OR WELCOME EVERYBODY. THE FIRST
HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FOR 2024.
TODAY WE WILL HEAR AND DISPENSE
WITH TWO YEAR BILLS. UM WE HAVE
SEVERAL RETURNING MEMBERS
MEMBERS. CONNOLLY HANDY.
MAIENSCHEIN PACHECO SANCHEZ AND
VICE CHAIR DIXON AS WELL AS
SEVERAL NEW MEMBERS AND WANNA
WELCOME MEMBER BRIAN AND WE ALSO
WILL HAVE ON OUR COMMITTEE THIS
YEAR. SENATOR BARBARA CAN SORT
OF WALDRON AND DECEMBER SUBIR UH
, ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT A SET
NUMBER OF WEEKS WILL BE
SUBSTITUTING FOR A SEMINAR ABOUT
A CANDIDATE FOR TODAY'S HEARING
AND MEMORY, KINER WILL BE
SUBSTITUTING FOR US. REMEMBER
ZABAR FOR TODAY'S HEARING. THEY
WANT TO SHOW APPRECIATION FOR
OUR STAFFS. I KNOW THERE WERE A
LOT OF BILLS THAT POTENTIALLY
COULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE US, BUT I
THINK A LOT OF WORK THAT
HAPPENED DURING THE INTERIM WITH
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES WHO DID A
REALLY GOOD JOB AND WORKING WITH
OUR COMMITTEE STAFF SO THAT WE
HAVE TWO YEARS TO BILLS BEFORE
US TODAY. THE RULES WERE WITNESS
TESTIMONY OR THAT EACH SIDE WILL
BE ALLOWED TO MAIN WITNESSES.
EACH WITNESSES WILL HAVE
APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES SHOULD
STATE THEIR NAMES ORGANIZATION
IF ANY, AND THEIR POSITION AS WE
PROCEED WITH WITNESSES AND
PUBLIC COMMENT. I WANT TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT
THE COMMITTEE HAS RULES. TO
ENSURE WE MAINTAIN ORDER AND TO
RUN A FAIR AND EFFICIENT
HEARING. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
THE GOAL OF HEARING AS MUCH FROM
THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
OUR TIME WILL NOT PERMIT CONDUCT
THAT DISRUPTS DISTURBS
OTHERWISE, MPS THE ORDERLY
CONDUCT OF LEGISLATIVE
PROCEEDINGS. RULES FOR TODAY'S
HEARINGS INCLUDE NO TALKING
ALLOWED NOISE FROM THE AUDIENCE.
PUBLIC COMMENT MAY BE PROVIDED
ONLY THE DOZEN ANY TIME IT MUST
BE LIMITED AGAINST YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION SUPPORT PROPOSITION
OF THE BILL. UM AND NO ENGAGING
KIND OF THAT DISRUPTS
DISTURBANCE OR OTHERWISE, MPS
ORDERLY CONDUCT THE HEARING AND
PLEASE BE AWARE OF THE VIOLATION
OF THESE RULES MAY SUBJECT YOU
TO REMOVAL OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT
PROCESSES. BUT I KNOW EVERYTHING
IS GOING TO GO VERY SMOOTHLY
TODAY BECAUSE EVERYONE IS ON
THEIR BEST BEHAVIOR. SO I'D LIKE
TO START WITH FILE ITEM ONE. A.
B 82 REMEMBER WEBER? AND WE WILL
STARTED SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE I
THINK WE STILL HAVE TO WAIT FOR
A COUPLE MORE TO IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH QUORUM. ACTUALLY UM,
IF I CAN ASK THE SECRETARY CAN
TAKE WAR ON THE PRESIDENT,
MEMBERS OF THE BELIEVE WE DO
HAVE A QUORUM NOW. CORA HERE.
NIXON. THANKS, BRIAN. CONNELLY
HANEY MAIENSCHEIN. PACHECO.
SANCHEZ. MCKENNA. SO WE HAVE A
QUORUM ESTABLISHED. THIS IS A B
82 AND SO SUMMER, WEBER, PLEASE
PROCEED WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT A B 82. A B 82 WOULD BAN
THE SALE OF DIET PILLS TO MINORS
AND LESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR.
THIS BILL WOULD ESTABLISH AN ID
CHECK FOR THE SALE OF DIETARY
SUPPLEMENTS AND DRUGS TO PREVENT
MINORS FROM TAKING THEM. EATING
DISORDERS ARE A SERIOUS
CONDITION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
PROBLEM THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, THEIR
AGE, THEIR GENDERS. BUT IT'S
ESPECIALLY A TROUBLING FOR OUR
YOUNG PEOPLE. WELL CALIFORNIA IS
AT THE FOREFRONT OF REGULATIONS
CONCERNING WEIGHT LOSS, DIETARY
SUPPLEMENT AND DIET PILLS. WE DO
NOT PROHIBIT THE SALE OF THESE
PRODUCTS PRODUCTS TO MINORS
DESPITE WORLD DOCUMENTED
DANGERS. THESE SUPPLEMENTS ARE
REGULATED AS FOOD. AND THEREFORE
DO NOT UNDERGO A RIGOROUS
SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION FROM THE
FDA, AS OTHER JOKES ARE
SUBJECTED TO WEIGHT LOSS
SUPPLEMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO
BE LACED WITH PESTICIDES, HEAVY
METALS, ANABOLIC STEROIDS AND
PHARMACEUTICALS THAT CAN CAUSE
STROKES, CANCERS AND SEVERE
LIVER INJURY REQUIRING
TRANSPLANT. AS A MATTER OF FACT
YESTERDAY, THE NEW YORK TIMES
AND OTHER NEWS OUTLETS RAN A
STORY WITH THIS HEADING. QUOTE.
GAS STATION HEROIN, SO THERE'S
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT ALARMS.
HEALTH OFFICIALS. THE STORY IS
ABOUT AN INGREDIENT THAT SOME
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS THAT ARE
SOLD OVER THE COUNTER HAVE AND
THIS INGREDIENT IS ADDICTIVE AND
AT HIGH ENOUGH DOSES CAN HAVE
THE SIMILAR EFFECTS TO OPIOIDS.
200 OR 23,000. AMERICANS ARE
SENT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM EVERY
YEAR TO THE DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
AND 25% OF THOSE THAT ARE SENT
ARE DUE TO WEIGHT LOSS
SUPPLEMENTS. ONE STUDY SHOWED
THAT 11% OF TEENS ALREADY
REPORTED USING DIETARY
SUPPLEMENTS SPECIFICALLY FOR
WEIGHT LOSS. WE KNOW THAT TEENS
ARE ESPECIALLY TARGETED BY THESE
PILLS BECAUSE OF SELF IMAGES,
ISSUES THAT ARE VERY PREVALENT
WITHIN OUR ADOLESCENT YEARS.
THESE TEAMS TURN TOO QUICK
MEASURES WITHOUT CONSIDERING
LONG LASTING IMPACTS THAT DIET
PILLS AND SUPPLEMENTS COULD HAVE
ON THEIR BODIES. ANOTHER STUDY
PUBLISHED IN 2020 REPORTED THAT
ADOLESCENT AND YOUNG ADULT WOMEN
WHO USE THESE OVER THE COUNTER
DIET PILLS HAVE SIX TIMES THE
RISK OF BEING DIAGNOSED WITH AN
EATING DISORDER WITHIN THE NEXT
THREE YEARS COMPARED TO THOSE
THAT NEVER USED THE DIET PILLS.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
WE PASS THIS BILL SO THAT WE CAN
PREVENT ARE ALREADY VULNERABLE
YOUTH FROM UNNECESSARY HEALTH
PROBLEMS IN EATING DISORDERS
ASSOCIATED WITH THESE WEIGHT
LOSS SUPPLEMENTS AND OVER THE
COUNTER DIET PILLS. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AT THE PROPER
TIME. OUR WITNESS, KATE ROGERS,
FROM CHEN UP, IS UNABLE TO MAKE
IT TODAY AS SHE WAS IN CLASS IN
LOS ANGELES. SO ONE OF MY
STAFFERS WILL BE READING HER
TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. HMM. THANK
YOU AND GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN.
