A WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE HEARING.
WE HAVE FIVE BILLS ON OUR AGENDA
TODAY. EACH BILL CAN HAVE TWO
MAIN WITNESSES AND SUPPORTING
OPPOSITION. EACH MAIN WITNESSES
GETS TWO MINUTES EACH. THERE'S
NO PHONE TESTIMONY OPTION FOR
THIS HEARING. ALL WITNESSES WILL
BE HERE IN PERSON. PLEASE FEEL
FREE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE POSITION PORTAL ON
THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE. THIS
WILL BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORD OF THE BILL. THE HEARING
ROOM WILL BE OPEN FOR ATTENDANCE
OF THIS HEARING. ALL ARE
ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE HEARING
FROM ITS LIVESTREAM ON THE
ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR PATIENCE, UNDERSTANDING
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING NINE
MINUTES LATE. OKAY FIRST WE WILL
HEAR FROM MR GRAYSON, RIGHT? OH,
SORRY. ACTUALLY WE'LL TAKE ROLL
CALL REAL QUICK WEEKS HERE.
WEEKS HERE, PATTERSON PATTERSON
HERE IN KOREA. GABRIELLE.
CHOLERA CHOLERA HERE.
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA HERE.
SANCHEZ SUCH AS HERE, WARD. WORK
HERE. GREAT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
AND MR GRAYSON, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO PRESENT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. GOOD MORNING TO YOU,
AND I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT A J
. R THREE, WHICH DECLARES THAT
THE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATURE
SUPPORT A REDUCTION TO THE
THRESHOLD FOR TAX EXEMPT BOND
FINANCING AND URGED THE PASSAGE
OF THE FEDERAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CREDIT IMPROVEMENT ACT
OF 2023. THE TAX REFORM OF 8
1986 ESTABLISHED THE LOW INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDIT. UH A K A L I
H T C. THIS TAX CREDIT HAS
BECOME AN EXTREMELY AFFECTIVE BY
TOOL TO HELP IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FINANCING. A MAJORITY OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEPENDENT
ON LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX
CREDITS, COUPLED WITH TAX EXEMPT
PRIVATE ACTIVITY, BOND
FINANCING. FOR MORE THAN 30
YEARS. THE HOUSING TAX CREDIT
HAS BEEN A MODEL PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FINANCING
NEARLY 3.5 MILLION APARTMENTS
SINCE 1986 AND PROVIDING
APPROXIMATELY 8 MILLION
DISADVANTAGED FAMILIES AND
INDIVIDUALS WITH HOMES THAT THEY
CAN AFFORD. HOWEVER THE L I H T
C REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT DIFFICULT
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TAX
CREDITS. TO BE USED BECAUSE OF
EXISTING HIGH FINANCING
THRESHOLD LOWERING BOND
FINANCING THRESHOLD FROM 50%
COULD PRODUCE OR PRESERVE OVER A
MILLION ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE
RENTAL HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10
YEARS AND FREES UP 93 BILLION OF
PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS VOLUME
CAP OVER 10 YEARS FACILITATING
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT A. J. R THREE WILL
URGE CONGRESS TO PASS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREDIT
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2023 IN ORDER
TO REDUCE THE BOND THRESHOLD
FROM 50% TO 25% AND WITH THAT,
AND I NOT SURE IF SHE'S HERE YET
, BUT WE ARE EXPECTING. WE DO
HAVE A COMMENT OR. WHAT I KNOW I
DO HAVE A WITNESS. OKAY
WITNESSES LITERALLY COMING
THROUGH THE MAYBE WE CAN, AT
SOME POINT IN TIME. I DON'T WANT
TO TAKE UP UP. MAYBE QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE FIRST. IF
THERE ARE ANY. SUPPORT MAYBE
OTHER SUPPORTERS. OKAY GREAT.
YEAH ARE THERE OTHER SUPPORTERS?
HERE WE GO. MARK STIVERS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST THING
CONGRESS CAN DO TO ACTUALLY
INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA. IN A
WAY WITH THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
CONSORTIUM AND SUPPORT. GREAT.
THANK YOU. AND I DO WANT TO
STATE ALSO, AS PART OF THE
TESTIMONY THAT CALIFORNIA IS
UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE TO BE
ABLE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING
. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE'VE
BEEN CALLED ON TO BUILD 100,000
UNITS A YEAR, UH, MOVING INTO
THE NEXT DECADE. AND HISTORY
TELLS US THAT WE'VE NEVER EVEN
REACHED 20,000 YEAR. SO OUR
CHALLENGE THAT IS BEFORE US
RIGHT NOW IS BEYOND IS BEYOND
PRECEDENT. AND SO WITH THAT,
IT'S NOT GOING. IT'S GOING TO
TAKE MORE THAN JUST WHAT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAN DO. IT'S
ACTUALLY GOING TO REQUIRE A
PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR FEDERAL
REPRESENT, OR OUR FEDERAL
PARTNERS AS WELL. SO WITH THAT
WE ARE. WE HOPE THAT THE A J. R
WILL BE THE TOOL USED TO HELP
MOVE. OUR FEDS IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND LOWER IT FROM 50
TO 25. GREAT. WELL, THANK YOU. I
SHOULD I GIVE YOUR WITNESS
ALRIGHT, THERE'S NO JUST TO MAKE
SURE ANY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE
. ANYBODY FROM THE COMMITTEE? UM
. YEAH FIRST SUPPORT THE BILL
AND MOVE THE BILL. UH AND AS YOU
KNOW, I DO HAVE A PARTNERING
BILL AND THE SAME TYPE OF VAIN
WHICH IS ALLOWING US, UH, TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE USING OUR
FUNDING OR LIMITED FUNDING AND
THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY,
PARTICULARLY RELATED TO TAX
CREDITS. UH, EVERY SINGLE DAY WE
WALK OUT OF OUR HOMES. WE SEE,
UH THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THE LACK OF HOUSING ANY
TYPE OF HOUSING AND UNLESS WE
MAKE THIS A VERY INTENTIONAL
COMMITMENT, WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO LAG BEHIND. SO I
SUPPORT YOUR BILL AND, UH,
MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE EVERY
TOOL NECESSARY. TO GET BUILDING.
THERE'S YOUR WITNESS. THANK YOU
FOR THOSE COMMENTS. WE HAVE A
NEW GUEST. HELLO HI. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO TAKE THE FLOOR? SURE
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S.
STATE TREASURER. FIONA MA. THANK
YOU REMEMBER GRAYSON FOR
AUTHORING THIS JOINT RESOLUTION
. AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE HAVE A
HOUSING CRISIS. UM WE HAVE BEEN
DOING OUR BEST TO ROLL OUT THE
TAX CREDITS IN THE BONDS AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE THANK
THE GOVERNOR FOR ALLOCATING 500
MILLION IN STATE LOW INCOME
HOUSING TAX CREDITS EVERY YEAR
THAT HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE THAT
HAS MADE OUR BONDS COMPETITIVE
BECAUSE THE STATE TAX CREDITS
NEED TO BE MATCHED WITH THE
BONDS, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE RUN
OUT OF STATE TAX CREDITS, UM AND
BEING ABLE TO LOWER THE BOND
REQUIREMENT FROM 50% TO 25% WITH
ALLOW MORE OF THESE PROJECTS TO
MOVE FORWARD MORE QUICKLY. SO
THAT IS WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS
ABOUT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT
FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS I'VE
BEEN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE
TREASURES. THIS HAS BEEN A
NUMBER ONE PRIORITY AND PASSING
THIS, UH, JOINT RESOLUTION WILL
PUT IT BACK ON MEMBERS. RADAR
THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR
STATES LIKE US, CALIFORNIA WHO
IS TRYING TO BEST UTILIZE ALL OF
THE BONDS AND TAX CREDITS AS
POSSIBLE AS MANY AS WE CAN.
GREAT. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? ANYONE IN
THE ROOM, WHICH TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT. WHERE DID THAT OKAY? DO
YOU HAVE ANY OPPOSITION? ANY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. ANYONE
IN THE ROOM WISH TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE, MR PATTERSON.
OH WELL, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
SUPPORTING IT, AND I'M GLAD WE
STALLED. SO YOU'RE VERY
IMPORTANT WITNESS CAN MAKE IT
HERE ON TIME. SO THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ASK
QUESTIONS? AND DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? AND A SECOND. GREAT I
WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. APPRECIATE THAT,
MR GRAYSON, THIS IS A VERY
SMART, NO COST POLICY TWEAK.
THAT SHOULD REALLY BE A NO
BRAINER. APPRECIATE YOUR
TESTIMONY AS WELL. ALWAYS HAPPY
TO SUPPORT MY COLLEAGUE AND HIS
EFFORT HERE TO BUILD MORE
HOUSING AND TO CREATE SMART
POLICY HERE IN CALIFORNIA. SO
WITH THAT HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL, THE MOTION IS ADOPTED AS
AMENDED. WEEKS WEEKS. I PETERSON
HARRISON, I CARILLO GABRIEL.
CHOLERA CHOLERA HIGH QUIRK-SILVA
HIGH QUIRK-SILVA SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ, I AWARD OR DIE. ZERO
RIGHT NOW, 6 TO 0 THAT BILLS
OUT, BUT WE'LL LET LET FOLKS ADD
ON IT LATER, IF THEY LIKE. THANK
YOU, MADAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU MEMBERS. OKAY, NEXT
WE HAVE MR ALLEN. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. MEMBERS
LET ME JUST BEGIN BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND I
DO WANT TO THANK AND WE'RE ON SP
4 69 RIGHT BEFORE 69. SO AS AS
I'M SURE MANY OF YOU MUST HAVE
YOU KNOW, ALL OF, YOU KNOW,
ARTICLE 34 OF OUR CONSTITUTION.
UH IS, UH, GOT WAS PUT IN THERE
IN THE IN THE MID FORTIES,
SOUGHT TO LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SERVICES.
IT'S ULTIMATELY SAFE SERVED AS A
SEGREGATION TOOL. UM, BY MAKING
IT HARDER TO BUILD PUBLIC
HOUSING. SO WE'RE WORKING IN A
BIPARTISAN MANNER ACTUALLY GET
REPEALED FROM THE CONSTITUTION.
THAT WAS R. S C. H THAT PASSED
AT THE END OF THE SESSION LAST
YEAR. BUT ONE THING THAT'S COME
UP THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS
DISCUSSION AS THAT ARTICLE, 34
IS PLACED THE STATE IN THIS
LEGAL GRAY AREA THAT'S ACTUALLY
CONTINUED TO THWART OUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS. SO THE
ARTICLE 34. SAYS THAT, UM, THAT
IT REQUIRES LOCAL VOTER VOTER
APPROVAL. FOR ANY QUOTE, LOW
RENT HOUSING PROJECT THAT IS
QUOTE DEVELOPED, CONSTRUCTED
REQUIRED IN ANY MANNER BY ANY
STATE PUBLIC BODY. NOW UH,
ARTICLE 34 WAS NOT INTENDED TO
COVER AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT
RECEIVES STATE FUNDING BUT
DEVELOPED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES
SUCH AS NONPROFIT, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS, BUT OUT OF
ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, THE STATE
HAS REQUIRED APPLICANTS FOR SOME
FUNDING SOURCES TO DEMONSTRATE
ARTICLE 34 COMPLIANCE BEFORE
DEVELOPING DEVELOPMENTS. CAN CAN
PROCEED. SO THIS IS LED TO IT. A
SERIES OF UNNECESSARY COSTS AND
DELAYS, UNCERTAINTY TO THE
HOUSING PROJECTS THAT WE NEED.
ARTICLE. 34 DID GRANT THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE POWER TO
ENACT LAWS TO IMPLEMENT IT. IT'S
THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ENACTED A FEW TIMES OVER THE
DECADES THAT HAVE FOLLOWED.
WE'VE BEEN INVESTING IN PROGRAMS
ADMINISTERED BY HCG, AS YOU ALL
KNOW, AND THE LEGISLATURE IS
USED AS AUTHORITIES UNDER
ARTICLE 34 TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
RECEIPT OF FUNDS FROM SOME
CRUCIAL PROGRAMS LIKE HOME KEY
OR THE HOUSING ACCELERATOR
PROGRAM PORTFOLIO SCRATCHING
PROGRAM, THE VETERANS HOUSING
AND HOMELESS PREVENTION PROGRAM
. WE'VE WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT
THEY DON'T TRIGGER ARTICLE 34.
LOCAL ELECTION. SO SO THIS
CLARIFIES THAT A HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT THAT RECEIVES A
LONER GRANT FROM H C D OR
RESERVATION OF LOW INCOME
HOUSING CREDITS FROM THE STATE'S
TAX CREDIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE
IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED A LOW
RENT HOUSING PROJECT DEVELOPED
CONSTRUCTED REQUIRED BY ANY LAW
BY ANY STATE PUBLIC BODY UNDER
UNDER THE ARTICLE, 34 SO, UH,
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL ALLOWS US TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH SOME OF
OUR HOUSING GOALS WITH GREATER
EFFICACY AND EQUITY AND
EFFICIENCY AND HERE WITH ME
TODAY. I'VE GOT MARKS. DIVERS
FROM THE CAFFERTY HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND BRIAN AUGUSTA
FROM CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS BRIAN
AGUSTO WITH THE CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION, ONE
OF THE CO SPONSORS OF THE
MEASURE. UM AS THE SENATOR LAID
OUT WELL, ARTICLE 34 HAS
PRESENTED A NUMBER OF HURDLES
AND THERE'S SOMEWHAT
CONSERVATIVE INTERPRETATION. UM
HAS MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO
ACCESS HOUSING FUNDING,
PARTICULARLY IN RURAL AREAS
WHERE WE OFTEN DON'T HAVE
BLANKET ARTICLE 34 AUTHORITY
FROM VOTERS. SO THIS MEASURE IS
THE NEXT LOGICAL EXTENSION OF A
POLICY THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ENACTED OVER SEVERAL YEARS TO
EXEMPT STATE HOUSING FUNDING
FROM ARTICLE 34. THIS MAKES IT
UNIFORM ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS WILL
HELP STREAMLINE THE PRODUCTION
OF HOUSING MAKE IT EASIER AND
LESS EXPENSIVE TO ACCESS THOSE
FUNDS AND HELP US BUILD MORE
HOUSING IN THE STATE. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS WE WOULD URGE AND
I VOTE. AND MARK SURVIVORS OF
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP, AND I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT PROVIDING
FINANCING IS NOT THE SAME AS
DEVELOPING HOUSING THEIR NUMBER
OF PRECEDENTS ALREADY IN
STATUTES FOLLOWS THOSE
PRECEDENTS AND HAVING
ADMINISTERED STATE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROGRAMS. I CAN I CAN
CONFIRM THAT THE AMOUNT THE
AMOUNT OF TIME AND COSTS THAT
GOES INTO ENSURING COMPLIANCE
WHEN IT'S NOT NECESSARY IS, UH
IT'S PRETTY HIGH, SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER FOLKS IN THE ROOM WISH TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT, PLEASE NAME
ORGANIZATION IN POSITION. MARINA
WHITE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM AND SUPPORT.
A DANCE A GOLDEN WITH THE SAN
DIEGO HOUSING FEDERATION AND
TRUNK SUPPORT. THANK YOU. KARIN
LANG ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND
SUPPORT PETRIE-NORRIS SALAS WITH
THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. ANY ADDITIONAL FOLKS
IN THE ROOM WAS TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION. OKAY WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE, MR WARD.
THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK
SENATOR ALLEN FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP ON S CH TWO AND
CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH YOU AS WE HAVE THAT
PUBLIC CONVERSATION APPROACHING
NEXT YEAR, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AS A
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION, IN THE
MEANTIME, THAT CAN BE ABLE TO
HELP, UH DO WHAT WE CAN DO RIGHT
NOW TO EXPAND OUR AUTHORITIES
SPEND THE OPPORTUNITIES UNDER
EXISTING LAW, SO WITH THAT I'M
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL. GREAT.
WE HAVE EMOTION. THANK YOU IN A
SECOND BY MS QUIRK-SILVA ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I APPRECIATE
YOUR KIND ATTENTION TO THIS
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I WOULD
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
APPRECIATE VERY STRONG
BIPARTISAN. 39 TO 0 VOTE IN THE
SENATE. I GOTTA FIND OUT WHO
THAT 40TH PERSON WAS, UM WELL,
THANK YOU, MR ALLEN FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I THINK IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT. WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM
RACIST CLASSES, UH, POLICIES IN
CALIFORNIA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
UNWIND THIS BEING ONE OF THEM.
SO APPRECIATE YOUR STEADFAST
COMMITMENT ON THAT ISSUE. I'D
LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A CO AUTHOR
AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL THAT YOU'LL
HAVE ME, UM AND HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY, AND WE HAVE A
MOTION TO SECOND AND WITH THAT
THE MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED
OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. WEEKS WEEKS, I
PATERSON AND I. KOREA GABRIEL
GABRIEL I CHOLERA. QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE SANCHEZ SANCHEZ
. I WARN WORD, AYE. THANK YOU
MEMBERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO
ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT. WE'LL
LEAVE IT OPEN IF FOLKS WANT TO
ADD ON AND WITH THAT NOW WE HAVE
MR SENATOR BECKER. AND YOU ARE
PRESENTING SP 3 41. I BELIEVE
YES. GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU.
THIS BILL APPLIES A PRO HOUSING
INCENTIVES. AND HOUSING ELEMENT
COMPLIANT THRESHOLDS ONLY TO
STATE PROGRAMS IN WHICH CITIES
AND COUNTIES AS OPPOSED TO
PRIVATE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS ARE THE PRIMARY
APPLICANTS. UNDER CURRENT LAW,
PRIVATE DEVELOPERS ARE UNFAIRLY
PENALIZED WHEN APPLYING FOR
STATE PROGRAMS BASED ON LACK OF
PRO HOUSING DESIGNATION THAT
JURISDICTION IN WHICH THEY
BUILT. THEY PLAN TO BUILD. IN
SOME CASES LIKE THE H S C
PROGRAM, DEVELOPERS ARE
INELIGIBLE TO APPLY IF THE
CENTER COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE AN
APPROVED HOUSING ELEMENT IN
OTHER CASES, LIKE THE QUALIFYING
INFILL PROGRAM. AH PROJECT
PORTION OF THE INFILL EVERY
SOCIAL GRANT PROGRAM DEVELOPERS
LOSE PRO HOUSING POINTS AND
THEREFORE ARE NOT COMPETITIVE.
SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT
SUPPORTS DEVELOPERS WHO ARE
DOING THE RIGHT THING TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LESS
HOUSING FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
WHERE, ARGUABLY IT IS NEEDED THE
MOST WITH ME HERE. I HAVE MARK
STIVERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING PARTNERSHIP. MARK'S
DIVERGE. THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND WE JUST WANT TO
REITERATE THAT WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT DEVELOPERS ARE NOT
PENALIZED FOR DOING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND CITIES WHERE THAT IS
THE THAT ARE LESS THAN FRIENDLY
TO HOUSING. AND, UM WE ARE JUST
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
WAS TO EXPRESS SUPPORT. MARINA
WHITE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING CONSORTIUM AND SUPPORT
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. AN ADDITIONAL FOLKS
IN THE ROOM, WHICH TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION. OKAY, WE'LL BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE, MS
QUIRK-SILVA. YEAH, I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR MR SEAVER'S OR THE
AUTHOR. SO CAN YOU GIVE ME AN
EXAMPLE OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE?
YOU DON'T HAVE TO MENTION THE
CITY UNLESS YOU WANT TO. BUT
JUST HOW DOES HOW DOES THIS
ACTUALLY PLAY OUT WHETHER IT'S
CITY OR COUNTY? AND WHAT WOULD
THIS LOOK LIKE? YEAH GIULIO, FOR
EXAMPLE, UM, THE LEGISLATURE'S
PROVIDED A NUMBER OF
STREAMLINING STATUTES. LET'S SAY
A B S A B S P 35 OF A NUMBER OF
YEARS AGO, RIGHT? WHICH SAYS
THAT HOUSING THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE ZONING MUST BE APPROVED
BY RIGHT UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS. SO IF A DEVELOPER
UTILIZES THAT STATUTE GETS
APPROVAL TO BUILD, EVEN THOUGH
THE CITY MAY NOT BE SUPPORTIVE
OF THE PROJECT THEY WOULD THEN
COME TO THE STATE LEVEL FOR
FINANCING AND THEY WOULD BE
INELIGIBLE FOR MONEY UNDER THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUSTAINABLE
COMMUNITIES PROGRAM. THEY WOULD
BE KIND OF DISADVANTAGED IN
OTHER PROGRAMS, AND AS A RESULT
, THAT PROJECT WOULD NOT GO
FORWARD IN AN IN ESSENCE, WE
WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE ANTI
HOUSING SENTIMENTS OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INDIRECTLY AT THE
STATE LEVEL. OKAY NOW THAT
THAT'S A GOOD EXPLANATION. SO UH
, YOU'RE SAYING THAT. WITH
SEVERAL OF THE RECENT PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT SOME CITIES ARE
CHOOSING NOT TO, UH, FOLLOW.
WHATEVER PIECE OF LEGISLATION IT
IS THAT THIS STILL GIVES THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE CITIES OR
ACTUAL DEVELOPERS TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT AND GET
FINANCING FOR IT. CORRECT THE
DEVELOPER WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO
MOVE THE PROJECT FORWARD IN THAT
SITUATION, AND THESE PRO, WE
WERE BIG FANS OF PRO HOUSING AND
BIG FANS OF HOUSING IN
COMPLIANCE, BUT THOSE TYPES OF
CONNECTIONS WOULD APPLY TO
PROGRAMS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OF THE APPLICANTS, NOT THE
DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES. YES SO
YOU KNOW CERTAIN CITIES CAN EARN
THESE PRO HOUSING DESIGNATIONS.
THIS IS SAYING EVEN THE CITY
DOESN'T HAVE THAT PRO HOUSING
DESIGNATION. WE DON'T WANT THESE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS TO
BE PUNISHED AND NOT BE ABLE TO
GET FINANCING TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHERE IT'S
NEEDED. GOT IT. MOVE THE BILL.
WE HAVE EMOTIONS AND ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES. WITH THAT. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? THANKS FOR THE
QUESTION, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE. GREAT I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE ABILITY. UM DOES IT
MAKE SENSE TO PENALIZE
DEVELOPERS WHO ARE TRYING TO
BUILD MULTI FAMILY HOUSING,
ESPECIALLY SOME IN OUR MOST KIND
OF EXCLUSIONARY COMMUNITIES, SO
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK IN THE
SPACE HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. THE
MOTION'S PASSED THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WEEKS WEEKS. I PATERSON TONIGHT,
CARILLO. GABRIEL GABRIEL LIKE
CHOLERA. QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA. AYE, SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ I WARD WORD, AYE. THAT
IS 6 TO 0. IT IS OUT, WE'LL
LEAVE IT. LET FOLKS ADD ON IF
THEY SO CHOOSE TO THANK YOU. AND
WITH THAT WE HAVE MR HANEY IS UP
NEXT WITH A C A 10. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. A
C A 10 WILL RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY
CALIFORNIAN HAS A FUNDAMENTAL
HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING
ON AN EQUITABLE AND
NONDISCRIMINATORY BASIS. I KNOW
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THIS
COMMITTEE WORKS ON EVERY DAY,
AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK TO MOVE FORWARD CRITICAL
LEGISLATION THAT WILL HELP US
ACTUALIZED THIS RIGHT? CODIFYING
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN OUR
CONSTITUTION IS SOMETHING THAT
IS ACTUALLY VERY WELL PROVEN. UH
WE'VE DONE IT EITHER IN OUR
CONSTITUTION STATUTE OR THE
FEDERAL CONSCIOUS INSTITUTION
FOR CONTRACEPTION FOR VOTING,
ABORTION, WATER, MARRIAGE,
EDUCATION, PRIVACY. UH WE
RECOGNIZE THAT ALL OF THOSE
RIGHTS ARE CRITICAL, AS IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HOUSING
MANY OF THE OTHER RIGHTS THAT WE
EXPECT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO
ACTUALIZE IN THEIR LIVES,
INCLUDING THOSE LISTED BUT ALSO
OTHERS LIKE BEING ABLE TO ACCESS
, HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, SAFETY
AND SECURITY CANNOT BE POSSIBLE
UNLESS PEOPLE FIRST HAVE ACCESS
TO HOUSING. UNDER THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, STATE
AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WILL BE
REQUIRED TO TAKE STEPS TO FULLY
RECOGNIZE ADEQUATE HOUSING AS A
RIGHT AND NOT A PRIVILEGE ONLY
AVAILABLE TO THE FEW RIGHT NOW.
HOUSING AND UN AFFORDABILITY IS
THE PRIMARY REASON THAT
CALIFORNIA IS AT THE EPICENTER
OF OUR NATION'S HOUSING CRISIS,
WITH THE SECOND HIGHEST AVERAGE
RENT AND THE SECOND HIGHEST
POVERTY RATE IN THE NATION. WE
ARE 40/9 IN HOUSING PER CAPITA,
MILLIONS OF HOUSING UNITS SHORT
OF BEING ABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF OUR POPULATION MORE THAN 40%
OF CALIFORNIA HOUSEHOLDS AND
NEARLY HALF OF ALL BLACK
CALIFORNIANS ARE HOUSING COST
BURDENED. MEANING THAT THEY
SPEND MORE ON HOUSING COSTS AND
THEY CAN AFFORD LEAVING LITTLE
TO INVEST IN THEIR FAMILIES AND
THEIR FUTURES. WE ALSO HAVE MORE
CALIFORNIANS LIVING ON THE
STREET THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE
NATION. THE STATE IS HOME TO
ABOUT 12% OF THE NATION'S
POPULATION, BUT HALF OF THE
UNSHELTERED PEOPLE IN THE
COUNTRY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING
VOUCHERS ARE AVAILABLE TO ONLY
ONE IN FOUR ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS.
AN ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS CAN WAIT AS LONG AS
AN ENTIRE GENERATION TO OBTAIN
SUBSIDIZED HOUSING THEY CAN
ACTUALLY AFFORD. IT IS THE
BACKDROP OF THIS HOUSING CRISIS
IN OUR STATE THAT EXPOSES THE
NEED FOR A RIGHT TO HOUSING AND
OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
THIS COMMITTEE HAS PASSED
CRITICAL BILLS, AND THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS AS WELL TO
ADVANCE SOLUTIONS TO THIS CRISIS
, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED
AND ENFORCED AND HELD
ACCOUNTABLE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HOUSING IS
A RIGHT. A RIGHT TO HOUSING
DOESN'T REQUIRE THE STATE OR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PROVIDE
HOUSING TO EVERY PERSON IN ORDER
TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AUTOMATICALLY
DEMAND FREE HOUSING FROM THE
GOVERNMENT. INSTEAD IT REQUIRES
THE STATE TO ADOPT LEGISLATIVE,
BUDGETARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MEASURES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
HOUSING WITHIN AVAILABLE
RESOURCES AND GIVES THE COURTS
THE TOOLS TO ENFORCE SUCH
POLICIES IF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CITY PASSES A LAW THAT RESTRICTS
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. AND ONE OF
THE LAWS THAT YOU ALL PASSED IS
BROUGHT INTO COURT TO ENFORCE.
UH WHETHER THAT WAS LEGAL OR NOT
, IT SHOULD BE DONE WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING AND
ELEVATING THAT HOUSING IS A
HUMAN RIGHT? AND ANY DECISIONS
MADE BY GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
GIVEN APPROPRIATE ACCOUNTABILITY
AND SCRUTINY THERE IN IF THIS
PASSES, CALIFORNIA VOTERS WILL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE TO
ADD THIS RIGHT TO THE STATE'S
CONSTITUTION, WHICH WILL ELEVATE
OUR COMMITMENT TO SOLVING THE
HOUSING CRISIS. HOLD GOVERNMENTS
ACCOUNTABLE ON BEHALF OF OUR
CITIZENS AND PROVIDE SCRUTINY TO
SOMETHING THAT WITHOUT US,
ACTUALIZING WE CANNOT ACCOMPLISH
WITH THE OTHER CRITICAL,
ESSENTIAL RIGHTS THAT
CALIFORNIANS DESERVE. WITH ME TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF 10 ARE
MISSING. PEGGY PLEASANT, A
MOTHER WITH SEVEN GRANDCHILDREN
AND THREE GREAT GRANDCHILDREN,
WHO WORKED ALL HER LIFE SINCE
THE AGE OF 17, BUT ENDED UP
BECOMING HOMELESS WILL BE
SHARING HER STORY. CARLOS
MARQUEZ FROM A C L U CALIFORNIA
AND ALSO CAT ALSO CATH ROGERS
FROM A CL ACTION WHO IS ABLE TO
ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
THERE ARE OVER 100 ORGANIZATIONS
THAT HAVE SIGNED ON TO THIS A C
A AND THEY'RE REPRESENTED TODAY.
THANK YOU. AND EACH WITNESS WILL
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS MISS PEGGY PLEASANT. AND
I'M FROM LOS ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA. IS HONORED TO BE
HERE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. BUT
I'D LIKE TO TELL YOU MY STORY.
IN 2008. I WAS FURLOUGHED FROM
MY JOB SUBSEQUENTLY BEING
TERMINATED BECAUSE I COULDN'T
FIND WORK. ABOUT. LIVED ON THE
STREETS WITH MY DAUGHTER
SLEEPING IN MY CAR UNTIL IT WAS
REPOSSESSED. WE WOULD GO TO THE
LOCAL RALPH'S MARKET. TO SHOWER
CLEAN TO COME BACK. AND SHE
WOULD GO TO SCHOOL AND I WOULD
GO LOOKING FOR EMPLOYMENT.
SUBSEQUENTLY LIKE I SAID, MY CAR
WAS REPOSSESSED. SO I SENT HER
TO LIVE WITH HER FATHER. AND IT
WOULD TAKE ME FOUR YEARS TO GET
HER BACK. I ENDED UP IN THE LOS
ANGELES SKID ROW AREA. MY FIRST
HOUSING. THERE ARE TEMPORARY
HOUSING THERE. I WAS THERE FOR
19 DAYS. BECAUSE I WAS 15
MINUTES LATE TO AN APPOINTMENT
WITH THE SOCIAL WORKER. THAT WAS
HEARING MY CASE. I WAS KICKED
OUT OF MY HOUSING. SHE REFERRED
ME TO ANOTHER PLACE. WHERE I
SUBSEQUENTLY WAS ABLE TO GET.
MEDICAL COVERAGE OR MEDICAL
CARE. AH! BUT MOST OF ALL, I
LOST MY HOPE. WHEN YOU'RE
HOMELESS, YOU LOSE. HOUSING
WHATEVER YOU LOSE FAMILY
MEMBERS, BUT YOU LOSE YOUR HOPE.
WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR HOPE. THAT
MAKES YOU AN INADEQUATE PERSON.
IT MAKES YOU FEEL THAT THERE IS
NOTHING YOU CAN DO. TO MAKE YOUR
SITUATION BETTER. I'VE BEEN ONE
OF THE FORTUNATE ONES. I
SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS ABLE TO GET
IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I WAS
ABLE TO GET DOCTORS THAT WOULD
HELP ME WITH MY MENTAL HEALTH
AND MY ANXIETY RIGHT NOW. I'M
SORRY, BUT I'M STARTING TO HAVE
AN ANXIETY ATTACK BEFORE YOU.
BUT I WAS ABLE TO GET WHAT I
NEEDED. BECAUSE OF HOUSING. I
WAS ABLE TO GET A DOCTOR TO HELP
ME WITH MY PHYSICAL AND MENTAL
HEALTH. BUT I WAS ALSO ABLE TO
GET MUCH CHOICE. MY DAD MY CHILD
BACK. AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY. YOU LOSE YOUR
CHILDREN. SOME OF MY FRIENDS,
THEY'VE LOST THEIR CHILDREN. AND
THEY WERE ADOPTED OUT. I WAS
FORTUNATE MY DAUGHTER WAS 16
WHEN WE SEPARATED, AND I WAS
ABLE TO GET HER BACK. ALONG WITH
MY GRANDSON THAT CAME ALONG WITH
HER AS A PACKAGE I HAVE TO SAY.
BUT THAT WAS A BLESSING FOR ME.
A C A. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED A C 8
10 IS WHAT WE NEED. HOUSING IS A
RIGHT. IT'S NOT A PRIVILEGE
BECAUSE YOU HAVE MONEY. IT'S A
RIGHT. MAY NOT BE THE BEST PLACE
YOU CAN GO. WHAT YOU MOST OF MY
FRIENDS WHO STILL LIVE ON THE
STREET. THEY'RE LIVING IN TENTS.
LIKE I SAID, I WAS ONE OF THE
FORTUNATE ONCE I WAS ABLE TO GET
INTO THE DOWNTOWN WOMEN'S CENTER
IN LOS ANGELES IN THE SKID ROW
AREA. AND IT TOOK ME FOUR YEARS
TO GET MY DAUGHTER BACK. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
POWERFUL TESTIMONY. MISS PEGGY.
GOOD MORNING, CARLOS MARQUEZ,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA ACTION REPRESENTING
OVER 100,000 MEMBERS AND THREE
A. C L U AFFILIATES IN
CALIFORNIA. WE JOINED MORE THAN
100 ORGANIZATIONS IN PROUDLY
SUPPORTING A C A 10, WHICH, AS
YOU HEARD FROM BOTH PROPONENTS
ESTABLISHES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
IN THE CONSTITUTION TO HOUSING.
ADEQUATE HOUSING IS A BASIC
HUMAN, RIGHT. BUT RIGHT NOW, FOR
FAR TOO MANY CALIFORNIANS
ADEQUATE HOUSING IS OUT OF REACH
. ELUDING BLACK CALIFORNIANS, IN
PARTICULAR, WERE AT SUCH A
TIPPING POINT THAT IF
HOMELESSNESS CONTINUES TO GROW
AT ITS CURRENT RATE, THERE WILL
BE OVER HALF A MILLION
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS HOMELESS BY
2050 JUST TO PUT THAT INTO
PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S THE SIZE OF
THE EXISTING POPULATION OF THE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO. IN ORDER TO
TACKLE THIS CRISIS. WE NEED
SOLUTIONS THAT ARE AS BOLD AS
THEY ARE ACHIEVABLE. WE BELIEVE
A C A 10 STRIKES THIS BALANCE.
IT MANAGES TO BOTH ESTABLISH A
RIGHT TO HOUSING. BOLD WHILE
ALSO GRANTING FLEXIBILITY AND
THE AND THE TIME FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO CODIFY THAT RIGHT
IN STATUTE ACHIEVABLE AND IF
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY BY THE
LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE THE
CHANCE AT BEING FURTHER
REINFORCED BY A PUBLIC MANDATE
TO ACT, A CHN WOULD CREATE A
SHARED OBLIGATION BETWEEN
GOVERNMENTS TO ENFORCE A SET OF
OBLIGATIONS AND THEY ARE AS
FOLLOWS. RESPECT THE RIGHT OF
HOUSING MEANS THAT GOVERNMENT
ITSELF CANNOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT
PROTECT MEANS THE GOVERNMENT
MUST ENSURE THIRD PARTIES DO NOT
VIOLATE THE RIGHT AND FULFILL
MEANS THE GOVERNMENT MUST
PROGRESSIVELY PAST POLICIES AND
BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS TO ENSURE
THAT THE RIGHT IS ACHIEVABLE.
NOW WE ALSO WANT TO REINFORCE
THAT THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT
EVERYONE WILL BE GIVEN A SINGLE
FAMILY HOME OVERNIGHT. ADEQUATE
MEANS HOUSING THAT IS
AFFORDABLE, HEALTHY, HABITABLE
AND OFFER SECURITY OF TENURE
THAT'S CLOSE TO JOBS, SCHOOLS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE. IN THIS WAY,
A C A 10 ACTUALLY BOLSTERS OUR
STATE'S EXISTING HOUSING, FIRST
POLICY AND 66% OF CALIFORNIANS
SUPPORT OUR RIGHT TO HOUSING.
AND WITH THAT WE URGE YOUR I
VOTE FOR A C A 10. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU ANY ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WITH TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT, PLEASE LINE UP
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
BRIAN, STOP ON BEHALF OF UNITED
WAY GRID IN L A AND SUPPORT AMY
HIÆN SHAIKH WITH WORLD CARE
CONSULTING REPRESENTING ABUNDANT
HOUSING, LOS ANGELES AND SUPPORT
. BUT WE SEE A GR CONTRA COSTA
ACE AND SUPPORT. MY NAME IS
KELLY LLOYD AND I REPRESENT ACER
AND I'M IN SUPPORT. ARCHIE BROWN
FOOD. UNITED STATES NAVY
RETIRED. I AM STRONGLY IN
SUPPORT FOR VETERANS. GOOD
MORNING, MADDY RIBBLE WITH THE
CHILDREN'S PARTNERSHIP AND
SUPPORT, AND SEVERAL
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ASKED US TO
SHARE THEIR NAME. IF I MAY
HOUSING NOW HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
NATIONAL HOMELESSNESS LAWCENTER
HUMAN IMPACT PARTNERS LEGAL AID
OF SONOMA COUNTY, SAN
BERNARDINO, FREE THEM ALL.
PROJECT AMIGA. BREAK THE CYCLE
PROJECT COPE CONGREGATIONS
ORGANIZED FOR PROPHETIC
ENGAGEMENT. FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA.
DRAYER LAW FIRM. FRIENDS WITHOUT
HOMES. MONUMENT IMPACT. HOUSING
IS A HUMAN RIGHT, A DIVISION OF
AIDS HEALTH FOUNDATION EVOLVE
CALIFORNIA AND LASTLY, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS.
CALIFORNIA CHAPTER. THANK YOU.
HELLO DOUG HOPPER WITH A SPACE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING TO SHEENA GARRETT, ACE
AND JACK. I AM FOR IT. EDDIE
DOWNS WITH ACE AND ANTIOCHUS AND
I SUPPORT AND ALSO WITH THE
BLACK OWNED BEAUTY SUPPLIER
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING. JASON YANCY. NEW
ECONOMICS FOR WOMEN AND I
SUPPORT GOOD MORNING. TAMMY
DILLARD. MORE JOY. STATE WORKER.
YES, I SEE THEM 10. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS LAKISHA. I'M
AT NIGHT. AYE. WHAT YES, SUPPORT
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, A KID
JOHNNY EDWARDS, ACE OAKLAND AND
I AM A SUPPORT. AMY SCHORK,
CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR WITH A SAY
YES, ON A C A 10. WHEN WAS THE
NUMBER OF BLANCA EMERALD AFTER
THE RICHMOND BENGUELA HOBBYIST?
HER NAME IS BLANCA. RITA. NO SHE
IS A MEMBER OF ACES IN RICHMOND
. AND SHE IS HERE IN SUPPORT OF
A C 18. HI EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
EDITH PASTRANO, COMMUNITY
ORGANIZER, LEAD ORGANIZER IN
CONTRA COSTA. ACE UH, FROM
RICHMOND AS WELL AND ALSO IN
SUPPORT OF A C 8 10. GOOD
MORNING. I'M YOLANDA FLORES FROM
THE ORGANIZATION OF A SPACE ALSO
FROM RICHMOND, AND I AM IN
SUPPORT. HOLA MI NOMBRE IS WILMA
NAVARRETTE ASSET? THE RICHMOND.
AH YES. HER NAME IS, UH, VERY
LOVELY. HER NAME IS WILMA
NAVARETTE FROM RICHMOND, ALSO
WITH A SPACE AND SHE SUPPORTS A
C A 10. GIOVANNA FAJARDO, WITH
ACE ALSO IN SUPPORT. ARI BREAKS
IN WITH GOLDEN STATE OPPORTUNITY
FROM SUPPORT. Dð COONEY WITH YOU
CAL ACTION ON BEHALF OF
DISABILITY RIGHTS, COALITION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ONE OF THE
NUMBER WAS THERE. THANK YOU.
BENGALI CONTRACTOR REPRESENTS AN
EDGE. BUT WHEN I WHEN I GO TO.
HIS NAME IS WALTER. SUCH IS ALSO
WITH ACES, ALSO IN FULL SUPPORT.
ROLL VASQUEZ ORGANIZED WITH A
SPACE AND THEY STAND SUPPORT.
MILLER SALTZMAN ON BEHALF OF
POWER CIA ACTION IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF 10. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS DANTE
GOLDEN ON BEHALF OF THE SAME
DIEGO HOUSING FEDERATION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
STEPHEN RAMOS ON BEHALF OF
PUBLIC ADVOCATES AND SUPPORT.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS RANDOM
MARTIN ON BEHALF OF THE AIDS
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, THAT
HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT
DIVISION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS BRIAN AUGUST ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION,
CALIFORNIA REINVESTMENT
COALITION, THE NATIONAL HOUSING
LAW PROJECT AND THE PUBLIC
INTEREST LAW PROJECT AND SUPPORT
GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
TINA ROSE SALAS WITH THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY, PROUD
CO SPONSORS AND SUPPORT AND ALSO
ON BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CITY, VILLA TORRES,
GOLDEN STATE OPPORTUNITY AND
BARRIO ACTION FROM LOS ANGELES
AND WE SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
EMILY UP FROM GOLDEN STATE
OPPORTUNITY IN VERY ACTION FROM
LOS ANGELES, AND WE SUPPORT GOOD
MORNING, EVERYONE. JANET
HERNANDEZ WITH DREAMS FOR
CHANGE. SAN DIEGO IN SUPPORT OF
A C A 10. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE
. MELVIN WILLIS WITH RICHMOND,
AZ CONTRA COSTA AND ALSO
SPEAKING AS AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL,
DISTRICT ONE AND I'M IN STRONG
SUPPORT. HELLO GOOD MORNING,
THERESA SMITH WITH DREAMS FOR
CHANGE IN SAN DIEGO AND WERE IN
SUPPORT. MARK'S DIVERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. ON YOUR SAVANAH WITH
ACES AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
EVERYONE. POWELL WITHIN POVERTY
IN CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT
OF A C A 10. GREG KAUFMAN AND
POVERTY IN CALIFORNIA HUGE
SUPPORT. YEAH. READINGS EVERYONE
AKIL BELL WITH J GOLDEN STATE
OPPORTUNITY, BLACK WOMEN FOR
WELLNESS AND WE'RE FULL SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. AMINA
MERRITT, STAFF, ATTORNEY,
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS
ADVOCATES AND MEMBER OF THE
SACRAMENTO AREA BLACK CAUCUS AND
THE ALLEN CHAPEL AM A CHURCH IN
DEL PASO IN SUPPORT. YOU NOMBRES
JOSE FLORES. UH MHM, I SAID. HIS
NAME IS JOSE FLORES WITH ACE AND
ALSO IN SUPPORT. HI MY NAME IS
ROBERT COPELAND MEMBER SEGMENT
OF CHAPTER OF 8TH AND 2ND HOMES
, ORGANIZED COMMITTEE. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION? ANY ADDITIONAL FOLKS
IN THE ROOM WISH TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION. OKAY WE WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. MR.
WARD MR HANKY. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS FOR
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD.
WE'VE SEEN CITIES ACROSS OUR
STATE START TO TACKLE THIS VERY
SAME QUESTION AND REALLY SET THE
BAR CLEARLY ABOUT WHAT OUR
PRIORITIES ARE, AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT THE WOULD ACHIEVE BY
ENSHRINING THIS IN THE
CONSTITUTION AS WELL. IT'S A
GOAL THAT WE ALL SHARE,
CERTAINLY A GOAL THAT WE WORK
TOWARDS THROUGH THE POLICY THAT
WE WORK ON THROUGH THE BUDGET
THAT WE PASSED THAT WE
PRIORITIZE AND WE'VE INCREASED.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS THIS
MOVES IF AND AS THIS MOVES
FORWARD THAT YOU KNOW WE ARE
REALLY CLEAR AND CAREFUL IN THE
LANGUAGE. I WANT TO JUST KIND OF
THAT. MAYBE A FEW OBSERVATIONS
AND KIND OF SEE HOW THIS MIGHT
ACTUALLY PLAY OUT. SHOULD THIS
BE ADOPTED BY THE VOTERS IN A
PART OF THE CONSTITUTION? WHAT
COULD SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES
BE FOR STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT? IT SAYS HERE THAT IS
A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. UM, BUT
WHAT THAT'S VAGUE, RIGHT? WHAT
IS THAT? WHAT HOW? HOW DO STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE THEY
GOING TO POINT FINGERS AT EACH
OTHER RIGHT WHEN THE RUBBER
MEETS THE ROAD, AND WHOSE
RESPONSIBILITY IS IT? WHAT
PROPORTION OF IT IS SHARED?
SOMETHING TO MAYBE KIND OF THINK
ABOUT BECAUSE I JUST WOULDN'T
WANT SOMETHING TO PUT WHAT I
DON'T WANT TO SOMETHING TO
IMPLEMENT. THAT ACTUALLY ISN'T
GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE OUT
THERE IN THE COMMUNITY AND
ACTUALLY BUILD THE HOUSING. UM
AND SO TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE
CLEAR AND DIRECT ABOUT WHAT OUR
EXPECTATIONS ARE, AND I THINK
IT'S BEEN THROUGH THE BACKGROUND
AND THROUGH CONVERSATIONS ON
THIS PROPOSAL. WE'VE HEARD THAT
THIS IS REALLY THIS IS THIS IS
GOAL SETTING A VERY IMPORTANT
GOAL. UM AND THAT WE WOULD BE
WORKING TO IMPLEMENT THIS TO ALL
EXTENT FEASIBLE. AND THEN IF THE
RESOURCES WEREN'T AVAILABLE OR
SOMETHING TO WRITE, UM, WHAT I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT
ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE
FUNDING ATTACHED TO THIS
SOMETHING LIKE WE DID WITH THE
BRING HOME CALIFORNIA HOME ACT
LAST SESSION WITH 80 71 SO THAT
WE'RE PUTTING A LITTLE BIT MORE
BEHIND THAT. UM THE A. C A RIGHT
NOW USES THE LANGUAGE. THAT
WOULD BE OUR SHARED
RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO
FACILITATING SUPPORT HOUSING
RESOURCES. TO THE MAXIMUM TO USE
THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE RESOURCES.
