Latest news with #SB336
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Miami Herald
To keep the middle class in California, should developers build homes to rent? Or own?
When you imagine a renter of affordable housing, Christopher McCormick is probably not who comes to mind. The 38-year-old software developer was on his way to work in early 2020 when he passed an affordable apartment building under construction in Emeryville, California. He was surprised to find that his annual income - $79,400 - qualified him for a below-market-rate one-bedroom unit. The rent was just $2,100 a month - nearly $600 less than similar market-rate apartments. He entered the lottery and, a few months later, moved in. McCormick's moderate-income apartment is part of California's effort to keep its middle class from moving away. The state has a goal to build 2.6 million new units by 2032 to meet demand and keep costs from further ballooning. Of those, 420,800 are meant to be affordable to moderate-income households, who make between 80% and 120% of the area median income - for a family of four, between $125,050 and $191,750 in Alameda County, and $159,550 and $234,250 in Santa Clara County. For the most part, the market doesn't build this kind of housing - which is why the state and local governments provide incentives to developers, such as allowing more density or less parking if they include below-market-rate units. Middle-income housing doesn't qualify for the same property tax exemptions that low-income housing does. Still, five years into its plan, developers in California have built only 22,316 moderate-income units. With high interest rates and rents not growing as some predicted, they say they need more incentives for this type of housing to pencil out financially. But there's disagreement on where government should intervene: Should it encourage more middle-income homes for people to rent, or to own? The answer, most housing experts would agree, is both. California needs more of all types of housing to climb its way out of its deep affordability crisis. Developers tend to favor building rental housing in high-cost areas because it offers steadier cash flow, lower legal risk, and stronger demand from renters who can't afford to buy. Moderate-income housing policy has followed this status quo, largely focusing on renters. Still, even generating support for rental housing incentives has proved an uphill battle. Two bills this legislative session sought to offer tax breaks for middle-income housing. The first, SB 336 from San Francisco Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener, would have extended a property tax exemption to buildings with units set aside for such renters - a benefit currently reserved for developers serving lower-income renters. On the for-sale side, AB 595, proposed by Democratic Assemblyman Juan Carrillo of Palmdale, would have created a new tax credit for home builders constructing income-restricted homes. Both bills died. As California faces a $12 billion budget shortfall, legislators balked at most measures that might drain city or state coffers. But the ideas aren't going away. A version of SB 336 has appeared before the Legislature almost every year since 2019. Many of its backers say it's the kind of structural fix that will help build moderate-income housing at scale. One of the major backers, unsurprisingly, is a Bay Area developer - Enrique Landa. His company, Associate Capital, is leading a major redevelopment of the 29-acre Potrero Power Station along San Francisco's waterfront, which will include 2,600 new homes - a third of them at below-market rents. The first building is set to open this fall, with all 105 apartments reserved for moderate-income renters. "We were only able to do this because we had a larger project that was able to cross-subsidize this effort," Landa said at a Senate hearing in May. "This wasn't a replicable path - but with this legislation, it could be." But there's a question of whether moderate-income housing offers enough of a discount to justify a major tax exemption. A recent Bay Area News Group investigation found that outside of extremely high-cost areas, such as San Mateo County and San Francisco, moderate-income units don't always provide a meaningful discount to market rates. Notably, 7% of the moderate-income housing units built in recent years around the Bay Area are vacant - double the vacancy for units targeted at renters making below 80% of the area median income. Rich Wallach, an affordable housing developer with Burbank Housing in Santa Rosa, said it's critical that any policy that would subsidize moderate-income housing include a provision that rents provide a significant discount. "The trick to not having vacant units sit is to undercut the market - not be at market," Wallach said. But other housing activists suspect there's something else at play that explains the somewhat higher vacancy at moderate-income units: an exodus to lower-cost regions. "Moderate-income families may reach a point in struggling with housing affordability where they just decide to leave the region," said Adam Briones, CEO of California Community Builders, which advocates for access to homeownership. "These are people who want to buy a home, and they absolutely cannot do it in the Bay Area." That's eventually what happened for McCormick, the Emeryville renter. "I was giving