CHOLERA AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS KATE
ROGERS AND I'M CURRENTLY A
JUNIOR AT U. C L A WHERE I SERVE
AS THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
GENERATION UP. JENNA AS IT'S
COMMONLY KNOWN, IS AN ENTIRELY
STUDENT LED ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION FOCUSED ON
ADVANCING, EDUCATE EDUCATIONAL
EQUITY THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS. I'M HONORED TO BE HERE
TODAY TO REPRESENT CHEN UP AND
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT OF ASSEMBLY
BILL 82. A B 82 PREVENTS THE
SALE OF OVER THE COUNTER DIET
PILLS AND SUPPLEMENTS TO MINORS
ACROSS THE STATE IN LIGHT OF THE
ONGOING YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS. THIS LEGISLATION IS MORE
IMPORTANT NOW THAN EVER. I LIKE
MANY OTHER TEENAGERS DURING THE
PANDEMIC TURNED TOWARDS
EXCESSIVE EXERCISE AND
RESTRICTIVE EATING TO COPE WITH
THE SOCIAL SOCIAL ISOLATION. AND
DID YOUR ORGANIZATION. I KNOW
FIRSTHAND THE LONG TERM MENTAL
AND PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF DIETING
AND I'M NOT ALONE. ACCORDING TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
MEDICAL SCHOOL. EATING DISORDERS
IN TEENS ARE MORE MORE THAN
DOUBLED DURING THE PANDEMIC,
ACCESS TO WEIGHT LOSS PRODUCTS
AND DIET SUPPLEMENTS ONLY MAKES
IT EASIER FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO
FALL INTO DANGEROUS HABITS. NOT
ONLY DO THESE PRODUCTS ENCOURAGE
UNHEALTHY BEHAVIORS, THEY'RE
ALSO UNSAFE IF USED IN EXCESS
WEIGHT LOSS PILLS CAN RESULT IN
SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES,
INCLUDING DEATH. IT IS TIME FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO TAKE THE
NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT THAT
DIET PILL RETAILERS AND
MANUFACTURERS FROM PROFITING OFF
THE RISE OF EATING DISORDERS IN
CALIFORNIA TEENAGERS ON BEHALF
OF THE 4000 ASSOCIATE MEMBERS OF
JENNA. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU
TO SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH
AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR I
VOTE ON A B 82 TODAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE?
IN SUPPORT OF A B 82. IS GETTING
READY FOR OPPOSITION. SORRY,
OKAY? YEAH IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION? YEAH GO AHEAD AND
TAKE YOUR SEAT UP HERE. THANK
YOU. UH THANK YOU, MR CHAIR,
TRYING TO BE ON MY BEST BEHAVIOR
AND PROMPT, UH, MORNINGS
CHAIRMAN OR AFTERNOON MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ROBERT MOOD TREE FOR
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. UM AND WE ARE A POST
8082 ON A VERY NARROW GROUND,
WHICH I'VE SPOKEN TO THE AUTHOR
ABOUT. WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO
PROTECTING CALIFORNIA'S YOUTH
FROM THE RISK OF DIET PILLS AND
THE HAZARDS THAT WERE DISCUSSED.
OUR FOCUSES NARROWLY ON ONE
PROVISION, WHICH, WHILE IT
PLACES POTENTIAL MONETARY
PENALTIES ON EMPLOYERS FOR
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH A B 82.
THE BILL PRESENTLY PROHIBITS
EMPLOYERS FROM DISCIPLINING
EMPLOYEES WHO BREACH MAYBE 80
TWO'S OBLIGATIONS. SO SHOULD AN
EMPLOYEE, YOU KNOW, NOT EXCUSE
ME, NOT CHECK FOR PRESCRIPTIONS,
RIGHT? NOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
WHAT WE WANT. WE WOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM DISCIPLINING
THEM, SO THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR US
TO MAKE SURE WE CAN ENFORCE WHAT
THE GOAL IS HERE. IT'S A NARROW
CONCERN. WE'VE SHARED AMENDS. WE
HOPE IT CAN BE RESOLVED SOON.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, ANTHONY SAMSON IN
SAMSON ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNCIL FOR RESPONSIBLE
NUTRITION. CRN IS THE LEADING
TRADE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT AND
FUNCTIONAL FOOD MANUFACTURERS
AND INGREDIENT SUPPLIERS WERE
NEITHER LISTED AS SUPPORT NOR AN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL CRN
ACTUALLY REMOVED ITS OPPOSITION
TO THE SAME LEGISLATION. 1341.
IN 2022. AFTER MANY MONTHS OF
DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS
WITH AN AUTHOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
CRISTINA GARCIA. UNFORTUNATELY
THAT BILL WAS VETOED BY THE
GOVERNOR IN SEPTEMBER. 2022 AND
THE GOVERNOR CONVENED A
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
HEALTH WORKING GROUP TO EXAMINE
THESE ISSUES, UM, AND STARTED A
TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP FINDINGS
AND POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION. CRN WAS
PLEASED TO PARTICIPATE AND AS AN
OBSERVER IN THE WORKING GROUP
DISCUSSIONS. THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE DUE AT THE
END OF LAST YEAR. THEY HAVE NOT
YET BEEN RELEASED, BUT GIVEN CRN
INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ISSUE TO
DATE, WE CERTAINLY EAGERLY AWAIT
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. AS I KNOW
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER DOES AS WELL
. UM AND YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY
WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE HAD
A SUBSTANTIVE POLICY DISCUSSION
TODAY ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS,
BUT APPRECIATE THE OPEN DOOR
POLICY YOU THAT THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AND HER SAFFORD TREND
HAVE HAD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
PROCESS, AND WE'RE LOOKING
FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER TO,
UM, YOU KNOW, TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
UM TO, UM, TO COMBAT THE HEALTH
PROBLEM OF EATING DISORDERS
AMONG OUR YOUTH, AND WE BELIEVE
THERE'S A WAY TO NARROWLY TAILOR
THE POLICY TO ACHIEVE THESE
GOALS WHILE ENSURING THAT
LEGITIMATE SAFE AND REGULATORY
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS REMAIN
AVAILABLE ON THE WORK IN THE
MARKETPLACE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO A B 82? I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DAIS. ANY
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?
IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION IS
MORE OF A COMMENT. UM I WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR ME FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD IN
CHAMPIONING ON BEHALF OF OUR
YOUTH. UM BUT I DO SHARE THE
SAME CONCERNS THAT THE CHAMBER
SHARES JUST WITH THAT ONE
SECTION WITH ALLOWING EMPLOYERS
TO BE ABLE TO DISCIPLINE
EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOT ABIDING TO
THIS BILL. I THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT FOR THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY. UM BUT I'M SURE
THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE
CONVERSATIONS. I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY, BUT
THAT'S THE ONLY AREA OF CONCERN
FOR ME. BUT THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
AND YES, THAT PART OF THE BILL
WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION
THIS WEEK, AND THE AMENDMENTS
WERE GIVEN TO US THIS WEEK, BUT,
UM, I WORK WITH THE CHAMBER
BEFORE AND WE I HAD A PREVIOUS
BILL AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE
SURE THAT, UH, THE EMPLOYEES
WERE ABLE TO BE DISCIPLINED IF
THEY DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
ESTHER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND I TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
VISIBILITY TO THIS. I HAVE A
QUESTION ABOUT THE RETAIL SIDE
AND THE FINE AND AH, THEY BURDEN
ON THE RETAILER WHEN AND THE
TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES TO MAKE
SURE THAT THEY LIKE FOR ANY
PRESCRIPTION TO SEE THE
PRESCRIPTION AND QUALIFY THAT
LEGITIMACY OF THAT, SO I HOPE
THAT GETS WORKED OUT BECAUSE
OTHERWISE I THINK IT IS GOOD.
IT'S A GOOD APPROACH AND
NECESSARY AND SAD. BUT THIS IS
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OVER THE
COUNTER DIET. TREATMENT. ARE. UH
HUH. PRODUCTS I DO WANT TO ASK
YOU. WHAT WERE YOUR CONCERNS
INITIALLY? AND WHAT ARE YOU
STILL WAITING FOR? IN TERMS OF
THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT. YEAH SO
INITIALLY, THERE WAS A CAGING
REQUIREMENT THAT THAT WOULD THAT
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S CRISTINA GARCIA
ULTIMATELY REMOVED FOR THESE
PRODUCTS, AND THEN IT WAS REALLY
AN ISSUE OF SCOPE AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT THE PRODUCTS
BEING CAPTURED IN THE
LEGISLATION WERE ACTUALLY THE
PRODUCT FOR LOOKING TO GO AFTER.
WHICH IS WHY ULTIMATELY THE
LANGUAGE IN PRINT TODAY AS ANY
PRODUCTS SORT OF MARKETED OR
LABELED AT RIGHT. SO WE WITH THE
CONCERN INITIALLY WITH LANGUAGE
THAT ISN'T BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
TODAY WAS THAT IT WAS OVERLY
BROAD, AND IT WOULD HAVE
CAPTURED A CATEGORY OF PRODUCTS
THAT I DON'T THINK THE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ORIGINALLY
INTENDED. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW,
AFTER AFTER MANY MONTHS OF
NEGOTIATIONS WORKING THROUGH
THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THERE
WITH THEN THERE WAS THE VETO.
AND SO I THINK THE ONLY REASON
YOU KNOW WELL WHERE I'M HERE
TODAY. UM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
GOING TO COME OUT, AND
PRESUMABLY THERE, MAYBE UM, YOU
KNOW POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE
BILL THAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ON SO WE'RE JUST HERE IN
ANTICIPATION OF THOSE. OKAY VERY
GOOD. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE
DOING. I INTEND TO VOTE IT.
SUPPORT OF IT AND HOPE THAT I
CAN ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL HERE
WITHOUT TOO MUCH MORE BURDENS
PLACED ON BUSINESS. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE ONLY
BRIGHT QUICK. I'M GLAD THAT
WE'RE INCREDIBLY OPTIMISTIC THAT
THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE
COMING. AND I THINK THAT
OPTIMISM IS IN NO SMALL PART
BECAUSE OF YOUR URGENCY OF NOW.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO
RECENTER THIS ISSUE IN THIS
CONVERSATION AND HAPPY TO MOVE
THE BILL FOR A SECOND. ALL
RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION
SECOND, ANY OTHER COMMENT? I
WANT TO THANK YOU, DR ROBERT FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD CLEARLY.