UM JACKETS INTO A BUDGET
DELIBERATION, RIGHT? THE MAXIMUM
AVAILABLE RESOURCES THIS YEAR IS
SOMEWHERE YOU KNOW, GIVE OR TAKE
AROUND $300 BILLION TAKE OUT
TAKE AWAY OR OTHER
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
UNDER, YOU KNOW, PROPER RIGHT,
PROBABLY 98 AND OTHER OTHER
AREAS. UM THINGS MIGHT BE A
LITTLE BIT MORE LIMITED, BUT
THEN WE'RE ALSO TRADING OFF WITH
SOME OF OUR OTHER BUDGET
PRIORITIES. ARE WE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO FUND ADDITIONAL
HEALTHCARE SUPPORTER? WE'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUND
TRANSIT. ARE WE GONNA BE ABLE TO
FUND THESE OTHER THINGS AND ALSO
THE STATE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO
WORK ON AND THIS IS THE PART OF
THE CONSTITUTION AS IT'S WRITTEN
WITH THAT. UH UM, HAMSTRING THE
LEGISLATURE FROM TRYING TO SORT
OF ADJUST THOSE PRIORITIES YEAR
OVER YEAR AS THINGS ELEVATOR
SORT OF FALL IN THEIR PRIORITY
LEVEL, SO JUST SOME OPEN THINGS
THAT I WOULD INVITE THE AUTHOR
TO REALLY, YOU KNOW, CONTEND THE
SPONSORS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS BOTH
PURPOSEFUL. THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY
ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND
THE VISION THAT ARE HERE. AND,
UM, THAT WE'RE NOT SENDING TO
THE VOTERS SOMETHING THAT IS A
GOOD GOAL BUT MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY
MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE LONG
RUN THAT WE'RE WORKING ON,
MAKING THAT DIFFERENCE THROUGH
OUR OUR BUDGET AND OUR POLICY
WORK RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE
HOLDING CITIES ACCOUNTABLE. I
WANT TO AGAIN COMMEND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THEIR WORK
ON USING EXISTING STATE MANDATED
DOCUMENTS AND HOLDING THEM
ACCOUNTABLE TO MEET THE GOALS OF
THOSE DOCUMENTS, RIGHT. UM AND
THEY'RE RESPONDING. THEY'RE
STEPPING UP. THEY ARE, UH,
THEY'RE THEY'RE DOING BETTER
PLANNING AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR
BEST. SO I GUESS I JUST WONDER
IF HE HAD SOME KIND OF OPENING
THE THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW THIS
MIGHT IMPLEMENT AND HOW IT COULD
BE REAL. SURE WELL, I WILL GIVE
MY THOUGHTS ON SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS, WHICH I THINK ARE ARE
VERY IMPORTANT IN SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT I HAD INITIALLY
WHEN I WHEN I WORKED WITH THE
SPONSORS, AND WE DECIDED TO
BRING THIS FORWARD, AND THEN
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MISS ROGERS
AS WELL FOR SOME OF THE
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THAT ONE IS
, I THINK IF WE DO BELIEVE THAT
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AH,
CODIFYING IT IN OUR CONSTITUTION
AND GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
CITIZENS TO DO THAT IS THE
STRONGEST POSSIBLE WAY THAT WE
CAN COMMUNICATE THAT AND
ELEVATED AS A PRIORITY. UH AND
EXTEND THAT ELEVATION TO ELECTED
OFFICIALS AT EVERY LEVEL AGAIN.
I RECOGNIZE THIS IS IT IS VERY
DIFFERENT, BUT WE JUST THIS PAST
YEAR DID THIS AS IT RELATED TO
ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION. UH,
SOME OF THE WHAT THAT MEANS IN
PRACTICE IS UP TO INTERPRETATION
BY THE COURTS AND BY
LEGISLATURES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. IN TERMS OF WHAT?
HOW THEY HOW THEY INTERACT WITH
THAT AS A AS A PROACTIVE AND
POSITIVE RIGHT. BUT IT ALSO, AS
YOU SAID, IT HAS REAL
CONSEQUENCES, AND WE'LL HAVE
REAL CONSEQUENCES. FOR BOTH
ACCOUNTABILITY AND SCRUTINY
AROUND DECISIONS THAT
GOVERNMENTS MAKE WHETHER THAT'S
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE
GOVERNMENT. SO UH, IF THERE IS A
RIGHT TO HOUSING AND CITIZENS
HAVE CODIFIED THAT IN OUR
CONSTITUTION WHEN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BRINGS ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS AS IT RELATES TO, UH,
LAWS THAT WE'VE ALREADY PASSED
IT ADDS, ADDS A HEIGHTENED LEVEL
OF POWER THAT COMES FROM A
CODIFIED RIGHT WITHIN OUR
CONSTITUTION. THAT DOESN'T EXIST
NOW, AND IT COULD EVEN LEAD TO
ACCOUNTABILITY ACTIONS BY THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHERS THAT
RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO WHETHER
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE OR STATE
GOVERNMENT IS MOVING FORWARD.
ACTUALIZING THIS RIGHT AGAIN. A
LOT OF THAT WOULD NEED TO BE
INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS IN
TERMS OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND
WHAT WOULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF
VIOLATING THIS, RIGHT? UM THE
OTHER THING WOULD BE, UH, IT
ADDS A LEVEL OF SCRUTINY. SO IF
A GOVERNMENT OF ANY LEVEL WHERE
TO PASS A LAW THAT REALLY, UM
EGREGIOUSLY VIOLATED THIS RIGHT
, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY BANNED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHIN THEIR
AREA, MULTI FAMILY HOUSING OR,
YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY MADE IT
IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD NEW HOUSING.
THIS WOULD BE AH, ELEVATED IN IN
THAT CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER
THAT VIOLATED OTHER LAWS OR EVEN
THIS RIGHT ITSELF, SO I THINK
SOME OF IT WILL BE THROUGH A
LARGER INTERACTION OF THE COURTS
AND THE LEGISLATURE. BUT WHAT
THIS DOES IS IT ELEVATES IT AS A
PRIORITY AND ALSO ADDS A LEVEL
OF SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS FOR
ACTIONS THAT THAT GOVERNMENT
TAKES. DEFINITELY SEE THAT THAT
BENEFIT THERE. MISS ROGERS. GOOD
TO SEE YOU DIDN'T HEAR ANY
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
YEAH AND IT'S A GREAT QUESTION
AND ONE THAT YOU KNOW, ALL OF
OUR CO SPONSORS HAVE THOUGHT A
LOT ABOUT WHEN CHOOSING THE
LANGUAGE AND EVERY TERM WITHIN
WITHIN THE A. C A WAS CHOSEN
BASED ON A RICH BODY OF HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW, AND SO EVERY SINGLE
TERM IN THE BILL IS WELL
DEFINED. UM AND. YOU KNOW,
LARGELY CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS ARE BROADLY WORDED,
SO THAT WE DON'T UM HAMSTRING
THE LEGISLATURE. THERE'S
FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW TO
ENFORCE IT. AND WE HAVE A NUMBER
OF RIGHTS. THESE ARE THE MOST
IMPORTANT VALUES WE HOLD. AND
THIS IS A CODIFICATION OF THOSE
VALUES. AND SO BY ENSHRINING THE
RIGHT THE HUMAN RIGHT TO HOUSING
AND OUR CONSTITUTION. IT'S
ESSENTIALLY CODIFYING THE VALUE
THAT THE HUMAN RIGHT TO HOUSING
IS WORTHY OF LEGAL PROTECTION.
UM IT ALSO LIGHTS A FIRE UNDER
THE STATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
ACTUALIZE THAT RIGHT, BUT
THERE'S NOT ONE WAY TO DO THAT.
AND ALL OF THE TERMS. THIS IS
BOTH POSITIVE, RIGHT AND IN A
NEGATIVE, RIGHT NEGATIVE RIGHTS
ARE YOU KNOW WHAT THE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT DO IN A POSITIVE RIGHT IS
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO. AND
SO THE TERM RESPECT IN THERE IS
WELL DEFINED IN INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AND BASICALLY
, THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF CANNOT
VIOLATE THE RIGHTS. SO YOU KNOW,
BLOCKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL WOULD BE AN
EXAMPLE OF THAT. UM IN IN THE
HUMAN RIGHTS CONTEXT, FORCED
EVICTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
WOULD BE THE MOST EGREGIOUS
VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHT TO
HOUSING THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD
BE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE
GOVERNMENT ITSELF COULD VIOLATE
THE RIGHT THE PROTECT AND
FULFILL OUR POSITIVE RIGHT AND
THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT MUST
PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO HOUSING
FROM THIRD PARTIES, SO CORPORATE
REAL ESTATE INTERESTS OR
CORPORATE LANDLORDS FROM
EXPLOITIVE PRACTICES THERE SO
THE GOVERNMENT CAN PROTECT US
PROTECT OUR RIGHT BY, FOR
EXAMPLE, PASSING RENTER
PROTECTIONS, UM, RIGHT TO
COUNSEL AND EVICTION
PROCEEDINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'S FLEXIBILITY
AND HOW THE GOVERNMENT DOES THAT
SO AT THE STATE AND THE LOCAL
LEVEL THE GOVERNMENT CAN CHOOSE
THE METHODS IT PREFERS TO MEET
ITS OWN COMMUNITY NEEDS. IN
TERMS OF THE FULFILL PRONGS.
THAT'S WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS
THE ROAD IN TERMS OF THE
AFFIRMATIVE BUDGETARY
ALLOCATIONS AND POLICIES THAT
THE GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTS TO
FULFILL THE RIGHT AND AGAIN.
THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS THEY
CAN BE, YOU KNOW, MARKET BASED
OPTIONS. THEY CAN ALSO BE
SERIOUS INVESTMENTS IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS
WHAT I THINK OUR SPONSORS FEEL
THAT WE NEED. UM ALSO AGAIN, YOU
KNOW, RENTER PROTECTIONS. AND
SOCIAL HOUSING. UM, SO THERE'S
ANY SUITE OF POLICY CHOICES THAT
THE LEGISLATURE CHOOSES. UM OUR
INTENTION IS FOR THIS TO BE
PRIMARILY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH
THE LEGISLATURE. SO THE POWER
YOU KNOW TO CREATE LAWS REMAINS
EXACTLY WHERE IT IS. UM, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS POLICY MAKING AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. THERE IS,
OF COURSE, WHERE, WHERE THERE'S
A RIGHT THERE IS AN ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM, OF COURSE, BUT THAT
ONLY COMES INTO PLAY IF THE
RIGHT IS VIOLATED, AND SO YOU
KNOW AGAIN, IT'S BOTH A POSITIVE
AND A NEGATIVE RIGHT. AND SO THE
GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO
FULFILL THE RIGHT AND SHOW HOW
THEY'RE DOING THAT. UM THE
PROGRESSIVE REALIZATION IS ALSO
WELL DEFINED THAT RECOGNIZES THE
RIGHT WILL NOT BE FULFILLED
OVERNIGHT. IT'S PROGRESSIVE. WE
KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE
CURRENTLY YOU KNOW ALL OF THE
RESOURCES TO ADEQUATELY HOW'S
EVERYONE TOMORROW? BUT THE
GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE TO SHOW A
PLAN AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO
THAT PLAN TO GET THERE. UM AND
WITH THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE I
COULD SAY ON THAT, BUT I DO WANT
TO OPEN IT UP TO OUR REALLY
CLEAR RESPONSES. AND I THINK
THAT ACTUALLY HELPS TO GIVE ME
EVEN MORE ASSURANCE ABOUT THE
GOALS IN THE INTENT OF THIS THAT
WHICH ARE LAUDABLE AND IMPORTANT
, UM AS AGAIN IF IT AS IT MOVES
FORWARD, RECOGNIZING WHEN THE
GOVERNOR VETOED A SIMILAR BILL A
COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IT'S SORT
OF BACK AT THE ENVELOPE PEG THAT
WE WOULD NEED ABOUT $10 BILLION
ANNUALLY TO REALLY FULLY CATCH
UP WITH OUR DISINVESTMENT AND
HOUSING. AH AND I AGREE WITH
THAT. WE KNOW A REPORT FROM THE
CORPORATION AND SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING ISSUED LAST DECEMBER
PEGGED IT ABOUT $8 BILLION A
YEAR FOR THE NEXT 12 YEARS TO BE
ABLE TO MAKE UP THAT DEFICIT
THAT WE NEED FOR SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING SERVICES, SO THE MONEY
IS NEEDED. AND I WOULD YOU KNOW,
AS YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD ON
SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO
REQUIRE TWO THIRDS OF ABOUT
ABOUT HOUSES. UM EITHER WAY,
WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING THE, UM THE
GOALS OF THIS IS WRITTEN RIGHT
NOW. IS THERE A WAY TO FURTHER
IMPROVE UPON OR HOUSING OUTCOMES
THROUGH THIS VEHICLE AS WELL?
INVITE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS
IF AND AS THIS MOVES FORWARD,
HAPPY TO MOVE THE MEASURE TODAY
I'M CHAIR. THANK YOU. MR WE HAVE
A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. MR
GABRIEL AND MR GABLE WANTS TO GO
AND THEN WE'LL DO, MR PATTERSON.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR. AND, UM TRYING TO
NAVIGATE THIS HERE BECAUSE I
DON'T WANT TO BE THE SKUNK AT
THE GARDEN PARTY. UM
PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF MY
ADMIRATION FOR THE AUTHOR WHO I
THINK HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE
CHAMPION ON THIS AND SUCH AN
IMPORTANT VOICE ON HOUSING. AND
ALSO THE RESPECT FOR ALL THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
SUPPORTING THIS AND I, UM YOU
KNOW, OF COURSE, OF COURSE,
HOUSING IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
AND FRANKLY, THE STATUS QUO IS
SHAMEFUL. AND I DON'T THINK
THERE'S A SINGLE PERSON AT THIS
DIET. THAT WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE
STATUS QUO RIGHT NOW THAT WE
HAVE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE AND
THE WAY THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO
ELEVATE THAT, AND I PARTICULARLY
WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU FOR
IDENTIFYING THAT. HOUSING THE
LACK OF HOUSING IS AT THE ROOT
OF SO MANY OF THE CHALLENGES WE
FACE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THAT HAS BEEN IMPRESSED UPON ME
IN THE FEW SHORT YEARS THAT I'VE
SPENT HERE IN THE LEGISLATURES,
WE LOOK AT ALL THESE PUBLIC
POLICY CHALLENGES SO MANY OF
THEM INEVITABLY TRACE THEIR WAY
BACK TO OUR HOUSING CRISIS. SO
YOU ARE BY ELEVATING THIS BY
FOCUS ON IT BY BY, YOU KNOW,
REALLY? SHINING A LIGHT ON IN
ELEVATING THE FACT THAT THIS IS
A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN, RIGHT, I
THINK IS REALLY LAUDABLE. UM THE
MAJOR MAJOR HARPER AND I'M
HAVING RIGHT NOW IS AROUND THE
ENFORCEMENT AND INFLAMMATION OF
THIS AND I THINK IT IS MAY BE
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT SOME OF
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD SAID MY
BEST GUESS ABOUT AS AN ATTORNEY
ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS ITSELF OUT
IS THAT IT TAKES ALL RESOURCE
ALLOCATION DECISIONS AWAY FROM
THE LEGISLATURE. AND ULTIMATELY
PUTS THEM IN THE HANDS OF THE
COURTS. AND I COULD IMAGINE A
SCENARIO AND I WAS JUST THINKING
ABOUT IT LAST NIGHT AND TODAY.