someone else money without building equity myself," McCormick said. When he looked into below-market-rate for-sale housing, he found a few options in Emeryville - most were condos, and with the homeowners association fee tacked onto a monthly mortgage payment, plus property taxes, he would have had to pay around $3,200 a month. It was more than he felt he could comfortably afford. So McCormick bought a house in the suburbs - of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. For his $310,000, five-bedroom house, he pays a monthly mortgage of $2,800. Briones sees stories like McCormick's as evidence the state needs to do more to help people buy - not just rent. "For a rental, the landlord retains the economic benefit," Briones said. "If we subsidize units for a homeowner, that helps to create generational wealth for a moderate-income household." Rental housing has been the focus of most federal subsidies since at least 1961, when the federal government created the Below Market Interest Rate Program to provide low-interest loans for multifamily rental developers in exchange for affordability restrictions. The focus was further entrenched when former President Ronald Reagan created the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit in 1986, which provided tax incentives to private developers building affordable housing. The program is still the primary tool for financing new affordable housing throughout the country. But before that, policymakers were thinking of ways to subsidize for-sale product. In 1955, New York passed the Mitchell-Lama program, which allowed for the creation of limited-profit housing companies. These companies could get low-interest-rate financing to cover up to 95% of a project's cost, plus major property tax breaks, which allowed developers to build housing middle-income New Yorkers could afford. In return for the incentives, developers were limited to a 6% profit on dividends (later increased to 7% in 1969.) The program produced over 130,000 units in New York City alone-half of them for-sale. Today, it'd be unimaginable for developers to envision a mere 6% return. In 2023, homebuilders reported an average gross profit margin of 20.7% in 2023, according to the National Association of Homebuilders. Alex Schafran, a housing policy researcher, said there are benefits to both renting and owning - but that right now the Bay Area's middle-income households are relegated to the rental market, because home-buying is only possible for the highest earners. "But everyone should have a real choice," he said. "Regardless of income." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Fox News
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Texas legislation could weaken protections against frivolous lawsuits, warn free speech advocates
Free speech advocates in Texas are warning about new bills being considered in the state that they say would weaken protections for ordinary citizens and journalists against intimidating lawsuits. Lawsuits launched by powerful and deep-pocketed interests for the purpose of silencing and effectively harassing people exercising free speech rights are known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press describes SLAPPs as being filed "for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings." The 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) was passed as a way to empower defendants against such suits, advocates say, but now they say it's under attack in a threat to free speech across the political spectrum. The current law allows defendants who feel they are the victims of unfair SLAPP lawsuits to move to quickly dismiss them and be awarded attorneys' fees if successful. HB 2988, which is set to proceed to a hearing on Wednesday in the state's House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee, is being criticized as a way to gut the TCPA. "Any time someone exposes an uncomfortable truth or an opposing view, they can easily be a SLAPP victim, and these laws are the only things that give them power against the bullies in the courtroom," First Amendment attorney Laura Prather told Fox News Digital. "It's a form of judicial harassment, where you're really just trying to lock somebody up in a lengthy legal battle because they expressed an opinion that you didn't like or they exposed wrongdoing that you didn't like," she added. In journalism, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to protect journalists from being besieged by defamation or other lawsuits as a means of intimidation, given the expense and difficulty involved in being wrapped up in lengthy court proceedings. Under the TCPA, a speaker who had been sued in a SLAPP case that was dismissed would receive attorney's fees and costs, and the law also allowed the court to award sanctions against the plaintiff. However, HB 2988 would make the awarding of attorney's fees discretionary instead of mandatory, and potentially put a defendant on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees at a judge's discretion. The TCPA also includes an automatic stay of discovery, meaning defendants using its protections can avoid the arduous and intrusive process of exchanging information, documents and other materials before a trial. SB 336, which has an identical companion bill in the House, HB 2459, would repeal that provision that stays discovery and trial in a SLAPP case "until