The implications of AB 36 suggest an intention to streamline housing development processes in California, especially for smaller municipalities. By allowing jurisdictions with fewer than 25,000 inhabitants, or counties with populations under 200,000, to qualify for prohousing status without frequent renewals, it aims to encourage local authorities to implement housing policies without fear of immediate revocation or stringent oversight. The changes aim to foster a more favorable regulatory environment for affordable housing development and to better align with the specific needs of varied urban and rural zones across the state.
Summary
Assembly Bill 36, as introduced by Assembly Member Soria, amends Section 65589.9 of the Government Code to tweak the prohousing designation process for cities and counties. This legislation mandates the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to adopt permanent regulations for designating jurisdictions as prohousing, replacing existing emergency regulations. Starting with the seventh housing element cycle, small rural jurisdictions can request assessments regarding their housing element submissions to determine prohousing qualifications, provided they meet compliance requirements. Importantly, these jurisdictions will not be required to renew their prohousing designation for at least four years, promoting stability in housing policy for smaller communities while maintaining compliance with state requirements.
Sentiment
Sentiment regarding AB 36 appears to be mixed. Proponents view the bill as a necessary step toward enhancing local control over housing regulations and fueling partnerships between state and local governments to tackle housing shortages. Contrarily, some critics express concerns that such a bill may inadvertently create loopholes for jurisdictions to neglect housing responsibilities if they misuse the flexibility afforded to them. The discourse highlights the ongoing struggle between local governance autonomy and the overarching need for statewide housing solutions.
Contention
AB 36 intertwines with ongoing discussions about local versus state roles in housing policies. A notable point of contention lies in balancing the need for housing accessibility while ensuring that smaller jurisdictions genuinely engage in progressive housing policies. The bill’s amendments to strengthen the evaluation and designation process for prohousing jurisdictions could potentially have profound effects on housing availability and community development, thus sparking debates among stakeholders about the effectiveness of state oversight and local autonomy.