UM THERE THERE IS A NEED, I
THINK, ESPECIALLY IN THE
PANDEMIC BECAUSE SO MANY TEAMS
ARE AT HOME AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA
MARKETING AND TARGETING. I'M
GLAD TO HEAR THAT EVEN
OPPOSITION. EVERYONE AGREES IN
THE END GOAL HERE AND I'M
CONFIDENT THAT WE'LL GET TO A
RESOLUTION ON SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED. BUT
GIVEN THE WAY THAT YOU APPROACH
YOUR LEGISLATION, I KNOW THAT
YOU'LL YOU'LL SIT DOWN. AND I
PUT AND FIND THAT APPROPRIATE
PATH. WE'RE STILL IN THE HOUSE
VERSION, SO THERE'S STILL TIME
TO DO THAT. AND SO WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES
THANK YOU. CHARGES REALLY WANT
TO THANK THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE WANT TO THANK? OF
COURSE, THOSE THAT ARE
SUPPORTING AND THOSE THAT WE
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE BILL
TO ENSURE THAT WE CREATE
SOMETHING THAT IS SAFE FOR ALL
OF OUR YOUTH HERE IN CALIFORNIA,
AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. OKAY UM, WITH
THAT WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR BRIAN SECONDED BY
SOMEWHERE, CONNOLLY AND THE
MOTIONS DO PASS THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS. WE HAVE A REAL
CALL ON THE VOTE, PLEASE. CORA I
TÔI DICKSON DICKSON. I WICKS. HI
I BRIAN BRIAN, I CONNELLY
CONNELLY. I HANEY HANEY, I
MAIENSCHEIN PACHECO HØI SANCHEZ.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE. PUT THOSE
RIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH DOCTOR OVER. AND UM
BY THE ITEM TWO IS A B 1333 IS
AN AWARD. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME
AND GET SETTLED IN AND WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, UH, FEEL FREE TO
OPEN. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST
HEARING IS THE CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU MEMBERS. I
WANT TO THANK OUR COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR HARD WORK OVER
THE LAST YEAR IN THIS FALL, AND
THIS BILL 80 1333 WOULD PROHIBIT
THE BULK SALE OF NEWLY
CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
TO INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WHO
HAVE MORE THAN 1000 UNITS IN
THEIR PORTFOLIO AS CALIFORNIA
CONTINUES TO FACE THE HOUSING
CRISIS. WE ARE SEEING THE DATA
WHEREBY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
ARE TURNING TO THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING MARKET TO INCREASE
PROFITS IN 2021. IT WAS
ESTIMATED THAT CAPITAL
INVESTMENT IN THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING MARKET TOPPED $45
BILLION IN OUR STATE. AND WAS
GROWING EVEN MORE IN 2022. A
SUBSET OF THIS IS A TREND CALLED
BUILD TO RENT COMMUNITIES, WHICH
IS FACILITATED BY BULK HOME
SALES. AND IT'S A RAPIDLY
EXPANDING TREND IN CALIFORNIA
AND INDEED IN OTHER STATES AS
WELL. THIS SEVERELY LIMITS THE
ABILITY OF FIRST TIME AND FIRST
GENERATION HOMEOWNERS FROM
COMPETING FOR THESE HOMES AS
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WOULD
LEVERAGE THEIR ABILITY TO BUY IN
CASH AT TIMES AND BYPASS
APPRAISALS AND OTHER TYPICAL
PROCESSES IN EXCHANGE FOR
DISCOUNTS ON BULK PURCHASES OF
SINGLE FAMILY HOME TRACKS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION. THESE BULK
TRANSACTION ACTIONS. LOWER THE
OVERHAUL. OVERALL HOUSING STOCK,
WHICH INCREASES HOME PRICES FOR
FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS, TAKES
AWAY HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
AND WEALTH GENERATION
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIANS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. DURING THE
GREAT RECESSION, REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT TRUSTS WERE
ESTABLISHED AND FLOURISHED
THROUGH THEIR BULK PURCHASE OF
FORECLOSED PROPERTIES. AND IN
2022. YOU ALL MIGHT REMEMBER THE
LEGISLATURE FOUND THE TREND
NEGATIVELY IMPACTED INDIVIDUAL
HOMEBUYERS AND RESPONDED BY
PASSING A V 2170, WHICH
PROHIBITED THE BULK SALE OF
FORECLOSED HOMES. 80 1333
SIMILARLY WOULD GIVE BACK LOST
OPPORTUNITIES OF HOMEOWNERSHIP
TO CALIFORNIANS AT A TIME WHEN
THE STATE'S MIDDLE AND WORKING
CLASS RESIDENTS ARE FORCED TO
CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DREAM OF HOME
OWNERSHIP AND THE ABILITY OF
GENERATING WEALTH OR LEAVING,
LEAVING OUR STATE WITH ME TO
SPEAK AND SUPPORT OUR JENNIFER
SVEC, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF
PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATED
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, AND
ADAM BRIANNA'S THE CEO OF
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS.
THANK YOU UP TO TWO MINUTES
EACH, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. JENNIFER SPEC ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. WE'D
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR ALL
THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE ON THIS
BILL AND TO IMPROVE THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CALIFORNIANS
TO FACILITATE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES IN GENERATIONAL
WEALTH. AH MAYBE 1333 ELIMINATES
BULK SALES WHILE PRESERVING THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL BUYERS,
INCLUDING READS TO PURCHASE
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES BY OUR COMPETITION
GENERALLY RESULTS IN HIGHER
SALES PRICES AND MORE PROFITS
FOR THOSE THAT ARE SELLING THE
PARCELS. 1333 APPEARS TO BE
MODELED AFTER A SIMILAR BILL
THAT WE SPONSORED LAST SESSION
AUTHORED BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GRAYSON. MAYBE 2170 PROHIBITED
LARGE LENDERS FROM SELLING
FORECLOSED HOMES IN BULK, WHICH
WAS DEFINED AS TWO OR MORE
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW BUYERS AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR STATES
WORKING FAMILIES TO BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE AN OWNER OCCUPIED, MORE
AFFORDABLE ENTRY LEVEL MARKET AT
HOMES THAT ARE REENTERING THE
MARKET POST FORECLOSURE MAYBE
1333 WAS SIGNIFICANTLY AMENDED
BY THE AUTHOR AND ONLY
ELIMINATES THE BULK OR BUNDLED
SALES OF NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOMES
TO REACH THAT ARE OFTEN FUNDED
BY HEDGE FUND PURCHASERS, WHO
CURRENTLY BENEFIT FROM DEEP
DISCOUNTS AND HOME PRICE AND
TRANSACTIONAL COSTS FOR TITLE
AND ESCROW, WHICH IS NOT A
SIMILARLY OFFERED DISCOUNT THAT
IS GIVEN TO OWNER OCCUPANTS,
FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS OR
GENERATIONAL WEALTH BUYERS. I
THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE AUTHORS
THOUGHTFUL EFFORTS TO RESOLVE
THE SUPPLY ISSUES FOR FAMILIES
SEEKING OPPORTUNITIES TO
PURCHASE ENTRY LEVEL MARKET RATE
HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
UNDER 80 1333. IT'S IMPORTANT TO
ALSO NOTE THAT BUILDERS CAN
STILL CHOOSE WHO THEY SELL TO.
THIS BILL DOES NOT PROHIBIT A
BUILDER FROM DETERMINING THAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SELL
CONTINUOUSLY TO READS ALL IT
DOES IS SAY THAT THESE SALES TO
READS MUST BE DONE IN A ONE HOME
PER TRANSACTION BASIS. I SHOULD
ALSO NOTE REALTORS GENERALLY DO
NOT SELL NEW CONSTRUCTION AS
BUILDERS GENERALLY MANAGE THEIR
OWN TRANSACTIONS. AS BUYERS ARE
SELF MANAGED DURING THESE
SITUATIONS AND SELF REPRESENTED.
HOWEVER DUE TO HIGH DEMAND,
LIMITED SUPPLY AND LIMITED
SUPPLY, WE CONTINUE TO FACE
SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGE OF MARKET
RATE ENTRY LEVEL HOME OWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR STATES.
WORKING FAMILIES SEEKING TO
PURCHASE UH, GENERATIONAL WEALTH
OPPORTUNITIES AS WE END AS THE
STATE LEADERS LOOKED TO BRIDGE
THE STATES CONTINUING WEALTH GAP
, SIERRA'S PROUD TO SUPPORT A B
1333 BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO ALLOW
FAMILIES UM AND OPPORTUNITY TO
SUBMIT OFFERS ON THE SMALLER,
MORE AFFORDABLE HOMES THAT WILL
HELP FIRST TIME HOMEBUYERS AND
FIRST GENERATION HOME BUYERS BE
ABLE TO REALIZE THEIR DREAM OF
CALIFORNIA HOME WORSHIP. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ADAM
BRIANNA'S AND I'M, CEO OF
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY BUILDERS, A
NONPROFIT WORKING TO CLOSE THE
RACIAL WEALTH GAP FOCUSING ON
HOUSING AND HOME OWNERSHIP. AS
AN ORGANIZATION LED BY IN
SERVING PEOPLE OF COLOR. I'M
HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF A B
1333. CALIFORNIA FACES A HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS THAT HAS
SLAMMED THE DOOR SHUT ON
HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR MILLIONS AS
WE'VE HEARD ALL TOO OFTEN,
CALIFORNIA DOES NOT BUILD ENOUGH
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY FOR SALE
UNITS AFFORDABLE TO MODERATE AND
MIDDLE INCOME WORKING FAMILIES.