DAY ONE AFTER THIS IS PASSED. IF
IT'S PASSED, SOMEBODY WILL BRING
A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING SEQUA AND
THEY WILL SAY IT IS
UNCONTROVERTED THAT SEQUA
INCREASES THE COST TO BUILD
HOUSING. I THINK THERE'S A LOT
OF EVIDENCE OF THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS MADE A POLICY
CHOICE THERE. BUT THE VOTERS
HAVE MADE A DIFFERENT POLICY
CHOICE, WHICH IS THAT HOUSING
COMES FIRST. AND YOU COULD
INVALIDATE SEQUEL. I IMAGINE THE
SAME THING IS TRUE OF LABOR
STANDARDS, RIGHT? A LOT OF US IN
THIS ROOM WANT TO SUPPORT THE
WORKERS WHO BUILD THAT HOUSING?
BUT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO CAN COME
IN AND SAY WELL, THAT HAS MADE
HOUSING MORE EXPENSIVE. AND SO
WE AS JUDGES, UNELECTED JUDGES
GOING TO DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING
TO STRIKE DOWN ALL OF
CALIFORNIA'S LABOR STANDARDS. I
COULD IMAGINE THE SAME THING.
EVEN WITH PROP 98 FUNDING,
SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY, WELL, THE
VOTERS PASSED PROPOSITION 98.
YOU KNOW A WHILE BACK. THEY'VE
SUBSEQUENTLY PASSED THIS.
THEY'RE TELLING US THE VOTERS
ARE THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKERS
HERE. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. WE AS
JUDGES ARE DECIDING THAT
PROPOSITION. 98 IS GOING TO GO
FROM 40% TO 20% AND DECIDE THAT
THAT 20 ADDITIONAL 20% SHOULD BE
PUT INTO HOUSING. YOU COULD MAKE
A CASE TO INVALIDATE FUNDING FOR
èC FOR CSU. WE COULD IMAGINE A
SITUATION IN WHICH WE APPROVE A
CONTRACT FOR STATE WORKERS TO
INCREASE THEIR PAY, AND SOMEBODY
COULD IMMEDIATELY BRING A LAW
STUDENTS SAY. WELL, THE THERE
THAT'S A POLICY CHOICE THE
LEGISLATURE HAS MADE. BUT THE
VOTERS HAVE SAID THAT HOUSING IS
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND SO WE AS
A QUARTER GOING TO INVALIDATE
THAT INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR A
CONTRACT FOR STATE WORKERS.
CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENT FUNDING
FOR NON PROFIT, LEGAL SERVICES,
HEALTHCARE PROTECTING OUR
UNDOCUMENTED COMMUNITIES.
BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE OF THIS
I SEE A BASIS FOR ANY PERSON IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
CHALLENGE ANY LAW. ANY RESOURCE
ALLOCATION DECISION MADE BY THE
LEGISLATURE AND, FRANKLY, ANY
DECISION BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
YOU COULD IMAGINE A SITUATION
WHERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES
THAT IT'S GOING TO ZONE
SOMETHING FOR SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING OR MARKET RATE HOUSING,
AND SOMEBODY COULD COME AND SAY
NO, WE NEED MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. AND SO THAT IS DOES
THAT THEN BECOME SUBJECT TO
LITIGATION? DOES THIS FORECLOSED
ANY POSSIBILITY OF SINGLE PAYER
HEALTHCARE? BECAUSE WE HAVE THE
VOTERS HAVE SAID IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION THAT HOUSING IS
PARAMOUNT AND ALL OF THE
RESOURCES HAVE TO GO THERE. I'LL
TELL YOU PART OF WHAT IS
DRIVING. THE ANXIETY HERE IS,
UH, SORT OF RANDOMLY IN LAW
SCHOOL. UM WE? I TOOK A CLASS WE
DID LOOK AT, UM, THE SOUTH
AFRICAN CONSTITUTION. AND THEY
PUT IN AFFIRMATIVE, RIGHT? I
DON'T. WE DIDN'T CALL IT A
POSITIVE, RIGHT. WE CALL IT AN
AFFIRMATIVE, RIGHT? TO HOUSING
IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN
CONSTITUTION. AND IT ENDED UP
BECOMING A DISASTER. IT WAS IT
WAS AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER, AND
BY ALL ACCOUNTS TREMENDOUSLY
EXACERBATED SOUTH AFRICA'S
HOUSING CRISIS BECAUSE COURTS
UNELECTED JUDGES WHO AREN'T ABLE
TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE VARIOUS
POLICY TRADE OFFS THAT WE AS
LEGISLATORS HAVE TO MAKE MADE
DECISIONS AND, YOU KNOW, COURTS
RECEIVE INFORMATION IN VERY
DIFFERENT WAYS. THERE'S
LIMITATIONS ON WHO CAN
PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC
PROCESS IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY.
MADE DECISIONS THAT DRAMATICALLY
EXACERBATED THE HOUSING CRISIS
IN SOUTH AFRICA. AND SO EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS TREMENDOUSLY WELL
INTENTIONED AS THIS IS, AND I
KNOW WHERE ALL OF YOU ARE COMING
FROM, AND I COULDN'T SUPPORT THE
INTENT OF THIS THIS ANYMORE. I
MEAN, IT IS IT IS. IT IS A
BEAUTIFUL AND IMPORTANT SAYING,
BUT AS I READ THIS IN ATTORNEY,
YOU KNOW, PROGRESSIVELY ACHIEVED
. WELL HOW QUICKLY IS THAT? A
JUDGE IN ORANGE COUNTY AND A
JUDGE IN SAN FRANCISCO MIGHT
DISAGREE VERY STRONGLY ON THAT
APPROPRIATE RESOURCES. WHAT DOES
THAT MEAN TO BE APPROPRIATE? ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HAD COME
FORWARD AND SAY THE LEGISLATURE
ALLOCATED ACTS FOR HOUSING AND
THE ALLOCATED Y FOR EDUCATION
ACTS IS NOT APPROPRIATE. AND SO
WE'RE GONNA SELL THE LEGISLATURE
OR ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE
THOSE ARE NOT THOSE ARE NOT
APPROPRIATE SHARED SHARED AS A
VERY VAGUE TERM. YOU KNOW WHAT
RESPONSIBILITY SO I WOULD LOVE
TO SEE THIS GOING THE DIRECTION
OF A TOOL THAT WE COULD USE WHEN
THERE ARE RECALCITRANT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY AN ISSUE. AND WE HAVE
SEEN THAT AND I APPLAUD THE WORK
THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE DONE IN
THAT SPACE TO GO AFTER THOSE
FOLKS. BUT I REALLY AM HAVING
TREMENDOUS HEARTBURN RIGHT NOW,
BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WHAT THIS
FUNDAMENTALLY DOES IS MAKES
EVERY RESOURCE ALLOCATION
DECISION. EVERY BUDGET THAT WE
PASS EVERY LAW THAT WE PASSED
WHERE WE CONSIDER TRADE OFFS,
EVERY DECISION THAT EVERY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PASSES IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT TO
LITIGATION AND SUBJECT TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW, SO I'D LOVE
YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE ENFORCEMENT
PIECE OF IT. AGAIN INCREDIBLE
ENTHUSIASM AND SUPPORT FOR WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH
TREMENDOUS HEARTBURN FOR HOW
THIS IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. WELL,
LET ME LET ME FIRST OF ALL,
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT, AND
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR FRANKNESS
ON THE CONCERNS AROUND IT. UM SO
AND I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT
FOR YOU AS WELL. UM I WILL SAY
THAT WHEN YOU JUST LAID OUT IS A
STRAW MAN. IF THERE IF THERE
EVER WAS ONE AS IT RELATES TO
THIS, UM THERE'S A THERE'S A
VERY LONG TRACK RECORD IN
HISTORY OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
BEING RECOGNIZED IN OUR
CONSTITUTION IN THE U. S
CONSTITUTION, UH AND IN THE
STATE CONSTITUTION, EITHER IN
OUR COURTS OR EXPLICITLY AND ALL
OF THOSE, NONE OF THOSE HAVE
BEEN INTERPRETED IN A WAY THAT
WIPES AWAY EVERYTHING ELSE OR
ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR ANY
AUTHORITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE,
THE COURTS WILL BALANCE OUR
DECISIONS WITHIN OUR
RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE
CONTEXT OF THE PEOPLE OF
CALIFORNIA, RECOGNIZING THIS AS
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND HAVE TO
DO A BALANCING AROUND IT, AND ON
WHAT IS POSSIBLE, AND WHO AND
WHICH ASPECTS OF, UH, OF OUR
DECISIONS OR LOCAL DECISIONS
RISE TO THE LEVEL WITHIN OTHER
LAWS. WE'VE PASSED VIOLATING
THIS, RIGHT. UM THIS WAS A
SIMILAR ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT
WE HEARD SOME OF A SLIPPERY
SLOPE AROUND AS A RELATED TO THE
RIGHT TO ACCESS TO ABORTION OR
CONTRACEPTION. SOME OF THIS WILL
BE INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS.
BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A BALANCING
AND IT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL
SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
NOTHING MORE THAT ALLOW US TO
HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO
MEETING THIS, RIGHT. SO I I'VE
NEVER SEEN IN ANY RIGHT THAT'S
BEEN RECOGNIZED EITHER FEDERALLY
OR IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION FOR
IT TO CROWD OUT EVERY SINGLE
OTHER DECISION. THAT'S THAT THAT
THE LEGISLATURE OR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT MAKES COURTS ALWAYS
HAVE AN ELEMENT OF BALANCING AND
THEY UNDERSTAND VERY WELL HOW TO
MANAGE OUR CODIFICATION OF A
RIGHT. WITHIN DECISIONS THAT WE
MAKE AS AS A LEGISLATOR AS A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. DO YOU WANT TO
SURE. YEAH AND I THINK THESE ARE
GREAT QUESTIONS. AND I THINK, UM
YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY, UM
WELCOME YOUR YOUR THOUGHT.
PARTNERSHIP AND I KNOW YOU'VE
BEEN YOU KNOW, A LEADER IN TERMS
OF CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION AT
THE AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL
AND AT MANY DIFFERENT LEVELS, UM
AND YOU KNOW AS AS YOU ARE
AWARE, AND YOU'RE IN YOUR
PRACTICE COURTS ROUTINELY, YOU
KNOW, WAY COMPETING VALUE SETS.
YOU KNOW, ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY WHICH IS
ALSO ENSHRINED IN OUR
CONSTITUTION, RIGHT? AND SO THIS
WOULD BE SAYING THAT THIS IS AT
LEAST AS IMPORTANT TO US AS THE
RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND
LANDOWNERS. YOU KNOW, WE SEE,
FOR EXAMPLE, AN EVICTION
PROCEEDINGS. WE DO HAVE THE YOU
KNOW THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY. WE
ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS. THOSE TWO VALUES ARE IN
CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER RIGHT?
AND SO WE HAVE TO BALANCE THOSE,
AND THAT'S WHAT COURTS ROUTINELY
DO. UM IN TERMS OF AND AS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, HANEY SAID,
REASONABLENESS SORT OF BAKED
INTO THAT EQUATION. UM I HAVE
NEVER SEEN A CASE WHERE OUR
COURTS WOULD INTERVENE IN THE
WAYS THAT THE SOUTH AFRICAN
COURTS HAVE. YOU KNOW, I THINK
ABOUT A CASE CALLED GROUP BOOM
IN SOUTH AFRICA, WHERE UM, THE
COURT. ACTUALLY YOU KNOW, THERE
WAS A DISMANTLING OF N N HOUSED
KIND OF SHANTI ENCAMPMENT AND
THE COURT HAD THE POLICE GO IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO
ACTUALLY REBUILD THAT
ENCAMPMENT. I'VE NEVER SEEN OUR
COURTS DO THAT. IT'S A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LEGAL
SYSTEM AND YOU KNOW I WOULD
POINT TO OTHER MODELS AROUND THE
WORLD. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE
FINNISH MODEL YOU KNOW, IN
FINLAND, THERE IS A STRONG, YOU
KNOW, RIGHT TO HOUSING AND
SHRINE IN THE IN THE
CONSTITUTION AND THAT GOVERNMENT
HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT
EFFECTIVELY ENDING AND
ERADICATING HOMELESSNESS, AND
THAT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS PAIRED
WITH SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN
HOUSING. FIRST STRATEGIES, SO A
RIGHT IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT
GOING TO SOLVE OUR HOUSING
CRISIS. AS YOU KNOW, RIGHT STAND
FOR BROAD PRINCIPLES AND THEY'RE
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES WE
HOLD DEAR IN OUR STATE, BUT THEY
NEED TO BE PAIRED WITH
INVESTMENTS. THEY NEED TO BE
PAIRED WITH STATUTORY
FRAMEWORKS. REGULATORY
FRAMEWORKS. THIS IS JUST THE
BASIS UPON WHICH WE DO ALL OF
THAT WORK AND UM, IN TERMS OF
THE LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF
IT IS DEFINED. LIKE I SAID IN
HUMAN RIGHTS IN HUMAN RIGHTS
LAW, AND YOU MENTIONED THE
MAXIMUM OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES,
AND THAT DOES NOT BY ANY STRETCH
REQUIRE US TO BANKRUPT OUR
ECONOMY GO INTO DEBT OR
DISINVEST IN OTHER, YOU KNOW,
NECESSARY RESOURCES. HUMAN
RIGHTS FRAMEWORKS RECOGNIZE THAT
ALL OF OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ARE
INTERCONNECTED, WHETHER THAT'S
THE RIGHT TO HELP THE RIGHT TO
EDUCATION AND SO WHAT I WOULD
FORESEE IS YOU KNOW IF THERE ARE
GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE REFUSING
INVESTMENTS AT ALL, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S I THINK WHERE THE COURT
WOULD INTERVENE AND SAY, YOU
KNOW, YOU'VE YOU KNOW, OKAY,
COUNTY YOU'VE INVESTED 0.01% OF
YOUR DISCRETIONARY BUDGET IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE MAXIMUM
AVAILABLE RESOURCES BUT MAXIMUM
AVAILABLE RESOURCES. THERE'S A
THOSE ARE TERMS OF ARE THERE
WELL DEFINED IN INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, AND THEY DO
NOT REQUIRE UNREASONABLE
OUTCOMES. CAN I RETURN? MAY? I
SURE WANT TO THANK YOU, I GUESS.
JUST A THOUGHT PROVOKING
CONVERSATION IN THE IN THE
SPIRIT OF ALL THAT. I MEAN, I
GUESS AS AS YOU ALL KNOW, UM AND
YOU KNOW ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S FROM
YOUR EXCELLENT LEGAL EDUCATION.
THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
PROTECTIONS. THERE ARE THINGS
THAT THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO TO
US. THEY ARE NOT AFFIRMATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS THAT
IMPOSE UPON THE GOVERNMENT THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO SOMETHING THE
GOVERNMENT CAN NOT VIOLATE YOUR
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH THE
GOVERNMENT CAN NOT VIOLATE YOUR
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, THEIR
LIMITATIONS ON WHAT THE
GOVERNMENT CAN DO CAN DO TO YOU.
