1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CRISIS

2. A Year Of Losses  Redevelopment  Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)  County of Sacramento IZ  Court Decisions Impacting Legality of IZ  Disinvestment in Homeless Programs  No PSH developments in the pipeline

3. What Is Affordable Housing?  By federal government standards, housing is considered “affordable” if households pay no more than 30% of their gross income for rent and utilities.  More than half of California’s low income households pay more than 50% for housing.  This leaves less for other necessities like food and medicine, forcing these families to make difficult choices.

4. The Impact  Who is impacted by affordable housing?  Working poor  Seniors  Persons with disabilities  People reliant on govt. assistance  Students  Homeless People

5. Post-Housing Bubble Realities  Foreclosure crisis impact on renters  Homeownership has gotten more affordable But buying is much more restrictive  Increase demand = increase cost in rental market

6. Rising Rents (April 2011-April 2012)  Nationally:  Median monthly rent = $1,417 A 3.2% increase in one year  Sacramento Metro-Area  Median monthly rent = $1,230 A 1.3% increase in one year  The housing crisis has resulted in higher rents

7. CA = $26.02 (3 nd in US)

8. Sacramento County How Much Does It Cost to Rent? Hourly wage needed to afford:  Studio Unit = $13.62  One-bedroom Unit = $15.48  Two-bedroom Unit = $18.88  Three-bedroom Unit = $27.25 *LOCKED OUT 2008- CA BUDGET PROJECT

9. Extremely Low Income ($15,000 – $22,000)  Low-wage earners  California Minimum Wage Full-time Annual Income = $16,640  Unemployment  Max weekly - $450 Annually - $23,400  Average weekly - $242 Annually - $12,584

10. Extremely Low Income ($15,000 – $22,000)  Families on govt. assistance  SSI  2010 Average benefit $1,067 x 12 months = $12,804 If under 25, $560 x 12 months = $6,720  General Assistance  $250 per month Only lasts 3 months

11. Redevelopment… Gone.  Feb. 1 st  All state-wide redevelopment agencies are shuttered  Mixed response largely due to Mermaid Bars  BUT 20% HAD TO GO TO AFFORDABLE HOUISNG 1.2 Billion Dollars… gone Crucial to building AH developments

12. Redevelopment Triage  SB 654 Steinberg / AB 1585 Perez  Attempt to keep Low and Moderate Income funds available for affordable housing  Steinberg withdraws - concerned about state budget

13. Inclusionary Zoning In Danger  County of Sacramento  Considering eliminating parts of their inclusionary zoning requirement  Court Decision  Ct ruling prevent inclusionary requirements in rental housing

14. Current County Inclusionary Policy  At least fifteen (15) percent of the development project’s units shall be units leased or sold at an affordable rent  The breakdown: low, very low, and extremely low income households  6% - Low Income (80% of AMI)  6% - Very Low Income (50% of AMI)  3% - Extremely Low-Income (30% of AMI) Groundbreaking

15. IZ Policy Under Attack  The IZ requirement of 15% is likely to be targeted for removal  There is likely no support for keeping the status quo of the BoS  The groundbreaking ELI component will be lost  No new program for ELI is being discussed

16. Current City Inclusionary Policy  City of Sacramento  Mixed-Income Housing Ordinance requires 10% of the units in a Residential Project be affordable to low income households 5% to very low income households  Within New Growth Areas

17. Areas Subject To Sacramento Counties Mixed Income Housing Policy

18. Palmer Case  Costa-Hawkins – State law regarding rent control.  It allows landlords to set the initial rent amount for a new unit and to increase the rent to market levels whenever the unit vacated. (vacancy decontrol)  Ct found that the city’s affordable housing policy, which required 15% affordable units, took away the landlords right (per costa-hawkins) to set the initial rental rate because it limited the initial rate that the landlord could charge.  New rental housing cannot be required in new rental developments unless they received assistance or incentives from local government

19. Palmer Case - Two City Projects  Aspen 1  Total Units: 960  Low income units with IZ: 96 Low Income 48 Very Low Income  Greenbriar  Total Units: 2991  Affordable Rental Units: 449 Low Income Units: 299 95 for Seniors Very Low Income Units: 150 47 for Seniors

20. Sacramento City Palmer Response  The City intends to simply not enforce current law that is not in compliance with State Law  Unsure which projects are impacted by Palmer  Projects that have been in the works for years may not require IZ

21. Other Palmer Responses  SB 184 – Leno  Unsuccessful Two-Year Bill  City of San Mateo –  Believe that the Palmer case was wrongly decided. If a developer challenges a city’s inclusionary housing requirements, San Mateo City Attorney Shawn Mason thinks an appeals court could side with the city.

22. Without Inclusionary  No requirement  Expansion areas with no affordable housing  Increasing pressure on existing communities  Workers living farther from jobs  Increase economic segregation

23. Disinvestment in Homeless Programs  Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) –  A combination of permanent community-based housing and the provision of ongoing supportive services to homeless people with disabilities  Fosters the greatest independence or self-sufficiency possible  There is no PSH in the pipeline

24. The Losses  Redevelopment  County of Sacramento Inclusionary  Palmer Decision  Disinvestment in Homeless Programs

25. We Need A Bigger Voice  Who is impacted by affordable housing?  Working poor  Seniors  Persons with disabilities  People reliant on govt. assistance  Students  Homeless People

26. Home Is Where Stability Begins  Intersection of affordable housing and…  Food Insecurity: Less funds are available for healthy food  Education: Children don’t have a place to do homework  Health care and social service access: Lack of address can be a barrier Optimal care often requires a home  Economic Growth: Lack of address #1 barrier

27. Your Chance To Be Heard  Housing Element Update  County Meeting with Stakeholders in May Planned public participation meeting – Sept 6 th. Completed by Oct 2013  City Completed by Oct 2013  You Won’t Have Another Chance Until 2021!!!

28. Thank you  Tyrone Buckley  916-455-4900 ext. 307  tyrone@sachousingalliance.org