1333 TAKES THE NECESSARY STEPS
OF PRIORITIZING HOMEBUYERS OVER
LARGE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS BY
ENSURING THAT THESE LARGE
CORPORATE ENTITIES DO NOT HAVE
AN EVEN GREATER ADVANTAGE. WHEN
IT COMES TO BUYING THESE NEWLY
BUILT HOMES. THERE ARE NO
SEVERAL SILVER BULLETS WHEN IT
COMES TO THE HOUSING CRISIS, BUT
A B 1333 WILL HELP US TO SUPPORT
A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR FIRST
TIME HOMEBUYERS BY ENSURING THAT
HUNDREDS OF HOMES CAN'T BE TAKEN
OFF THE MARKET IN A SINGLE
TRANSACTION AND TURNED INTO
RENTAL PROPERTIES. A B 1333 DOES
NOT PROHIBIT LARGE INVESTORS
FROM PURCHASING NEWLY BUILT
HOMES. IT SIMPLY REMOVES SOME OF
THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY THAT
DRIVES THEIR ACQUISITION
STRATEGY BY REQUIRING THEM TO
BUY ONE HOME AT A TIME AS A
NORMAL BUYER WOULD. IN THIS WAY,
A B 1333 LEVELS THE PLAYING
FIELD WITH ACTUAL CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO OWN
AND OCCUPY A HOME. HOME
OWNERSHIP IS A BROADLY SHARED
POLICY GOAL IN CALIFORNIA AND
ONE IN WHICH ARE STATES INVEST
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY AND
SUPPORTING THROUGH DOWN PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND OTHER
MEASURES. 80 1333 IS ONE
REASONABLE STEP IN PROTECTING
THAT SHARED GOAL, WHICH IS AN
UNFORTUNATELY SCARCE RESOURCE IN
OUR STATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION OF THIS IMPORTANT
MEASURE, AND I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR IVO. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF A B 1333?
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
1333. FEEL FREE TO TAKE A SEAT
UP THERE.
GOOD MORNING CHAIR CAR WHEN
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE STEVE
CRUZ ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION.
AND WE, UH WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE
MEASURE AND JUST AS A LITTLE
BACKGROUND AND I WANT TO GO OVER
SOME ISSUES, BUT WE DID OPPOSE
THE BILL HAS IT CONCLUDED LAST
YEAR. LOOKED AT THE AMENDMENTS
LAST WEEK HAD A CHANCE TO THE
ROOM WITH THE CONSULTANT AND
MAINTAIN HER OPPOSITION AND WHAT
I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU
TODAY, OR A NUMBER OF WE BELIEVE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH THE
BILL. WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT SOME
FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS, BUT
NOT COMPLETE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE
SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE
UNDERLYING POLICY. BUT I WANT TO
GO OVER SOME OF THESE ISSUES
BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE
CONSEQUENTIAL. FIRST UH, MANY OF
OUR PROJECTS. WE FIGURED WE
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SOMETIMES YOU PARTNER WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS WHO
MAINTAIN THE DATABASES OF INCOME
QUALIFIED OCCUPANTS. THOSE
PROVIDERS PURCHASE THOSE
AFFORDABLE HOMES FROM US AND
BULK. THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROVIDERS. MAYBE MAYBE THE
DEFINITION EXCUSE ME EVIDENT
TRADITIONAL INVESTOR AS IT'S
DEFINED IN THE BILL. SO AS
WRITTEN IT WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR
BUNDLE PURCHASES FOR NEW HOMES
AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS
SUCH AS THINK OF JAMBOREE OR
EDEN OR HABITAT. SECOND THE
DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTOR WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT
TO COMPLY WITH AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER. FOR A HOMEBUILDER
SELLING A NEW HOME. HOW WILL
THEY KNOW IF BEEN INTRODUCED?
NEW INVESTOR OWNS? HOW MANY
PROPERTIES WHERE IS IT? JUST IN
CALIFORNIA'S ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
IS IT GLOBALLY? UM SO AGAIN
WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO KNOW IF
THEY'RE MADE IN IT IN THE NAME
OF THE SUBSIDIARY, SO THERE'S A
LOT OF CHALLENGES AND TRYING TO
COMPLY AS ON THE BUILDERS SIDE
OF IT. THIRD THERE ARE ALSO
BUILDERS THEIR SITUATION WHICH
BUILDERS COULD MEET THE
DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTOR WHO MAY HAVE MORE THAN
1000 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THEN THIS WOULD
COME INTO PLAY IN PARTICULAR. IF
THROUGH AN ACQUISITION OR MERGER
BANKRUPTCY. UM WHERE ANOTHER
BUYER, ANOTHER BUILDER WHO COULD
MEET THE DEFINITION. WE DEFINE A
BOOK. SO LET ME JUST CLOSE BY
SAYING FOR THESE REASONS WERE
OPPOSED. I THINK, UM IF THE
COMMITTEE DECIDES TO MOVE BEFORE
WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR, AND THEN, UM, JIM
LIGHTS. THERE WAS ANOTHER
ORGANIZATION DOES NOT HERE WHO
DOES INTRODUCED REPRESENTATIVE,
UH INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. I
THINK WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND DOES IT
REALLY EXIST TO THE DEGREE? I
THINK THEY THE DATA THAT THEY
SHARE WITH THE COMMITTEE WAS, I
THINK 1% AND THIS IS
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WITH 500
MORE UNITS. THEY REPRESENT 1% OF
HOME NEW HOMES. WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT EXISTING TALKING
ABOUT NEW HOMES. WE WANTED TO
SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME WITH
THE AUTHOR ON YOU KNOW WHERE IT
IS? A PROBLEM SHOULD EXIST.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO 1333? NATALIE BOUNCED ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE AND
RESPECTFUL POSITION. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE DAYS MOHINI. FIRST OF
ALL, THANK YOU. SOME OF THE
REWARD FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE AS I TOLD
YOU THAT THE GOAL OF BRINGING
MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP. INDIVIDUAL
HOMEOWNERSHIP, UH AND THE WAY
THAT THIS WOULD DO THIS, JUST
TWO THINGS I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT
OR RAISE THE POINT ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES. IS THERE
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE FOLKS
WOULDN'T BE CAPTURED OR IS THE
INTENTION TO CAPTURE THEM? SORT
OF HOW YOU'RE YOU'RE LOOKING AT
THE FIRST EXAMPLE THAT WAS
GIVEN. AND THEN THE SECOND THING
IS, I KNOW WE ALL ARE. AH
WORKING HARD TO GET MORE HOUSING
BUILT AND TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN
TO ADDRESS. I THINK THE LACK OF
HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT
ACROSS THE STATE TO THE EXTENT
THAT THAT THIS IS A WAY THAT
THEY FUND THE HOME BUILDING
ITSELF BY WORKING WITH THESE
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. IS
THERE ANY CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE
THAT? UH THIS WOULD, UH, SORT OF
EFFECT HOME BUILDING BECAUSE OF
THE LACK OF BEING ABLE TO PUT
TOGETHER THESE KIND OF
INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES. THAT
MAY INCLUDE THESE KIND OF DEALS
ON THE FRONT END. THAT WOULD BE
A CONCERN AND OBVIOUSLY WANT
MORE INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES THAT TAKES MORE
HOMES BEING BUILT IN GENERAL. SO
JUST WHAT KIND OF SORT OF
ANALYSIS ON THAT SECOND POINT
DID YOU DO AROUND MAKING SURE
THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA SLOW THE
HOMEBUILDING GENERALLY 100%
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO REALLY VET
THROUGH AND WE HAVE THOUGHT
THROUGH SOME OF THESE, SO A
COUPLE OF THINGS ONE. I'LL WORK
BACKWARDS. UM LOOK SORT OF FROM
A COMMON SENSE LENS THROUGH THIS
THAT IF YOU ARE DEVELOPING A NEW
, UH, TRACT OF HOMES, UM, THAT
YOU WOULD NEED TO RELY ON A BOX
SALE TRANSACTION, WHICH OPERATES
AT A DISCOUNT IN ONE TRANSACTION
, IT'S DISCOUNTED OFF YOUR
BOOKS. AS OPPOSED TO SELLING
THINGS OVER ON A CUMULATIVE
NATURE AT THE ORIGINAL MARKET
VALUE. SO THINK ABOUT THAT
AGAIN. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO
CONSTRUCT THESE 100 HOMES IF
THEY WERE REGULAR MARKET VALUE,
BUT WE CAN CONSTRUCT THEM AND WE
CAN GIVE THEM AWAY IN ONE BOOK
SALE AT A DISCOUNT, SO IT
DOESN'T ADD UP FOR ME THAT THIS
IS GOING TO SOMEHOW NECESSARILY
AFFECT THE PRICE OR THE COST OF
DEVELOPMENT. IN FACT, IF
ANYTHING, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME
, UM YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME
SOME COST SAVINGS, TOO. BE ABLE
TO GET THINGS OFF THEIR BOOKS ON
THE BACK END. AND THIS ISN'T
SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
NECESSARILY THOUGHT OF, AS YOU
KNOW. WELL WE HAVE A LOT TO DO
ON ENTITLEMENT PROCESS AND HOW
LONG IT TAKES TO ACTUALLY GET
NEW HOMES CONSTRUCTED. THESE ARE
TRANSACTIONS THAT USUALLY COME
TOWARDS THE END OF THAT TIMELINE
ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I'VE NOT
HEARD FROM ANY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPERS OF ANY
CONCERNS ON THIS, AND I THINK
THAT SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT
WERE RAISED, FOR EXAMPLE,
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS NOT
GOING OUT THERE AND BUYING IN
ONE SINGULAR TRANSACTION BULK
PURCHASES. OF THOUSANDS OF
HOMES. THAT'S NOT WHO'S DOING
THIS AND SO WE ARE THROUGH THE
COMMITTEE'S GUIDANCE, REALLY
TRYING TO TAILOR THIS TO WHAT WE
ARE SEEING THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT
THAT WE HAVE A GROWING
INVESTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT TRUST OR WHATEVER
ITERATION THEY MAY MORPH INTO
THAT ARE COMING INTO THIS SINGLE
FAMILY HOME MARKET. AND SO WE
BELIEVE THIS SINGULARLY RESPONSE
TO THAT. I'D LIKE MISS VEK TO
ADD ANYTHING. MAYBE THAT I HAD
MISSED TO YOUR TWO QUESTIONS,
BUT I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS.