THEY'RE NOT REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO AND SO
AGAIN BECAUSE OF THAT, I THINK
WHERE WE GET INTO, AND I THINK
YOU'RE CONCEDING THIS POINT IS
THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO BE
JUDGES THAT HAVE TO MAKE THESE
DECISIONS. I JUST YOU KNOW WHAT
I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS IF WE PUT
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS IN THE BUDGET. WE
HAVE TO MAKE REALLY TOUGH
CHOICES, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO
CHOOSE HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE WANT
TO PUT INTO HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS? AND HOW MUCH MONEY
DO WE WANT TO PUT INTO
HEALTHCARE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS? THAT'S A TOUGH CHOICE.
THOSE ARE BOTH IMPORTANT
PRIORITIES. THOSE ARE BOTH
THINGS THAT ARE WORTH WORTHY AND
DESERVING OF RESOURCES. AND WE
SIT HERE AND WE HAVE A LOT OF
HEARINGS AND WE TAKE TESTIMONY
FROM THE PUBLIC AND WE HAVE
PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS AMONG
OURSELVES IN PRIVATE
CONVERSATION OURSELVES, AND WE
ULTIMATELY SETTLE ON SOME
AMOUNT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
STATE CONSTITUTION THAT I'M
AWARE OF. THAT SAYS THAT THERE
IS A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
HEALTHCARE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS. IF WE PASS THIS, THERE'S
A REQUIREMENT IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION. UP TO THE MAXIMUM
OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO
PROVIDE MONEY AND HOUSING I FOR
ME, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT
SOMEBODY COULD CHALLENGE FUNDING
FOR HEALTHCARE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS BY SAYING THE VOTERS HAVE
SPOKEN THEY PUT IN THE
CONSTITUTION. PRIORITY NUMBER
ONE IS HOUSING AND THEREFORE ANY
FUNDING FOR HEALTHCARE FOR
UNDOCUMENTED FOLKS IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEN
ULTIMATELY THAT'S GOING TO BE
SOME. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S
GONNA WORK. A JUDGE IN ORANGE
COUNTY MIGHT SAY, WELL, MY
INTERPRETATION OF A MAXIMUM
AVAILABLE RESOURCES. HIS ACTS
AND A JUDGE IN SAN FRANCISCO
MIGHT SAY IT'S WHY. AND
ULTIMATELY, WHAT IS THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, THEN
ULTIMATELY MAKE THE FINAL
BUDGETARY DETERMINATION. IF I'M
WRONG IN I MEAN, I'D INVITE YOU
TO USE THAT ANALOGY OF
HEALTHCARE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS AND HOUSING. AND HOW DO
YOU SEE THAT? UM PLAYING OUT
AGAIN. MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO
WRITE IN SOME DEFERENCE TO THE
LEGISLATURE, AND BECAUSE I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO. YOU GOTTA PUSH FOLKS WHEN
THEY'RE NOT DOING THE RIGHT
THING WE NEED TO BE PUSHED.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO BE
PUSHED. I'M ACTUALLY MUCH MORE
INTERESTED IN BECAUSE I THINK WE
DO HAVE SOME REALLY RECALCITRANT
JURISDICTIONS, BUT I JUST DON'T
SEE AS A JUDGE SITTING HERE. I
MEAN, IF I WAS A JUDGE LOOKING
AT THIS CASE THE VOTERS HAVE
SPOKEN. THIS IS ENSHRINED IN OUR
STATE CONSTITUTION. HEALTHCARE
FOR UNDOCUMENTED FOLKS IS NOT MY
HANDS ARE TIED. THERE'S NOTHING
I CAN DO. I HAVE TO OVERRULE THE
LEGISLATURE AND RE AND RE
ALLOCATE AND REALLOCATE THOSE
RESOURCE. SO I THINK THESE ARE
ALL THINGS THAT REQUIRE
INCREDIBLY DELICATE. BALANCING
THE QUESTION IS WHO'S BEST
POSITION TO DO THE BALANCING THE
LEGISLATURE OR AN UNELECTED
JUDICIARY? AND I THINK FROM
WHERE I SAID BOTH FROM A PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS
MEANS AND ALSO FROM BALANCING
ALL OF THE INCREDIBLY
CHALLENGING DIFFICULT TRADEOFFS
HERE. YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY
PEOPLE ELECT REPRESENTATIVES AND
SEND THEM TO SACRAMENTO TO
WASHINGTON IS TO MAKE THOSE
REALLY COMPLICATED TRADE OFF. SO
IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT
CHALLENGE, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T
SEE HOW WE COULD EVER FIND
HEALTHCARE FOR UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS UNDER THIS WELL, SO FEW
THINGS AROUND THAT ONE IS, UH,
WE'RE CLEAR THAT THIS ISN'T JUST
ABOUT FUNDING. THERE'S A LOT OF
WAYS THAT WE CAN MEET THIS
RIGHT. IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE
CHANGING ZONING LAWS, HOW WE'RE
MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR HOUSING
TO BE BUILT. NOTHING IN THIS
REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO BUILD
ALL OF THE HOUSING OR PROVIDE
FREE HOUSING FOR ANYONE. SO IT'S
ABOUT HAVING A PLAN TO BE ABLE
TO ACTUALIZE THIS RIGHT IN A
REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WITHIN
REASONABLE RESOURCES. UM IT
DOESN'T SAY THAT HOUSING IS MORE
IMPORTANT THAN OTHER RECOGNIZED
RIGHTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN
OTHER RECOGNIZED PRIORITIES OF
THE LEGISLATURE. IT SAYS THAT
HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT WHICH I
KNOW IN YOUR COMMENTS. YOU ALSO
STARTED OUT ACKNOWLEDGING AND SO
THIS IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT
HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT BECAUSE
WE BELIEVE THAT AND WE WANT OUR
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO UNDERSTAND
THAT AND OUR COURTS TO
UNDERSTAND THAT ACCORDINGLY AND
ANALYZE IT WITH THAT IN MIND. I
UM I WOULD ALSO SAY, I'M NOT
AWARE OF ANY TIMES WHEN THE
COURTS FORCED THE LEGISLATURE TO
REALLOCATE FUNDING AWAY FROM ONE
THING INTO ANOTHER THING AND A
MASSIVE WAY. SO I DON'T THINK
THAT'S GENERALLY THE WAY THAT
THE COURTS IN IN THE IN THE
STATE SUPREME COURT OR
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT WOULD
INTERPRET THAT FORCING MONEY
AWAY FROM UNDOCUMENTED
HEALTHCARE. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO UM I
DON'T THINK THAT'S GENERALLY THE
WAY THAT THEY ANALYZE THE
QUESTION OF RIGHTS. THEY BALANCE
IT WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE
BRANCH PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
LEVELS OF SCRUTINY. ASK FOR THE
LEGISLATURE AND OTHERS TO PUT
FORWARD PLANS TO HELP TO MEET
THAT RIGHT AND JUDGE IT IN THE
CONTEXT OF CITIZENS. CITIZENS
CODIFYING ACCORDINGLY. SO I
THINK, AND I URGE YOU TO TAKE A
LOOK AT SOME OF THE DECISIONS OF
JUDGE CARTER AND OTHERS WHO HAVE
AND YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES HAS TO COME INTO
COURTROOMS AND JUSTIFY SOME OF
THEIR BUDGETARY DECISIONS. AND
SO THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT.
REALLY, AND YOU KNOW, IN RECENT
HISTORY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
I THINK WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE
HERE AGAIN AND LET ME LET ME
TAKE A BIG STEP BACK. WHAT Y'ALL
ARE TRYING TO DO HERE IS GOD'S
WORK. IT IS. IT IS BEAUTIFUL AND
HOLY AND IMPORTANT, AND I DON'T
THINK THERE'S A SINGLE PERSON IN
THIS ROOM. WHO CAN'T SAY THAT
HOUSING IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN,
RIGHT? AND I APPLAUD YOU. I
APPLAUD YOU REMEMBER BECAUSE YOU
HAVE BEEN SUCH AN IMPORTANT
VOICE IN THIS CONVERSATION. YOU
HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT ON YOUR
JOURNEY TO SACRAMENTO. YOU'VE
TALKED ABOUT IT HERE AND YOU ARE
IN A LOT OF WAYS OF PROFIT
PUSHING US TO DO BETTER, AND WE
NEED TO. WE NEED TO DO A LOT
BETTER. AND SO THE WORK THAT
YOU'RE DOING TO PUSH US ALL TO
DO BETTER IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
BUT I THINK THIS COULD REALLY
BENEFIT FROM SOME ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE THAT MADE IT CLEAR WHEN
AND HOW JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD
HAPPEN WHEN A WHEN A COURT COULD
OVERRULE THE BUDGET OF THE
LEGISLATURE WHEN THE COURT COULD
OVERRULE A LOCAL LAND USE
DECISION, BY THE WAY, I'D
PROBABLY BE COMFORTABLE WITH
COURTS, OVERRULING A LOT OF
LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS FROM
SOME OF THESE CITIES OUT THERE
THAT JUST ARE PART OF THE
PROBLEM. BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE.
THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME MORE
DIRECTION IN HERE BECAUSE I
THINK RIGHT NOW AND AGAIN. I
LOVE THE REFERENCES TO
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW.
I DON'T I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF
JUDGES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SAY, MAYBE MAYBE
THAT'S LIKE A THIRD TIER,
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY I'M GOING
TO LOOK AT, BUT I'VE GOT TO LOOK
AT OTHER THINGS HERE, SO I'M NOT
ACTUALLY SURE THAT THESE TERMS
ARE AS WELL DEFINED AND ARE
GOING TO BE AS WELL UNIVERSALLY
UNDERSTOOD BY JUDGES AS YOU
THINK THERE, SO I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU AS THIS MOVES
FORWARD. UM I THINK IT COULD
REALLY BENEFIT PERSONALLY MY OWN
PERSONAL OPINION OUT OF OFFERED
OUT OF RESPECT AND LOVE IS COULD
REALLY BENEFIT FOR SOME THINKING
ABOUT HOW DO WE SHAPE THIS AND
STRUCTURE THIS SO THAT IT COULD
BE WHAT WE ALL WANTED TO BE A
TOOL TO HOLD RECALCITRANT FOLKS,
UH, ACCOUNTABLE A TOOL TO PUSH
US TO DO HARDER, BUT NOT ONE
THAT IS GOING TO SAY THAT EVERY
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION EVERY
LABOR STANDARD EVERY CONTRACT.
YOU KNOW, EVERY RESOURCE
ALLOCATION DECISION IS SUBJECT
TO THE SHORT VIEW BECAUSE I CAN
SEE THAT HAPPENING, AND I THINK
THAT'D BE A DISASTER. MAY I ASK
A FOLLOW UP? JUST WANTING TO
UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT, MADAM.
IT'S FINE IF I IF I CAN. I WANT
TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION MOVING
FORWARD IF THAT'S OKAY, MR
CHOLERA. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
, UM, ENTERTAINING, IT WOULD BE
FUN TO SEE A MOOT WITH THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. EXACTLY
YEAH, YEAH, HAITI AND GABRIEL AS
IT'S. IT'S COOL TO SEE, UM AND,
UM, LOOK, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UM
, CONCERNS FROM OUR COLLEAGUES
OR WELL FOUNDED THERE ARE COMING
FROM A PLACE OF LOVE. NO DOUBT
ABOUT IT. UM I DO THINK THAT THE
SLIPPERY SLOPES GETTING REALLY
SLIPPERY BECAUSE THE REALITY IS
THAT, AS MENTIONED, THERE IS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP AND WHAT HAVE YOU AND
YET WE STILL HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS THAT WE STILL HAVE
OTHER TYPES OF MECHANISMS, UM,
TO BE IMPOSED UPON PROPERTY
OWNERS, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S A
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S
BALANCED WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF
LIVING IN A SOCIETY OTHER
ASPECTS OF PUBLIC POLICY THAT
MAY NOT EVEN BE RIGHT BUT STILL
CAN OVERRIDE FUNDAMENTAL. RIGHT.
UM ULTIMATELY, AND I THINK THAT
AND KNOWING THAT SEVERAL HANEY I
KNOW YOU'LL TAKE ALL THE
COMMENTS TO HEART IN TERMS OF IF
THERE COULD BE LANGUAGE THAT
CAN, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF
DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE
AUTHORITY? WHAT HAVE YOU? I
THINK THOSE ARE REASONABLE
THINGS TO CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO
AND FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, BUT
THIS IS THE FIRST HEARING WE'RE
HAVING ON THIS AND SO ULTIMATELY
DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT
WHAT? WHAT? WHETHER HOUSING IS A
FOUNDATIONAL OR SHOULD BE A
FOUNDATIONAL RIGHT AND WHEN WERE
LIVING IN THE FOURTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD, AND WE CAN
PROVIDE A BASIC RIGHT OF HOUSING
TO, FOLKS, UM YEAR AFTER YEAR
AFTER YEAR. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE
FOLLOWING MORE AND MORE BEHIND,
OFTENTIMES BECAUSE OF THE FACT
THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS UM
EITHER I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE OF
HOUSING AS A CRISIS OR MAYBE
DON'T WANT YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE
IT IMPACTING THEM, AND SO WE'LL
JUST PUSH THAT ISSUE OFF TO
OTHER JURISDICTIONS. OTHER AREAS
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T BOTHER
THEM, AND FOLKS IN THEIR
JURISDICTION BEING IN SAN JOSE.
YOU SEE IT IN SOUTH KOREA COUNTY
ALL THE TIME WITH THE SMALLER
JURISDICTIONS, SOME OF WHOM HAVE
EVEN SAID, WHO'S MAYORS HAVE
SAID WE'RE GONNA BUILD A WALL
AROUND OUR CITY AND MAKE SOUNDS,
THEY PAY FOR IT. THAT'S THE KIND
OF RHETORIC WE'RE HEARING FROM
FOLKS THAT ARE REFUSING TO BUILD
ANY KIND OF HOUSING. AND SO IF
THIS NOT ONLY CAN LEVEL SET US
IN TERMS OF OUR COMPASSION AND A
FOUNDATIONAL SENSE. BUT ON TOP
OF THAT PUSH SOME JURISDICTIONS
TO SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T JUST
IGNORE. UM BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A
RIGHT THAT YOU NEED TO ACCOUNT
FOR AND IF IT CAN HELP IN TERMS
OF STREAMLINING HELP IN TERMS OF
FORCE, HELP OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHEN OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
CHALLENGING THIS JURISDICTIONS
FOR DOING NOTHING ON HOUSING. I
THINK THAT'S WHAT EXCITES ME
ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY OF THIS
LEGISLATION, AND I KNOW KNOWING
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS THAT
YOU KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE
CONTINUED TO WORK ON IT, UM IT
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE ISSUES
RAISED. I THINK JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. INTERPRETATION IS AN
ISSUE WITH EVERYTHING WE PASSED
IN THE LEGISLATURE UNDERSTANDING
THAT NOT EVERYTHING WE PASSED IS
A RIGHT OR OR BUT THAT BEING
SAID, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO SUBJECT
OURSELVES TO WHAT THE
POSSIBILITIES ARE OF WHAT A
JUDGE COULD DO OR WHAT THE
SUPREME COURT COULD DO. UM BUT
ULTIMATELY YOU KNOW, I THINK IT
FALLS ON US TO MAKE THE
DETERMINATION AS TO HOW SERIOUS
OF AN ISSUE THIS IS. I KNOW ALL
OF US UP HERE, REGARDLESS OF HOW
WE FEEL ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR
MEASURE, KNOW HOW SERIOUS OF AN
ISSUE OUR HOUSING CRISIS IS. SO
UM, I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT LIKE
TO BE ADDED ON AS A CO AUTHOR
AND HAPPY TO HELP WORK ON SOME
OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED TODAY AS WELL AND WE'LL
MOVE THE BILL. MR QUIRK-SILVA. I
CONCUR WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE,
ALTHOUGH THERE IS VERY VERY IN
POINTS OF VIEW. AND I THINK THAT
IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE AND
SEE THESE REALLY SMART MINDS
DEBATE SOME OF THESE ISSUES
BECAUSE ALL TOO OFTEN WHETHER
IT'S LOCAL, GOVERNMENT OR STATE
. WE'RE JUST MOVING POLICIES
FORWARD AND HERE WE HAVE BEEN
INDULGED WITH SOME TIME TO
REALLY HEAR EACH OTHER OUT IN A
RESPECTFUL MANNER. SO NUMBER
ONE. I'M REALLY HAPPY TO BE PART
OF THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS
DIFFERENT IS THERE HAVE BEEN
OTHER ATTEMPTS OUT ON THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE OF LEGISLATION
OR THIS GOAL AND ONE OF THE
THINGS I THINK THAT I'M HEARING
MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING IS AND
I TO SUPPORT THIS IS WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT IF IT GETS ALL
THE WAY TO THE GOVERNOR THAT IT
IS NOT ONLY SIGNED, BUT THE NEXT
PART OF LEGISLATION IS HOW DO WE
IMPLEMENT IT? HOW? HOW CAN WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GOAL AND
THE GOAL IS TO CREATE HOUSING
FOR AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
I'LL JUST SWITCH ON TO MY
EDUCATION, UH, HAT AS A TEACHER
FOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE GOALS IN
THE CLASSROOM EVERY YEAR, AND
THOSE GOALS ARE EVERY STUDENT
WILL READ BY THIRD GRADE OR
EVERY STUDENT WILL MASTER
CERTAIN, UH, UH, CONCEPTS OR
STANDARDS AND THOSE ARE THE
GOALS AND WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE
CLEAR ABOUT THE GOALS AND HOW TO
ATTAIN THEM. AND YET WE KNOW
THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS ACHIEVE
THAT. BUT YET WE HAVE TO BE BOLD
AND WE HAVE TO BE INTENTIONAL
ABOUT THE GOALS WE SET. THERE'S
THREE BASIC NEEDS FOR HUMANS.
