. There is also concern regarding the sustainability of the affordability of these housing projects in the long run, particularly whether developers will adhere to affordability covenants and restrictions for the mandated 40-year period. The reliance on local governments and nonprofits to fulfill the housing needs of the community also raises questions about the capacity and resources of these agencies to effectively manage and develop these properties.