I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF
THINGS TO POINT OUT. SIERRA
SPONSORED A BILL A B 323 LAST
YEAR. BY S MM MEMBER, HOLDEN.
THAT PARTICULAR BILL IS ACTUALLY
ADDRESSING WHAT WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE BUILDERS IS
TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS, UM, THE
WHOLESALE PURCHASE OF SUBSIDIZED
, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR HOUSING
CONSTRUCTED DUE TO A DENSITY
BONUS, AND IT'S PART OF YOUR SET
ASIDE, OR HOUSING WAS PART OF AN
INCLUSIONARY ZONING PIECE. ONE
OF THE THINGS THAT WE SOUGHT TO
RESOLVE WITH REMEMBER HOLDEN
LAST YEAR WAS UM, BUILDERS,
CHOOSING INSTEAD OF SELLING A
UNIT THAT WAS INCOME RESTRICTED
BASED ON OWNERSHIP, THEY WOULD
SHIFT THE AFFORDABILITY EVEN
WHEN THEY HAD APPLICATIONS FOR
HOMEOWNERS. IN ONE INSTANCE,
THERE WAS 80 APPLICATIONS OF
FAMILIES, AND THE PARCEL WAS
SHIFTED TO BECOME DOWN IN SAN
DIEGO, A RENTAL UNIT THAT WAS
OWNED BY A LARGE SCALE RATE. AND
IN THOSE INSTANCES, WE FIX THE
LAW SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PIECE
LAST YEAR. WITH RESPECT TO THIS
BILL SPECIFICALLY FOCUSES ON
HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR MARKET RATE
ENTRY LEVEL HOUSING. IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANYTHING RELATED TO THE
DISK. THE DISK. ATTRIBUTION THE
SALE OF THE DEED RESTRICTED
AFFORDABLE HOMES WHETHER THEIR
RENTAL OR OWNER OCCUPIED. WE CAN
MAKE PROBABLY I WOULD ASSUME
THAT THE AUTHOR MIGHT CONSIDER
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD EXPLICITLY
NOTE THAT, UM, IN THE INSTANCES
WHERE THOSE SUBSIDIZED UNITS OR
THE BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT
ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE EXCLUDED
FROM THE PROHIBITION. I THINK
THAT'S PROBABLY AN EASIER
AMENDMENT FOR THE S MM MEMBER TO
HANDLE WITH RESPECT TO A BUILDER
THAT GOES DEFUNCT DURING THE
MIDDLE OF CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY
HAVEN'T OBTAINED OX. IT
OCCUPANCY PERMITS FOR THOSE
PARTICULAR UNITS. THIS BILL
WOULDN'T APPLY. THE BILL ONLY
APPLIES ONCE THOSE UNITS HAVE
BEEN CERTIFIED FOR OCCUPANCY PER
CERN TO THE STATUTE. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES,
SOMEBODY, CONNOLLY THANK YOU
CHAIR AND ALSO MY THANKS TO THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD
. WE'RE ALL HEARING ABOUT THIS
ISSUE AND OUR COMMUNITIES AND,
FRANKLY, WITH RISING LEVELS THAT
CONCERN ABOUT IT. I'VE GOT A FEW
QUESTIONS AND THEN MAYBE SOME
COMMENTS AS WELL. UM SO IT WAS
COMMENTED THAT THIS IS A RAPIDLY
EXPANDING PRACTICE IN THE MARKET
, WONDERING IF YOU CAN PROVIDE A
LITTLE MORE CONTEXT. FOR EXAMPLE
, HOW MUCH HAS THE PRACTICE OF
BULK PURCHASING INCREASE IN THE
LAST DECADE? D'AMORE. BOOK SALES
DIDN'T REALLY, UM, EXIST IN THIS
PARTICULAR SPACE UNTIL THE GREAT
RECESSION BY WAY OF HISTORY. UM
MANY OF US EXPERIENCED OUR
FAMILIES EXPERIENCED, UM,
SOMEONE THAT LOST A HOME DURING
THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS. A LOT OF
THE PARCELS THAT WE LOST, UM
INTO TO THIS TYPE OF OWNERSHIP
MODEL. UM IT WASN'T DONE
THINKING THAT WE WOULD CREATE
LARGE SCALE READS TO REDUCE, UH
THE AMOUNT OF DEFICIENT
FORECLOSED PROPERTIES ON THE
BOOKS OF OUR SECONDARY MORTGAGE
MARKET OR THE FEDERAL LENDING
INSTITUTIONS. UM AT THE TIME,
BUT FORECLOSURES OFTEN HAPPENED
TO OUR ENTRY LEVEL. FIRST
GENERATION FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERS
THAT WE'RE ENTERING THE HOST
HOUSING SPACE BACK AND I WAS SIX
OF 78. AND THAT'S WHEN WE SAW,
OBVIOUSLY, UM A LOT OF THINGS
THAT LED TO THOSE HOMES, THEN
BEING RETURNED BACK TO THE BANKS
FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER IN
RESPONSE, BECAUSE THERE WAS SO
MANY FORECLOSURES COMING IN,
THEY HAD TO FIGURE OUT SOME KIND
OF WAY TO CREATE SPACE. AND IN
THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET TO
CONTINUE TO OFFER LOANS TO NEW
HOMEOWNERS AND TO START TO
REPLENISH AND RECOVERY IN THE
HOUSING MARKET. READS WERE
ESTABLISHED THEN AS A RESPONSE
TO A MARKET PROBLEM THAT WE HAD,
UM IN RESPONSE TO THAT, AFTER A
FEW YEARS OF SEEING THE
SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET
PACKAGE AND BULK SALE PROPERTIES
THAT REALTORS IN THEIR CLIENTS
WANTED TO ACCESS AND POTENTIALLY
PURCHASE FOR OWNER OCCUPANCY,
BECAUSE BACK IN 09, WE HAD THE
MOST AFFORDABLE OR NO 2012 WAS
THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MARKET THAT WE HAVE HAD IN
DECADES. 56% OF ALL FAMILIES IN
CALIFORNIA COULD AFFORD AFFORD A
MEDIUM PRICE HOUSE, THEN
COMPARED TO 2007. AND TODAY WHEN
WE HAVE THE MOST CONSTRICTED
AFFORDABILITY AT 15% OF FAMILIES
IN THE STATE BEING ABLE TO
AFFORD ENTRY LEVEL MARKET RATE
HOUSING SO THE REDS DIDN'T EXIST
BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS,
AND THEY'VE CONTINUED TO FIND
DIFFERENT MODELS TO OPERATE, AND
WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH
SELLERS HAVING A CHOICE OF WHO
TO SELL TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE
HAD DURING THE FORECLOSURE
CRISIS WAS THE SAME IN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, UM, DECIDED
TO PASS OR AN ACT. SOME
REGULATIONS THAT STOPPED THE
BULK BUYING IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
THEN CALIFORNIA CODIFIED THAT
PRACTICE. TWO YEARS AGO, IN THE
SAME MEASURE THAT I HAD
MENTIONED THAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
GRAZING CARRIED, AND SO THAT'S
HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEALT
WITH IN THE FORECLOSURE SPACE.
SO IF YOU CAN'T BUY PROPERTIES
IN THE FORECLOSURE SPACE IN
BULK, WHERE DO YOU GO TO THE
NEXT PLACE THAT YOU GO TO, I
THINK IS TO NEW HOMEBUYERS. I
DON'T THINK ANYBODY ENVISION
THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT
LOCATION. BUT AGAIN, THE PROBLEM
FOR MY MEMBERS IS SPECIFICALLY
THAT WE HAVE A SUPPLY CRISIS
PERIOD. WE'RE LOOKING IN SOME
AREAS. I KNOW THAT I JUST
RECENTLY HEARD IN ORANGE COUNTY.