YOU ALL KNOW THEM. WHAT ARE
THEY? FOOD, WATER AND SHELTER.
AND WHEN WE ARE FOLLOWING SHORT
BY THOUSANDS OF UNITS A YEAR,
THEN WE HAVE TO BE INTENTIONAL
AND CLEAR ABOUT IT, AND OUR
CONSTITUTION IS A PLACE TO PLACE
. THIS GOAL. IT DOESN'T MEAN
WE'RE GOING TO GET THEIR
RAPIDLY. WE HAVE SEEN THAT WE
ARE JUST MAKING SLOW AND I
WOULDN'T EVEN SAY STEADY
PROGRESS. WE ARE BARELY BUILDING
AND WE HAVE TO BE DO BETTER. SO
THIS MAY BE A MULTI GENERATIONAL
GOAL THAT SOME OF US WON'T EVEN
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE COME
TO FRUITION BECAUSE WE'RE AGE.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT HOUSING
CALIFORNIANS SHOULD NOT BE A
PARTISAN ISSUE, AND BY THE WAY
IT ISN'T PARTISAN HOMELESSNESS
AFFECTS, UH, DEMOCRATS,
REPUBLICANS, LATINOS EVERY
CULTURE OUT THERE, AND IT'S A
GOAL THAT WE SHOULD SIMPLY
ENSHRINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND BY THE WAY, IT'S AN A C A.
SO OUR VOTERS WILL BE VOTING ON
THIS, UH, WITH THAT. I SUPPORT
THIS AND BUT WOULD ASK YOU TO
LISTEN TO OUR COLLEAGUES HERE
BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS SOME
TIGHTENING UP OF LANGUAGE THAT
MAY MAKE IT, UH, A LITTLE BIT
MORE FEASIBLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE
TO SUPPORT. CARILLO. AND THEN MR
PATTERSON. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION AROUND THE POLICY
THIS MORNING. AH IN BUDGETS OF
FOUR WHEN WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING
ISSUES RELATED TO HOMEOWNERSHIP
, FIRST TIME BUYER PROGRAMS, ALL
THE INVESTMENTS IN HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS, ONE PIECE OF
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE HAD,
AND I THINK IT'S NOT IN
PARTICULAR TO THE A C A NOW, BUT
I THINK A LARGER CONVERSATION
JUST SIMPLY ON LAND. IS FOREIGN
INVESTMENT AND WHO'S BUYING?
LAND IN CALIFORNIA WHO'S BUYING
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA THE
CALIFORNIANS CAN ACTUALLY BUY
ANYMORE IN THESE HOMES REMAIN
VACANT ACROSS ACROSS THE STATE.
I HAVE FOUND IT REALLY
INTERESTING TO DIVE DEEPER INTO
THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF WHEN
FOREIGN INVESTMENT COMES INTO
OUR STATE, AND THEY'RE BUYING
HOMES. THEY'RE NOT BUYING HOMES
OR BUYING LAND. AND THEY'RE
BUYING LAND IN CALIFORNIA. WHICH
IS MAKING IT MORE AND MORE MUCH
HARDER FOR FAMILIES ACROSS OUR
STATE TO BE ABLE TO PURCHASE
HAVE THE CALIFORNIA UH DREAM OF
HOME OWNERSHIP OR EVEN HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE RENT.
THAT'S THAT'S A LARGER
CONVERSATION THAT SOME OF US
HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT. AND
WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. WHEN YOU
GO TO ANOTHER COUNTRY WHEN YOU
GO TO MEXICO. YOU GO TO THE
COASTAL AREAS IN MEXICO. MEXICO
HAS PASSED POLICIES THAT SAYS
ONLY MEXICAN CITIZENS CAN BI
COASTAL PROPERTY SO THAT FOREIGN
INVESTORS DON'T COME IN AND BUY
ALL THE BEAUTIFUL BEACHSIDE
PROPERTY ALONG THE COAST OF
MEXICO. I SHARE THAT AS AN
EXAMPLE, BECAUSE AGAIN IT IS
BECOMING HARDER AND HARDER. TO
BE A HOMEOWNER AND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE OF THE
MASSIVE FOREIGN INVESTMENT THAT
WE HAVE ON PURCHASING LAND THAT
IS PART OF A OF A LARGER
CONVERSATION ON HOUSING. THAT WE
SHOULD PROBABLY AT SOME POINT.
THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER AS WE
LOOK TO MAKING HOUSING A HUMAN
RIGHT AND THE STATE SO JUST
WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AS
JUST SOMETHING FOR US TO THINK
ABOUT LONG TERM. BUT I ALSO
WANTED TO SAY JUST THANK YOU TO
ALL THE ADVOCATES THAT HAVE COME
UP IN A SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND
THANK YOU TO BARRIO ACTION FROM
MY DISTRICT AND TORINO FOR
COMING UP ALL THE WAY FROM LOS
ANGELES TO COME UP HERE AND
ADVOCATE UH IN SACRAMENTO, AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE YOUNG
WOMAN WHO WAS DOING THE
INTERPRETATION FOR THE SPANISH
SPEAKERS AS WELL. WE ARE DOING A
LOT OF WORK IN OUR STATE BUDGET
AS WELL TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
ACCESS TO INTERPRETATION AND
TRANSLATION SO THAT THE PEOPLE'S
HOUSE CONTINUES TO BE A PLACE
WHERE EVERYONE FEELS WELCOMED.
SO THANK YOU. GRACIAS. PERSONAS
K¾T ABOUT THAT BATTLE ESTADO
CASA, THE. IMPORTANT FAMILIAR.
SO I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU KNOW
ALL THE ADVOCATES FOR DOING THE
WORK NECESSARY AND FOR ENSURING
THAT ALL THE VOICES OF THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE ARE
INCLUDED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU, MR PATTERSON. THANK
YOU. UM, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE
THE WORK THAT MY FRIEND AND
COLLEAGUE FROM SAN FRANCISCO
DOES WORKS ON WHEN IT COMES TO
HOUSING. UH HE HAS A PROBLEM IN
HIS DISTRICT AND WE HAVE A
PROBLEM STATEWIDE, AND YOU'RE
TRYING TO ADDRESS IT, AND I KNOW
YOU'RE WORKING ON THIS ON ALL
SORTS OF FRIENDS. AH UM, YOU
KNOW, AND A LOT OF WHAT WE DO IN
THIS COMMITTEE IS WE TRY TO
LOOSEN SOME OF THE SCREWS THAT
THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PUT ON PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO
ATTAIN HOUSING IN THIS STATE.
I'M NOT A LAWYER. AND LIKE SO
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE,
UM I'M A POLICYMAKER AND YOU
KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE WHO HAVE
BEEN WATCHING THIS COMMITTEE CAN
ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT I'M VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF DEMOCRATIC AND
REPUBLICAN EFFORTS ALIKE. UM UM
, TO PROMOTE POLICIES THAT. GET
TO THE RESULT OF US HAVING MORE
HOUSING SOMETIMES, UM, YOU KNOW
, INTERNALLY AND WITHIN MY OWN
CAUCUS, WE JOKE A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE VOTING ON SOME OF THE
MEASURES. AH UM, BUT I LIKE TO
USE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS WOULD
PLAY OUT IN THE COURTS. I WANT
TO USE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN SAID, AND IN
VARIOUS ARTICLES AND IN
INCLUDING IN THIS COMMITTEE. AND
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID WAS
SOMETHING THE COURTS AND THE
LEGISLATURE WILL FIGURE OUT. I
MEAN, THAT STATEMENT ALONE KIND
OF SCARES ME ABOUT. YOU KNOW
WHERE THIS IS GOING. UH UM, IN A
IN AN ARTICLE, UH, ABOUT THIS
BILL. IT SAID THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THIS WAS
ACTUALLY A OPINION PIECE BY
SOMEBODY THAT WORKS WITH THE
GOVERNOR WOULD REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE THIRD
PARTY PROFITEERING PROFITEERS,
WHICH COULD MEAN RENT CONTROL
AND A RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND
EVICTION PROCEEDINGS. UM I THINK
THE THING IS YOU KNOW WE CAN
MAKE DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT ANY
OF THOSE POLICIES ARE GOOD OR
BAD. AH UM, BUT THAT
DETERMINATION WILL EVENTUALLY BE
MADE BY THE COURTS THAT WE HAVE
TO HAVE RENT CONTROL IN A
PARTICULAR CITY. UM BECAUSE
RENTS ARE SO EXPENSIVE THERE OR
WHATEVER IT MAY BE. AND THEN
ANOTHER STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT
BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE THE
GOVERNMENT TO RAISE AS MANY
RESOURCES AS POSSIBLE FOR
HOUSING WITHOUT UNDERMINING THE
LONG TERM VIABILITY OF THE
ECONOMY. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT
ACTUALLY SAYS THAT IN THIS BILL
THAT HAD THAT THERE'S ANY
CONCERN ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF
THE ECONOMY. I KNOW YOU'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, OF COURSE,
BUT UM, BUT THE SUPPORT
STATEMENT FOR THIS THAT THAT
DOESN'T SAY THAT IN THE BILL SO
WHAT CONCERNS ME OVERALL IS THAT
YOU KNOW THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T IT
DOESN'T REALLY SAY ANYTHING. AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT. AH, UM. YOU
KNOW, THE STATEMENT THAT THAT
YOU MADE WAS THAT EVERY WORD IS
WELL DEFINED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. AND YOU
KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY
CONSIDERED THOSE IN THIS BODY ON
A REGULAR BASIS. WHAT THAT MEANS
TWO THINGS IN OUR COURTS
APPLYING INTERNATIONAL LAW. MORE
BROADLY THAN MAYBE IT'S ALREADY
DONE. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY IN
CONCLUSION THAT YOU KNOW, I TAKE
I DO TAKE MY ROLES, POLICYMAKER
VERY SERIOUSLY IN MAKING SURE
THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO
HOUSING. I THINK THE STATE UM
YOU KNOW, OVER TIME. WE'RE
FIXING IT, BUT HAS DONE YOU KNOW
, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVEN'T
DONE A GREAT JOB AT DOING THAT,
WHICH I THINK HAS CONTRIBUTED TO
HOMELESSNESS. BUT I AM REALLY
SCARED ABOUT HOW MANY JUDGES DO
WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA? MAYBE ONE
OF THE LAWYERS KNOW A LOT, BUT
I'M WORRIED ABOUT ONE OF THEM OR
TWO OF THEM ARE 10 OF THEM ARE
20 OF THEM. MAKING PUBLIC POLICY
ACROSS THE BOARD. I ACTUALLY
APPRECIATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT
YOU MADE AND MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE COMMITTEE MADE ABOUT WE DO
HAVE COMPETING INTERESTS AND
COMPETING RIGHTS IN OUR
CONSTITUTION AND WITHIN STATUTE,
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I
ACTUALLY DON'T CONSIDER THAT
POINT BY MAKING IT A FUNDAMENTAL
POINT OR A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.
DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING ELSE
GOES OUT, ACTUALLY APPRECIATED
THAT ARGUMENT. UM BUT I'M STILL
CONCERNED ABOUT YOU KNOW, THE
HUNDREDS OF JUDGES WE HAVE IN
CALIFORNIA HAVING DIFFERENT
IDEAS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS AND
HEY, YOU KNOW, MR GABRIEL
HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS AND OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU
WANT TO RESPOND TO THIS, YOU
CAN. IT'S MORE JUST A TIRADE
FROM ME. I APPRECIATE I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK WHEN I'M
TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHY I WANNA
VOTE. GO ON, SO UM, WHY DON'T I
, UM LET YOU RESPOND IN YOUR
CLOTHES WERE ACTUALLY HEARD FROM
EVERYONE ON THE COMMITTEE,
RIGHT? OKAY WHEN OH, MR ANDREWS
, DO YOU WANT TO ADD? OKAY UM,
AND WE HAVE EMOTION. THE SECOND
CORRECT. YES OKAY. SO WITH THAT,
MR HANEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE AND TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF
THAT APPRECIATE ALL OF THE
COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK AND IDEAS
AND CERTAINLY WHAT WILL TAKE ALL
OF THAT? I DO WANT TO SAY THAT,
UH ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE SOME OF
THE WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD
POTENTIALLY CLARIFIED THIS
FURTHER AND SOME OF THE
POTENTIAL UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES AND WAY THAT WE CAN
REALLY DIG IN A BIT MORE ON THE
LANGUAGE, AND I WANT TO THANK MR
PRESIDENT AND EVERYONE WHO CAME
HERE TODAY AND ALL OF THE
SUPPORTERS. I DO WANT TO SAY,
AND I, UH THAT THE CONCEPT OF
CODIFYING A RIGHT WHETHER THAT'S
IN THE U. S CONSTITUTION. OUR
STATE CONSTITUTION IS SOMETHING
THAT IS ACTUALLY VERY FAMILIAR
TO OUR COURTS. THEY KNOW HOW TO
CONSIDER THAT WITHIN POLICY
MAKING. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO
PROPERTY AS AS HAS BEEN SAID
THAT HAS NOT LED TO BROAD POLICY
MAKING FROM FROM THE COURTS AS
IT RELATES TO PROPERTY. THEY
KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET THAT, AND
THEY WOULD TAKE A SIMILAR
APPROACH AS IT RELATES TO
HOUSING. I DO THINK AS WE'VE ALL
SAID RIGHT NOW OUR STATE IS
FAILING TO ACTUALIZE THIS RIGHT
AT EVERY LEVEL, THE LEVEL OF
HOMELESSNESS THE LEVEL OF LACK
OF BUILDING TO MEET THE NEEDS.