such time that an appeals court has ruled, if asked to do so, on an anti-SLAPP motion," according to an article in the Institute for Free Speech. "If this bill passes, anyone targeted by a SLAPP lawsuit in Texas will have to battle in trial court and appeal court simultaneously," conservative commentator Ben Ferguson wrote about SB 336 in Human Events. "That's not just a procedural change—it's a death sentence for small media outlets, grassroots conservatives, and people like me who rely on that protection to survive the legal attacks hurled our way." "The TCPA protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to on-line reviewers," James Bopp, general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote last week. "Weakening the TCPA would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas." Supporters of the proposals say the anti-SLAPP law can be used mischievously to gum up court proceedings and delay litigation on matters unrelated to free speech. The Texas Tribune reported on one example involving a contractor who filed an anti-SLAPP motion to halt a case brought by a developer over an apartment construction project. The contractor froze the case a month before trial even though the motion was eventually ruled to be frivolous, and the developer's lawyer said the delay cost his client millions. "This is a perfect example where a shield has become an abusive sword," Republican State Rep. Jeff Leach said during a hearing on similar legislation to reform the TCPA in 2023. Republican State Rep. Mano DeAyala, who is sponsoring HB 2988, told Fox News Digital on Monday that he brought the bill forward in an effort to keep the law from being abused by bad-faith actors who were "cluttering up" the courts with flimsy SLAPP motions. "I love the TCPA," he said. "I think it's a wonderful, wonderful procedural step … But there's no disincentive for filing the motion because there's no consequence for a bad motion. So until you find the consequence for a bad motion, you're going to still see it abused. This was my effort in trying to fix this to stop the abuses." DeAyala has accused critics of misrepresenting his bill's goals, responding to one on X that he's specifically trying to protect the TCPA. "The TCPA as intended is alive and well and especially the scenario in your post," he wrote last week to someone saying his bill would kill the TCPA. "The bill does not change that. It simply provides some protection to the little guy from the bullies who misuse and abuse the TCPA." Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes, the sponsor of SB 336, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Advocates for the TCPA say the protections therein cut across the political spectrum; a liberal journalist or activist organization would benefit just as much as a conservative one from being able to speak out with less fear of reprisal. They also reject the notion that the reform bills being considered would clean up court overcrowding, saying it could have the reverse effect. "They may not sue you to begin with," Prather told Fox News Digital, giving examples like restaurants suing patrons for bad online reviews. "It serves as a deterrent against those bullies that want to use the courtroom to silence you. It's a huge deterrent, and that's really important."
Fox News
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Texas legislation reforming anti-SLAPP law concerns free speech advocates
Free speech advocates in Texas are warning about new bills being considered in the state that they say would weaken protections for ordinary citizens and journalists against intimidating lawsuits. Lawsuits launched by powerful and deep-pocketed interests for the purpose of silencing and effectively harassing people exercising free speech rights are known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press describes SLAPPs as being filed "for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings." The 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act was passed as a way to empower defendants against such suits, advocates say, but now they say it's under attack in a threat to free speech across the political spectrum. The current law affords defendants who feel they are the victims of unfair SLAPP lawsuits to move to quickly dismiss them and be awarded attorneys' fees if successful. HB 2988, which is set to proceed to a hearing on Wednesday in the state's House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee, is being criticized as a way to gut the TCPA. "Any time someone exposes an uncomfortable truth or an opposing view, they can easily be a SLAPP victim, and these laws are the only things that give them power against the bullies in the courtroom," First Amendment attorney Laura Prather told Fox News Digital. "It's a form of judicial harassment, where you're really just trying to lock somebody up in a lengthy legal battle because they expressed an opinion that you didn't like or they exposed wrongdoing that you didn't like," she added. In journalism, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to protect journalists from being besieged by defamation or other lawsuits as a means of intimidation, given the expense and difficulty involved in being wrapped up in lengthy court proceedings. Under the TCPA, a speaker who had been sued in a SLAPP case that was dismissed would receive attorney's fees and