THEY HAVE FOUR LISTINGS. FOUR
HOMES AVAILABLE FOR SALE. HOW
ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FIND HOUSING
FOR PEOPLE? WE HAVE FAR MORE
DEMAND THAN WE DO AVAILABLE. THE
LARGEST TIME THAT WE WERE ABLE
TO PRODUCE HOUSING WAS 04 AND
FIVE WHERE THE BUILDERS WERE
ABLE TO PRODUCE 200,000 UNITS
ANNUALLY SINCE THEN, IT'S
ANYWHERE BETWEEN WHAT 80 100 AND
20,000 UNITS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE MARKET
THAT THE BUILDERS WERE ABLE TO
GENERATE SO MANY HOMES DURING
THAT PERIOD, AND SINCE THEN WE
PRINT STAGNANT AS SOMEBODY
MEMBER WICKS AND SO MANY OTHERS
HAVE SOUGHT TO STREAMLINE AND
CREATE THESE ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES, BUT WE'VE BEEN
KIND OF STAGNATED WITH THE
NUMBER IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO
GET THERE. AND WITH THE HIGH
INTEREST RATES AND THE LACK OF
SUPPLY, THIS IS JUST SORT OF ONE
OF THOSE TIGHTENING
OPPORTUNITIES THAT'S OUT THERE
AND WE APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE CONVERSATION AND TRY TO FIND
WAYS TO CREATE OWNERSHIP IN A
VERY CONSTRICTED SPACE. IT'S
VERY EXPENSIVE. THE BUILDERS ARE
UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE TO BUILD
AND SELL THESE HOMES AND WE
UNDERSTAND THAT. UM BUT WE ALSO
UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S TOUGH IF
YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE
COMPETITION OUT THERE BECAUSE WE
ALSO SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
VOTERS CAN MAKE MORE MONEY.
RIGHT? POTENTIALLY FROM FROM THE
INDIVIDUAL CELLS. BUT THAT'S NOT
OUR OUR SAY RIGHT? WE WERE NOT
DECIDING WHO SELLS WHAT? WE'RE
JUST SAYING THAT IT WE AGREE
WITH THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S GOAL
OF ALLOWING MORE COMPETITION AND
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THEY HAVE
TO SELL IT. ALL THESE BILLS IS
SAYING AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS
WHY WE SUPPORT IT IS BUILDERS
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE,
AND IT HAS TO BE IN A SINGULAR
TRANSACTION SO THAT A FAMILY CAN
BID AT THE SAME TIME THAT OR IT
DOES THAT PRETTY MUCH ANSWERS TO
MY SECOND QUESTION, BUT WORTH
PUTTING A FINER POINT ON YOUR
THIS LEGISLATION IS NOT
PROHIBITING PURCHASES BY THESE
CORPORATE INVESTORS. IT'S
NARROWLY TAILORED TOWARD THESE
BULK PURCHASES THAT ACCURATE IN
THE FORECLOSURE SPACE. NOBODY
PROHIBITS THE READS FROM BUYING
PROPERTIES. THEY'RE JUST TAKING
AWAY THE DISCOUNT, ESSENTIALLY
BY DOING IT IN A SINGULAR
TRANSACTION. HOMEOWNERS PAY, UH,
VARIETY OF INSPECTION FEES,
WHETHER IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AS THEY
LOOK TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE
AND BUYING A HOME. THEY ALSO
REQUIRED TO PAY TITLE IN ESCROW
FEES. MAKES SENSE THAT A RATE
WOULD PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF
TITLE AND ESCROW FEES THAT A
HOMEOWNER MIGHT PAY. I THINK MR
BRIANNA SAID, ARTICULATED IT
SUCCINCTLY THAT THIS BILL IS
ABOUT LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SYSTEM THE
PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME. WHETHER
YOU ARE A TRADITIONAL HOME OWNER
OR CORPORATION, WHATEVER SCALE
SIZE THAT THAT CORPORATION MIGHT
BE, UM, IT'S JUST TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE IS NOT AN
ADVANTAGE ON A ENTITY THAT
PROBABLY ALREADY HAS SOME
NATURAL ADVANTAGES. AT PLAY THAT
WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE
DEFENDING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIANS TO HAVE THAT RUNWAY
TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE. QUESTION
TO THE OPPOSITION. IF I MIGHT
YOU SAY IN YOUR LETTER THAT THIS
PRACTICE IS HELPFUL TO SINGLE
MOTHERS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN
WHO DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE
HOUSE OF HOMEOWNERSHIP. YET THEY
ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE
COMMITTEE. WELL WRITTEN, I MIGHT
ADD. UH OUTLINED SEVERAL
INSTANCES OF HIGH EVICTION RATES
, SUCCESSIVE RENTS AND SUBPAR
LIVING CONDITIONS FROM CORPORATE
LANDLORDS. HOW IS IT HELPFUL FOR
THESE FAMILIES TO HAVE A LAND
WHERE THAT IS USUALLY DETACHED
FROM THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH
THEIR PURCHASE SAYING AND COULD
BE LIKELY OR TO EVICT FOLKS OUT
OF THEIR HOUSING. HOW IS THAT A
BENEFIT? YEAH THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION. REMEMBER UM SO FIRST I
REPRESENT C B A AND I DON'T
REPRESENTATIVES TO STILL
INVESTED, OF COURSE, AS A
LOBBYIST FOR THEM, BUT FROM THE
BUILDERS SIDE. I THINK THAT WAS
WE DID THAT. WE DID INCLUDE THAT
INFORMATION OR A LETTER BECAUSE
WE DID HEAR FROM OUR MEMBERS
JUST AND HAVE DONE THE WORK IN
TERMS OF UM, THAT THE PRICE OF A
HOME IS SO HIGH THAT THE
MORTGAGE PAYMENT IS NOT
AFFORDABLE FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.
IF THERE IS SOMEONE ADVISE IT.
UM AND COULD SET THEM MORE AT
THE RENT AT A LOWER RATE BECAUSE
THEY HAVE THE COMMUNITY THEN
THEY HAVE AVAILABLE
OPPORTUNITIES AND WHAT THEY
POINTED TO US WAS A LOT OF
SINGLE MOTHERS. AND UH UM
BUSINESSWOMAN AND YOU KNOW,
SOMEBODY MAY NOT BE QUITE AT THE
POINT OF THEIR CAREER TO WHERE
THE MORTGAGE BUT COULD AFFORD
THE RENT. SO I THINK THAT WAS IN
THE LETTER. AND IF I COULD JUST
RESPOND AND THINK I DON'T I
THINK WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO WORK
WITH THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE. WE WORKED WITH THEM A
REWARD VERY CLOSELY OVER THE
YEARS, AND SO I THINK THAT
THINGS LIKE THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ISSUE. IT DOESN'T COVER
IT TODAY AS THE BILL IS WRITTEN
TODAY, IT DOESN'T COVER THAT
INSTANCE. AND SO I WANT TO BRING
THAT TO THE AUTHOR'S ATTENTION
AND THE SPONSORS. IN FACT, IT
ACTUALLY COULD CONFLICT WITH THE
OTHER BILL THAT WAS REFERENCED.
I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE TO PUT ON THE
RECORD IS, UM, THERE ARE A LOT
OF HOME, UH, BUILDERS AND
THEY'RE OPEN HOUSES ALL OVER
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE HOMES
AVAILABLE. AND SO THE ISSUE OF
THE COMPETITION. THERE ARE HOMES
AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
BUY MCCANN BY THEM. UM AND SO
THAT'S SELLING THEM AT A
DISCOUNT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
THEY WANT TO DO. IT'S NOT PART
OF THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. THERE
IS AT TIMES SOME FLEXIBILITY
NEEDED AS I MENTIONED IN OUR
LETTER, BUT OTHERWISE I THINK I,
UH WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR. IF THERE'S A WAY TO FIX
THESE THINGS, I THINK THE
UNDERLYING POLICY WE'RE NOT
CRAZY ABOUT RIGHT. I MEAN, SORT
OF HOW WE WHEN WE NEED THAT
NEEDED FLEXIBILITY, BUT THAT'S
WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. SO THANK
YOU REWARD OUT ONTO I JUST
WANTED TO STAY BECAUSE MY EARS
ARE BURNING THAT WE SHOULDN'T
NECESSARILY PRESUME OR EXCEPT ON
ITS FACE THAT A SINGLE MOM
RAISING KIDS IS GOING TO PREFER
A RENTAL, AS OPPOSED TO HOME
OWNERSHIP. AND IN FACT FOR ME,
IT'S ABOUT VERY MUCH WORSE FOR
SOMEBODY WITH SOME CHALLENGING
LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP BECAUSE THESE
ACTIVITIES GOING ON AROUND US
ARE ALLOWED TO OCCUR WITHOUT
COUNTERBALANCE IS OUR DUTY TO BE
ABLE TO STEP UP. UM NOT FAR FROM
US. MANY OF US GO TO THE
AIRPORT. TO BE ABLE TO GO HOME
TO OUR DISTRICTS IS A COMMUNITY
CALLED TANZANITE, AND IT'S JUST
DEVELOP. YOU SAW IT UNDER
CONSTRUCTION LAST YEAR IT'S OPEN
FOR RESIDENTS THIS YEAR, AND IT
WAS COMPLETED THROUGH A
TRANSACTION OF THIS NATURE 211
HOMES. AND WHEN YOU RUN THE
NUMBERS, THEY AVERAGE ONE
BEDROOMS, 23 BEDROOMS BETWEEN
2400 AND $3500 IN RENT. BUT WHEN
YOU RUN ALSO THE PRICING THAT
WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN
OBTAINED THROUGH PROBABLY UH,
COMPARABLE SALES OF THOSE TYPES
OF UNITS AT TODAY'S. EVEN IN
TODAY'S INTEREST RATES, THEY
WOULD COME UP TO $3500 A MONTH
FOR A MORTGAGE. SO THIS IS A
SHIFT. IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT THEY
CAN'T AFFORD ONE OVER THE OTHER
STILL HAVING TO PAY THAT RENT,
THEY'RE STILL HAVING TO PAY IT
OUT OF THEIR PAYCHECK. THEY'RE
NOT. THEY'RE DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP.