THIS IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT THE
CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA CAN PUT A
MEASURE FOR ACCOUNTABILITY SO
THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER.
THIS IS THEM EXPRESSING THEIR
VOICE AND HOLDING US ACCOUNTABLE
TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, AND THAT
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT AGAIN
COURTS ARE VERY WELL AND
UNDERSTANDING HOW TO INTERPRET A
RIGHT LIKE THAT. SO WITH THAT,
UM, REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY, MADAM CHAIR AND
YOUR STAFF TO BRING THIS
FORWARD. WE KNOW WE HAVE MORE
WORK TO DO BOTH ON THIS AND IN
OUR STATE TO REALLY MAKE SURE
THAT EVERYONE IN OUR STATE HAS
ACCESS TO HOUSING. AND WITH
THAT, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU, MR HANEY. AND
I WANT TO THANK OUR COLLEAGUES
FURTHER ROBUST CONVERSATION. I
DIDN'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL EITHER,
BUT I FEEL LIKE I JUST GOT A
GLIMPSE INTO IT. UM I ALSO WANT
TO THANK MISS PEGGY. PLEASANT
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. UM CENTERING
THIS CONVERSATION AROUND YOUR
LIVED EXPERIENCE, I THINK IS
CRITICAL BECAUSE I THINK OFTEN
WE CAN SIT UP HERE IN SACRAMENTO
AND BE DETACHED FROM THE
REALITIES OF WHAT THE WORK THAT
WE'RE DOING. AND YOUR VOICE, I
THINK CENTERS, THE CONVERSATION
FOR US AND A REALLY IMPORTANT
HUESO. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
FOR TESTIFYING. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK ALL THE ACTIVISTS THAT
CAME UP FROM AROUND THE STATE. I
HEARD A LOT OF FOLKS FROM
RICHMOND, MY DISTRICT, SO
APPRECIATE YOUR ALL'S TESTIMONY
AND YOUR CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO
THIS ISSUE. UM I KNOW THAT THAT
COMMITMENT COMES FROM LIVED
EXPERIENCE FOR MANY OF YOU, UM
SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE IN
SACRAMENTO TODAY. UM I ALSO WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
CONTINUED, UM ADVOCACY PUSHED
TENACITY. UM DRIVE ON HOUSING.
UM HE'S BEEN A GREAT PARTNER. UM
SINCE HE'S BEEN ELECTED HERE IN
THE LEGISLATURE, UM, CONTINUE TO
HOLD, HOLD US ACCOUNTABLE AND
HOLD OUR FEET TO THE FIRE. SO
YOUR VOICE MR HANEY IS CRITICAL
WITH THIS. UM AND I DO AGREE
WITH THE AMBITIOUS GOALS THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SET FORTH HERE.
AS AS ANYONE KNOWS, UM THE WORK
THAT I'VE BEEN DOING SINCE I'VE
BEEN HERE. IT'S ABOUT ENSURING
THAT WE BUILD THE HOUSING THAT
WE NEED. I KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA
HAS ONE OF THE WORST HOUSING
PROBLEMS IN THE NATION. I KNOW
THAT WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF OUR
FOLKS EXPERIENCING HOUSING AND
SECURITY AND WORRIED ABOUT HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY RENT AND
MAKING TRADE OFFS AROUND, DO I,
YOU KNOW, UM BY MY MEDICATION
THIS MONTH OR PAY MY RENT. I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF
CALIFORNIANS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW,
1 $700 EMERGENCY AWAY FROM
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE LOWEST
HOMEOWNERSHIP RATES IN THE
NATION. UM I KNOW THAT WE HAVE
THESE CHALLENGES AND THE STATUS
QUO IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WHICH IS
WHY I HAVE BEEN DOGGED AS THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN, ALONG WITH MY
COLLEAGUES HERE ON THIS
COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE
DOING THE STREAMLINING WORK AND
CREATING A BETTER POLICY
ENVIRONMENT SO THAT WE CAN BUILD
THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED. I ALSO
KNOW THAT A LOT OF THAT OR SOME
OF THAT RATHER IS OUT OF THE
CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT. YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE HIGH INTEREST
RATES. WE HAVE SUPPLY CHAIN
ISSUES. WHEN WE HAVE SOME OF
THESE CHALLENGES, WE CAN DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN. BUT SOME OF
IT'S BEYOND OUR CONTROL. BUT WE
HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN AS
GOVERNMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE
EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAD IS NOT
REPLICATED. UM AND THAT IS WHAT
I KNOW. OUR MISSION IS OUR
COLLECTIVE MISSION. UM I WOULD
ASK THE AUTHOR TO WORK WITH MR
GABRIEL ON SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT HE RAISED BECAUSE I THINK
THAT HE'S RAISING VALID
CONCERNS. AND I THINK THE TRICK
FOR US ALWAYS IN THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS IS TO DO THE BIG THINGS
THAT WE WANT TO DO WITHOUT
CREATING SOME OF THE NEGATIVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND WE
HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. SO
THAT IS MY ASK. AND I KNOW MR
HANEY WILL COMMIT TO THAT
BECAUSE HE'S A STRONG AUTHOR. SO
I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE
CONVERSATIONS AND THINKING
THROUGH. SOME OF THE REMEDIES
MAY BE OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED. I ALSO SHARE A
MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT THE LACK OF
FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN CALIFORNIA. IT IS PROBLEMATIC
. WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF FUNDS.
UH IN IN MANY OF OUR PROGRAMS. I
KNOW OUR CHAIR OF BUDGET SUPPORT
HERE SHARES THIS CONCERN. UM YOU
KNOW, THEY SAY YOUR YOUR BUDGET
OR YOUR VALUES AND IN CALIFORNIA
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR BUDGET WE
DON'T HAVE CONSIDERABLE ONGOING
FUNDING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT EVERY
SINGLE YEAR. AND SO THAT IS AN
ISSUE THAT I CARE A LOT ABOUT
AND SO ENSURING THAT IF WE PUT
SOMETHING LIKE THIS FORWARD OR
THINKING ABOUT THE FUNDING THAT
GOES WITH IT SO THAT WE CAN GET
THE HOUSING THAT WE NEED, AND I
HAVE A BOND THAT WILL HELP WILL
BE ON THE BALLOT JUST TO PUT A
LITTLE PLUG IN FOR THAT FOR $10
MILLION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM UM SO WITH THAT, WITH ALL OF
THAT, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE
MEASURE MOVING FORWARD TODAY. UM
AND SHOULD IT MOVE FORWARD,
WHICH I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL ASK
THAT YOU COULD CARRY ON WITH THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING
, UM, ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS. I DO THINK IT'S
LAUDABLE TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF
AMBITIOUS GOALS AND TO HOLD
OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE. AND WITH
THAT THE MOTION IS TO BE ADOPTED
AND RE REFERRED TO THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
WEEKS AND WEEKS. I PATERSON
PERSON NO CARILLO. CARILLO I,
GABRIEL GABRIEL, I CHOLERA.
COLORADO HIGH QUIRK-SILVA
QUIRK-SILVA SANCHEZ SANCHEZ, NO
WORK. WAR. I THAT BILL IS OUT
62.
I SHOULD. SENATOR PRETTY. THIS
IS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE IN THE ASSEMBLY. YEAH
BRINGS BACK THE LAW STUDENT IN
ME. IT WAS REALLY COURT. I LOVE
IT. EXACTLY YOU WANT TO GIVE US
ONE SECOND? JUST ABSOLUTELY
FINE. HEY, HOW ARE YOU? GOOD TO
SEE YOU. OKAY WITH THAT, SENATOR
PADILLA, YOU ARE PRESENTING SB 7
13. THE FLOOR IS FINALLY YOURS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
CERTAINLY AN HONOR TO BE AMONG
YOU THIS MORNING AND A FANTASTIC
CONVERSATION. IT'S MY HONOR TO
PRESENT SB 713 A LITTLE BIT
SIMPLER THAN YOUR LAST
CONVERSATION IS SIMPLY CODIFIES
IN STATUTE CONSISTENT WITH
EXISTING JUDICIAL REVIEW AND A
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM PROVIDED BY
THE DEPARTMENT WITH RESPECT TO
THE STATES DENSITY BONUS LAW, UM
, THAT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEFINITION IN THE STATUTE SHOULD
INCLUDE STANDARDS THAT ARE
IDENTIFIED AS NOT BEING ALLOWED
TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF PRECLUDING
THE APPLICATION OF THE DENSITY
BONUS LAW, PRECLUDING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WILL INCLUDE LOCAL
ORDINANCES THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE
THROUGH POPULAR PLEBISCITE. IN
OTHER WORDS, VOTER INITIATIVES
IN THE LOCAL LEVEL WILL BE
INCLUDED, SPECIFICALLY AND
ARTICULATED IN STATUTE. AS BEING
PART OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THAT CANNOT CONTRAVENE THE BONUS
LAW OR THE OR THE POLICY INTENT
BEHIND IT. UM SO THIS SIMPLY
CLARIFIES THAT IN STATUTE ON ITS
FACE, IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE
THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE
CLEAR CONSISTENT WITH THE
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. UM, AND
WITH ME TODAY IS DANTE GOLDEN
WITH THE SAN DIEGO HOUSING
FEDERATION, AND I THINK THE
COMMITTEE THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS NAME
IS DANTE GOLDEN, OR OUR
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTS, UM, THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTOR IN SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, AS WELL AS 75
ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS ACROSS
THE STATE. WE ARE PROUD SPONSOR
OF SB 7 13. THIS BILL IS A
COMMON SENSE. STATUTORY UPDATE
TUESDAY DENSITY BONUS LAW THAT
CLARIFIES THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
MAY NOT APPLY ANY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD THAT PRECLUDES
PROJECTS. YOU CAN ADD DENSITY
BONUS, EVEN IF THAT SENATORS
ADOPTED BY THE ELECTORATE
THROUGH LOCAL INITIATIVE OR
REFERENDUM POWER. THIS
LEGISLATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
LAWS GOVERNING STATE PREEMPTION
PROVIDES GREATER CERTAINTY TO
DEVELOPERS CONSIDERING PROJECTS
UTILIZING STATEMENTS INTO
PROGRAM, AND IT'S WHY THE
COALITION SUPPORTING THIS BILL
IS MADE UP OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MEMBERS MARK RATE DEVELOPERS AND
PRO HOUSING ADVOCATES.
FURTHERMORE THE PRECARIOUS
CAPITAL STACKS THAT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS HAVE TO
CONSTRUCT TO FINANCE A PROJECT
COUPLED WITH THE DELAYS,
AMBIGUITY AND CONFUSION THAT
CURRENTLY EXISTS IN LAW. WHEN
THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
VOTER APPROVED INITIATIVE AND
STAND DENSITY BONUS LAW ONLY
GOES TO DRIVE UP COSTS FOR OUR
MEMBERS AND COULD LEAD TO A LOSS
OF FUNDING FROM ANY ONE OF OUR
CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES WITHOUT
SP 7 13 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS
WILL LIKELY NOT MOVE FORWARD DUE
TO THE LACK OF CLARITY IN THE
LAW. SO WE ARE PROUD SPONSOR AND
I HOPE YOU WILL VOTE THIS
THROUGH. THANK YOU ADDITIONAL
FOLKS WHEN I REGISTER SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL. MARK'S DIVERS WITH
THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING
PARTNERSHIP AND SUPPORT AND WITH
THAT, I THINK I HIT EVERY BILL
TODAY. GOOD JOB. GOOD JOB. MARK
MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS DEAN
GARFIELD CAPITAL, OBVIOUSLY, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA LIFE
SCIENCES HERE IN SUPPORT OF
BILL, THANK YOU. HELLO CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. PATRICK MACKELLAR ON
BEHALF OF I Q HQ IN SUPPORT OF
THE BUILDING. THANK YOU ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM AND OPPOSITION. WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. ANY
QUESTIONS? WE HAVE EMOTIONAL BY
MR GABRIEL A SECOND, MR CHOLERA
AND MR PATTERSON. I JUST WANT TO
SAY A QUICK STATEMENT. YOU KNOW,
WE'VE PASSED A LOT OF
LEGISLATION HERE AND OVER THE
YEARS THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY,
WE'RE CLARIFYING THIS, YOU KNOW
, BECAUSE OF WHAT I SAW IN THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL IS
DESPITE LAWS THAT ARE
OVERWHELMING IN FAVOR ON IN SOME
AREAS OF THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY, WHETHER IT'S DENSITY,
BONUS OR WHATNOT, OFTENTIMES
DEVELOPERS ARE STILL CONCERNED
WITH USING SAID LAWS AND THEY'LL
GO THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW ANYWAYS OR, YOU KNOW, I
ALMOST FEEL LIKE WE NEED
SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU KNOW IF
WE'RE CLARIFYING SOMETHING THAT
SAYS NO. YOU SHALL CITY SHELL.
YOU KNOW, ALLOW THIS TO BE THE
CASE BECAUSE IT DOES. IF WE'RE
GOING TO PASS LAWS TO GIVE THIS
CERTAIN FLEXIBILITY TO THEM.
THEY OUGHT TO USE IT, YOU KNOW,
AND IT SO THAT'S JUST A GENERAL
STATEMENT ON THIS, BUT IN TERMS
I LIKE THIS. I HOPE PEOPLE TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IT AND YOU KNOW,
LOOKING FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
IT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. AND YOU CAN ADDRESS
THAT IN YOUR CLOTHES IF YOU
LIKE. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE
JUST BRIEFLY. JUST BRIEFLY.
MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD JUST SAY,
AS WAS ARTICULATED BY MILEY
WITNESS THAT WILL, UH, LACK OF
AMBIGUITY HELPS, UH, WITH WITH
REDUCING INCREMENTAL COSTS,
DELAYS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR
LITIGATION AND THUS REDUCES THE
THINGS THAT CAN GET IN THE WAY
AND THE ACTUAL PRODUCTION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR PADILLA HAPPY
TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. I'M A
BIG SUPPORTER OF DENSITY BONUS.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN AN EFFECTIVE
TOOL. UM ALSO WANT TO ENSURE
THAT WE'RE REMOVING, AND HE'S AS
MANY BARRIERS AS WE CAN TO
BUILDING HOUSING THAT WE NEED.
SO I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. THEY WOULD LOVE TO BE
ADDED ON AS A CO AUTHOR, AS
WELL. UM, AND WITH THAT THE
MOTIONS DO PASS THE ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
WEEKS WEEKS. I PERSON PATERSON,
I CARILLO. CARILLO GABRIEL,
GABRIELLE LIKE CHOLERA. COLORADO
QUIRK-SILVA QUIRK-SILVA, AYE,
SANCHEZ. YET NOT BORING WORD.
WORD. I. THAT BILL IS OUT. 7 TO
0. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU. MEMBERS OF YOU ALSO, AND WE
WILL DO ADD ADD ONS NOW. YES,
PLEASE. OKAY. UM A J. R THREE
CARILLO. KOREA I GABRIEL
GABRIEL? AYE. THAT IS A 208 TO 0
. UM ITEM NUMBER THREE. SP 341.
KOREA KOREA I CHOLERA. CHOLERA?
AYE. 8 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
SP 469, KOREA KOREA I CHOLERA.
CHOLERA? AYE. 8 TO 0. AND FIVE
AND ITEM NUMBER FIVE. WE'RE ALL
OF THEM GREAT AND WE ARE MEETING
ADJOURNED. GOOD JOB TEAM.