costs, and the law also allowed the court to award sanctions against the plaintiff. However, HB 2988 would make the awarding of attorney's fees discretionary instead of mandatory, and potentially put a defendant on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees at a judge's discretion. The TCPA also includes an automatic stay of discovery, meaning defendants using its protections can avoid the arduous and intrusive process of exchanging information, documents and other materials before a trial. SB 336, which has an identical companion bill in the House, HB 2459, would repeal that provision that stays discovery and trial in a SLAPP case "until such time that an appeals court has ruled, if asked to do so, on an anti-SLAPP motion," according to an article in the Institute for Free Speech. "If this bill passes, anyone targeted by a SLAPP lawsuit in Texas will have to battle in trial court and appeal court simultaneously," conservative commentator Ben Ferguson wrote about SB 336 in Human Events. "That's not just a procedural change—it's a death sentence for small media outlets, grassroots conservatives, and people like me who rely on that protection to survive the legal attacks hurled our way." "The TCPA protects Texans across the ideological spectrum, from grassroots activists to government watchdogs to on-line reviewers," James Bopp, general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, wrote last week. "Weakening the TCPA would embolden litigious corporations, political operatives, and deep-pocketed individuals to use the courts as a cudgel against their opponents. The impact would be devastating not just for those sued, but for the fundamental principles of free speech and open debate in Texas." Supporters of the proposals say the anti-SLAPP law can be used mischievously to gum up court proceedings and delay litigation on matters unrelated to free speech. The Texas Tribune reported on one example involving a contractor who filed an anti-SLAPP motion to halt a case brought by a developer over an apartment construction project. The contractor froze the case a month before trial even though the motion was eventually ruled to be frivolous, and the developer's lawyer said the delay cost his client millions. "This is a perfect example where a shield has become an abusive sword," Republican State Rep. Jeff Leach said during a hearing on similar legislation to reform the TCPA in 2023. Fox News Digital reached out to Republican Texas State Sen. Bryan Hughes and Republican State Rep. Mano DeAyala, the respective sponsors of SB 336 and HB 2988, for comment. DeAyala has accused critics of misrepresenting his bill's goals, responding to one that he's specifically trying to protect the TCPA. "The TCPA as intended is alive and well and especially the scenario in your post," he wrote last week to someone saying his bill would kill the TCPA. "The bill does not change that. It simply provides some protection to the little guy from the bullies who misuse and abuse the TCPA." In another post in February, he said the TCPA had good intentions, but he was trying to keep bad-faith actors from manipulating it. Advocates for the TCPA say the protections therein cut across the political spectrum; a liberal journalist or activist organization would benefit just as much as a conservative one from being able to speak out with less fear of reprisal. They also reject the notion that the reform bills being considered would clean up court overcrowding, saying it could have the reverse effect. "They may not sue you to begin with," Prather told Fox News Digital, giving examples like restaurants suing patrons for bad online reviews. "It serves as a deterrent against those bullies that want to use the courtroom to silence you. It's a huge deterrent, and that's really important."
Axios
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Hill Highlights: Utah lawmakers seek fix after voided amendment question
There's one more week left in Utah's legislative session and lawmakers don't want a repeat of last year's constitutional amendment snafu. State of play: HB 563, sponsored by House Speaker Mike Schultz, would make legislative attorneys responsible for drafting proposed constitutional amendments that legislators plan to submit to voters. Currently, the senate president and the house speaker oversee those duties. Yes, but: Under the bill, the attorneys would perform the tasks "as counsel for the presiding officers," meaning legislative leaders will get to keep some say in the language. Catch up quick: Judge Dianne Gibson voided Constitutional Amendment D last September, which sought to allow lawmakers to alter or repeal voter-led initiatives, ruling the ballot language written by the legislature contained "glaring" omissions. "While the legislature has every right to request the amendment," she wrote, "it has the duty and obligation to accurately communicate the 'subject matter' of the proposed amendment to voters." What we're watching: SB 336, sponsored by Sen. Scott Sandall (R-Tremonton), would open the door for building more sports venues in the Fairpark Area Investment and Restoration District, the site of a planned MLB stadium, per Building Salt Lake. The new proposal has been assigned to the Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee. 💬 Hill Highlights is a weekly feature to recap what's going on during Utah's legislative session.