SORRY, PACHECO. THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR. THANK
YOU FOR MAKING THAT COMMENT AS
WELL. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU,
UH, A SINGLE MOM WITH CHILDREN.
I WOULD WANT TO OWN A HOME
INSTEAD OF RENT, AND I THINK
HOMEOWNERSHIP IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD ALL STRIVE TO. AND I
KNOW, I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND I
KNOW JENNIFER HAD BROUGHT UP A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT. UH SO MAYBE
JUST WORKING THROUGH THAT THAT
AMENDMENT AND WORKING THROUGH
SOME OTHER ISSUES MAY BE
HELPFUL. UM BUT I'M PLEASED TO
SEE THAT THERE IS POTENTIAL ROOM
YOU KNOW, TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. BUT I
AGREE. WE NEED HOMEOWNER. MORE
HOMEOWNERSHIP, MORE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO OWN
THEIR HOMES. SO THANK YOU TO THE
OTHER. I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
BILL TODAY. THANK YOU. AND
EMOTIONAL SECOND VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. UM. IT'S AN
INTERESTING DYNAMIC HERE. WE I
THINK WE ALL ARE BELIEVE WE NEED
MORE HOMES AND MORE HOMES FOR
RENT, PERHAPS, BUT MORE HOMELESS
FOR SALE. THIS HAS BEEN A ISSUE
THAT I'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AS I'VE
ACTUALLY TRACKED THIS AND
KNOWING ABOUT THIS LEGISLATION.
BECAUSE WALL STREET JOURNAL HAS
BEEN WRITING ABOUT THIS FOR
YEARS. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THE DISTORTIONS IN THE
MARKETPLACE FOR HOME OWNERSHIP.
THAT WE ALL KNOW YOUNG PEOPLE
WHO ARE SAVING SAVING, SAVING TO
BUY UP, SAVE UP THAT FIRST DOWN
PAYMENT AND THEN TO BE
PRESENTING AN OFFER FOR THAT
PURCHASE OF THAT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE TO BE OUTBID BY SOME
LARGER ENTITY. EVEN THE PRIVATE
EQUITY, WHATEVER, UH, HEDGE
FUND, WHATEVER OUT OF NEW YORK
AS A COMING FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, PUTTING THAT HAT ON
MANY OF US HAVE SERVED IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. I MEAN, IT'S A HOME
OWNERSHIP. AND FAMILIES IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT CREATE
COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S A
CONCERN OF MINE. AND IF YOUNG OR
OLD OR WHATEVER AGE FAMILIES ARE
PRICED OUT OF THE HOME BUYING
MARKETPLACE BECAUSE OF THIS
EXTERNAL GLOBAL KIND OF
PURCHASING OPPORTUNITY OR
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY OR BUSINESS
MODEL. THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME.
I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE A
HOUSING CRISIS. I'VE BEEN SAYING
THIS, UH, IN THE CONTEXT OF
HOUSING UNITS AS WE WERE DEALING
WITH RINA AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
WE'RE REALLY NOT TALKING ABOUT
HOUSING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
BECAUSE THERE WAS A REALLY KIND
OF BEING I ZONED OUT. WE'RE
REALLY TALKING ABOUT RENTAL
UNITS. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT
THIS STATE UNDER ARENA GOVERNORS
GOALS ARE 3.3 MILLION HOUSING
UNITS ARE REALLY GOING TO BE A
LARGELY RENTAL UNITS IN OUR
COMPOUND IN THIS AND ARE THESE
FINANCIAL MECHANICS THAT ARE
CREATING MORE HOUSING UNITS WE
ALL WANT. I'M I'M A TOTAL
PROPONENT AND ADVOCATE FOR THE
HOUSING INDUSTRY FOR THE
BUILDING INDUSTRY. I'M JUST
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE
HOUSING HOW KILLER HOUSING
KILLER BILL THAT YOU DESCRIBED
THIS AS A HOUSING. WHY IS THIS A
HOUSING KILLER? WE ALL WANT
PEOPLE TO LIVE IN. HOMES THAT
THEY OWN PRIMARILY BECAUSE
THAT'S THAT'S FOR STABLE
NEIGHBORHOODS, STABLE
COMMUNITIES, STABLE FINANCIAL
SITUATIONS TO, UM GET IN THE WAY
OF ENCOURAGING HOMEOWNERSHIP, UH
, ARE MAKING IT BETTER AND
CREATING THIS COMPETITIVE
DISADVANTAGE IS A CONCERN TO ME.
BUT EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WHY IS
THIS BILL A HOUSING KILLER? WELL
I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO THE
LOOT THE TITLE FOR THE RESERVE
FOR LIKE SOME OF THE WORST BILLS
AND WORSE, YOU KNOW, FORGIVE ME,
BUT THAT TERM, BUT I BELIEVE IT.
UM IT WAS CONSTRICTING CAPITAL.
I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE SORT
OF METRICS TO JUST BUILD DO
THAT. I ALSO THINK AND THIS MAY
HAVE BEEN. IT WAS ON THE
ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE BILL. I
THINK IT MAY STILL BE IN THE
LETTER, BUT THE ORIGINAL VERSION
OF THE BILL, UH, ACTUALLY AS
WRITTEN WOULD HAVE LIMITED THE
WAY. UM IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
EVERY HOME BUILDER CAN ONLY SELL
ONE HOME. IT WAS JUST POORLY
DRAFTED, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT
WHY I GOT THAT DESIGNATION THAT
PROBABLY SHOULD NOT CARRY OVER
TO WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY
RELEVANT. NOW IT'S NOT AS
RELEVANT NOW A ALL RIGHT AND
THEN ALSO IN YOUR LETTERS LONG
FOR ADDRESSING THAT YOU TALK YOU
MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A
DEVELOPER AND A HOMEBUILDER. SO
WHAT WAS THAT POINT? I MEAN, I
KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. BUT WHY
DON'T YOU JUST EXPLAIN THAT?
YEAH I THINK IT WAS THE TRIED TO
SAY IN OUR THE EXAMPLE ABOUT THE
UM, THAT THEY COULD SERVE IN
MULTIPLE HATS. SOME SOME OF OUR
BUILDERS ARE DEVELOPERS
SOMEWHERE JUST HOMEBUILDERS. BUT
IN THE IN THE PRACTICE OF
ACQUIRING LOTS, UM THEY COULD BE
BOTH, AND IT COULD BE INCLUDED
THE DEFINITION OF AN
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR, AND IT
MADE IN VERTICALLY CAPTURE THEM
WHEN THAT'S NOT THE INTENDED,
BILL. OKAY SO LET ME ASK THE
AUTHOR, MR WARD, UM SO THERE WAS
A MENTION MAYBE. WRENCHING IN
YOUR LETTER THAT DUPLEXES OR TRY
PLEXUS WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS.
WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HOMES
THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IS
THAT STILL IN THE BILL RIGHT
UNDER UNDER UNDER CODE. SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES ARE BY DEFINITION,
WONDERFUL UNITS. ALL RIGHT. SO
THE BUNDLING DEFINITION, SO IF
IT'S A DUPLEX THAT WOULD BE
AUTOMATICALLY COVERED. IF THEY
WERE PART OF A 1000 ACTION. OH
HOW BIG IS THAT BOAT TRENDS AND
1000 HOMES OR WHAT IS THE BULK
TRANSACTION? SEE ALL TWO OR MORE
PARCELS. OKAY THAT'S A CONCERN.
SO PARCELS PARCELS, RIGHT SO. A
COMPANY THAT IS PROHIBITED WITH
THOUSANDS OF THEY OWN 1000 UNITS
OR MORE. THAT'S PROHIBITED, BUT
FOR ONE OR TWO BUNDLED UNITS
THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED AS
WELL, IF IT WAS THE RECIPIENT.
OF COURSE CLASS WAS NO, UH,
DOESN'T NEED INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTOR AS DEFINED. OKAY SO
THERE IS THIS LARGE INVESTOR AND
THE SMALL INVESTOR? YES, WELL SO
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS. NOW THAT'S THE
REASON I KIND OF WANT TO JUMP IN
BECAUSE IT GETS REALLY KIND OF
COMPLICATED. SO, UM AND HERE WE
GO WITH 80 YEARS. I WOULD LIKE
TO THANK OUR LEADERS THAT HAVE
CREATED OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO
FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SO WE NO
LONGER REALLY HAVE ANY MORE A
SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD WHERE
THERE IS A ONE SINGLE FAMILY
STAND ALONE UNIT AS WE BUILD NEW
CONSTRUCTION AS WE CHANGE OUR
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK. I CAN
TELL YOU I LIVE IN A NEW
DEVELOPMENT AND I HAVE A D. U. S
THAT ARE DEVELOPED AT THE SAME
TIME IN THE SAME MANNER THAT
THEY'RE BUILDING THE INITIAL
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME THAT
THEY ARE BUILDING 1 TO 2,
DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT
THEY'RE DETACHED OR ATTACK.
ACHED. SOMETIMES THEY DO BOTH AT
THE SAME TIME AT THE SAME MANNER
WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WHERE
YOU END UP WITH THREE LOT THREE
UNITS PER LOT, BUT IT'S STILL A
SINGLE FAMILY HOME. BECAUSE THE
WAY THAT THE LENDING INDUSTRY
WORKS AS WE DO OUR TRANSACTIONS
OR FACILITATE TRANSACTIONS,
SINGLE FAMILY IS DEFINED AS
SINGLE FAMILY ONE BEFORE WHERE
YOU CAN GET AN OWNER OCCUPIED
LOAN, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU BUY
ALL THREE OF THOSE UNITS
TOGETHER OR OR TWO IF IT'S A
DUPLEX, OR IF IT'S UM, SAY A
SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN 80
YOU YOU BUY THOSE IN ONE
TRANSACTION AND YOU CAN EITHER
RENT OUT THE OTHER ONE, OR YOU
DO IT IN A COMBINED PURCHASE
WITH YOU AND YOUR MOTHER, OR YOU
AND YOUR DAUGHTER OR YOU AND
YOUR SON. UM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT LIVING. AND
SO YOU CAN DO THAT AS AN OWNER
OCCUPIED LOAN, WHICH GETS YOU
THE LOWER INTEREST RATE, WHICH
MEANS THAT YOU'RE NOT BUYING AS
AN INVESTOR, WHICH USUALLY GETS
YOU KICKED TO A HIGHER INTEREST
RATE AND YOU'RE STILL A
CONFORMING LOAN WITH THE WAY THE
FEDERAL LENDING STANDARDS WORK.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 1 TO 4
FROM THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION
SPACE, THAT REALLY IS SOMEBODY
THAT CAN OWNER OCCUPY, AS
OPPOSED TO AN INVESTOR WELL, I
THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO
HIS CONDOS AND CONDOS MAY HAVE
15 OR 20 UNITS THAT ARE ATTACHED
TOGETHER, BUT THERE'S STILL SOLD
IN SINGLE FAMILY. UNITS AS AN
INDIVIDUAL UNITS WHERE YOU BUY
THE INSIDE OF THE WALL. BOTTOM
LINE IS, IS IT ARE THOSE YOU
KNOW? SO YOU'RE DESCRIBING COULD
BE THE EU COMPLEX. OR COULD BE.
ARE THEY PROHIBITED UNDER THIS
BILL? THEY'RE PROHIBITED SO THEY
WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE BILL SO
THAT THEY WOULD BE PROHIBITED.
UH, FOR WHAT? IT'S A REGION THAT
HAS 1000 OR MORE PARCELS, AND
THERE'S A PUBLICLY TRADED
COMPANY. THE RETE WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO BULK PURCHASE 500 HOMES.
THAT HAVE MAYBE 80 US. MAYBE NOT
A DUS OR DUPLEXES CAN BUY IT.
PART ME? YES, THEY CAN BUY IT.
NO NO, IT IT APPLIES TO THE
REEFS. THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO
HOMEOWNERS BUSINESS. CORRECT
PROPERTY. CORRECT. IT'S ABOUT
THE TYPE OF BUSINESS HOMEOWNERS
CAN BUY A SINGLE FAMILY 1 TO 4
UNDER THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
OF THE TRANSACTION, OKAY, AND SO
HOW, WHO GOES AROUND, VALIDATING
WHO'S A READER AND WHO'S A
PERSONAL HOME BUYER? THERE'S
THAT'S WHAT THE DEFINITION AND
THE BILL IS SUPPOSED TO DO.H
AND TITLE AND ESCROW IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR VALIDATING
TRANSACTIONS. OKAY, OKAY. THANK
YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU
FOR CLARIFYING. THANK THANKS FOR
THE CLARIFICATIONS. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? WELL I WANNA THANK
THANK THE AUTHOR OF THIS FORWARD
AND FOR THE WORK, AND A LOT OF
WORK HAS BEEN DONE BY OUR
COMMITTEE STAFF AND THE AUTHOR
AND HIS STAFF IN RECENT WEEKS
LEADING UP TO THIS HEARING, AND
I KNOW THAT UP ITS CHALLENGE
WHEN YOU COME INTO THE SECOND
YEAR, BILL AND YOU KNOW
AMENDMENTS COME IN. YOU'RE STILL
KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW
TO NEGOTIATE THAT. WE SAW THAT
WITH THE PRIOR BILL. WE JUST
HEARD THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF
TIME FOR THOSE CONTINUED
CONVERSATIONS, WHICH IS A GOOD
THING. UM BUT I DO THINK THAT
THIS BILL IS IMPORTANT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE THINKING
ABOUT KIND OF THESE BUILD TO
RENT MODELS WHERE THERE'S A BOX
CELLS AND THEN YOU'RE LITERALLY
TAKING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT
COULD BE FOR SALE OFF THE MARKET
ALTOGETHER. AND I'VE SEEN THIS
HAPPEN IN MY JURISDICTION WHERE
THERE WAS A TOWER AND THEY WAS
GOING TO BE ALL FOR SALE. THEY
BASICALLY SOLD ALL BARK. THE
WHOLE BUILDING IS THAT WENT ON
TO RELEASE AND, UM IT HMM. YOU
KNOW, CITIES STATE OUR STATE,
BUT ALSO CITIES AND
JURISDICTIONS PLAN OUT HOW MANY
HOMES ARE BEING BUILT FOR SALE
AND WHEN THERE'S BEEN THOSE
KINDS OF LAST SECOND
TRANSACTIONS OCCUR, WHERE THEY
BULK SALE. IT REALLY THROWS
THOSE NUMBERS INTO A REALLY
CHALLENGING POSITION, AND I KNOW
THAT THERE'S THOUGHTS THAT THIS
PRACTICE MAY NOT BE SO
WIDESPREAD. WHICH IS A GOOD
THING. HOWEVER WE DO SEE IT
EXPANDING IN OTHER STATES KIND
OF LIKE A CANARY IN A COAL MINE
THAT WE'RE GOING TO ANTICIPATE
THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY COME
HERE EVEN WITH MORE VIGOR, AND
SO IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO GET AHEAD
OF THESE KINDS OF ACTS AS WELL.
SO CERTAINLY WAR WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE THANK YOU. ANY
INTEREST, MISS WICKS AND ALL
YOUR TIME? I WILL JUST BRIEFLY,
SAY ONE. I THINK YOU ALL KNOW
I'M GOING TO WORK SINCERELY ON
ANY OPPOSITION EFFORTS,
ESPECIALLY WHERE IT COMES DOWN
TO A DEFINITION OR THINGS THAT
WE NEED TIGHTENING UP, SO
THERE'S NO UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. TWO WE HAVE A
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS,
AND IT'S LARGELY DRIVEN BY
SUPPLY AND THAT IS NOT LOST ON
ME AS THE CHAIR OF OUR HOUSING
COMMITTEE AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE
SOLUTIONS, BUT WHILE WE ARE IN A
CONSTRAINED MARKET THAT'S NOT
OPERATING WELL THAT WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS COMMITTEE'S
LENS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NATURE
OF TRANSACTIONS AND MAKING SURE
THAT WHEN THERE'S A DAVID AND
GOLIATH SITUATION THAT WE ARE
BEING FAIR FOR ALL PARTIES, AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES, AND
SO WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. AND
I DO WANT TO THANK YOU SOME
AEROBICS AND WE CAN REFER
SETTLING IN TODAY TO TAKE A WALK
ON THE VOTE, PLEASE. NO MOTION
IS DUE PASS. KALRA I DIXON.
WORKS BY BRIAN BRIAN. I.
CONNELLY CONNELLY. I. HANEY
HANEY, I MAIENSCHEIN MAIENSCHEIN
. AYE, CHICO, CHICO, I SANCHEZ.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. I ALRIGHT THAT
BILL IS OUT. AND, YEAH, AND SO
THE ONLY OTHER ITEM WE HAVE, BUT
WE HAVE A B 82. IF SOMETHING
REMAINS SHINE WOULD LIKE TO ADD
ON TO THAT. ALRIGHT MAYBE 80 TO
MENTION I OKAY. THANK YOU SO
MUCH, EVERYONE. WE'RE ADJOURNED.