Sen. Nancy Skinner introduced a bill Wednesday that would allow local jurisdictions to use vacant single-family homes as affordable housing and give them the authority to fine corporations that keep homes vacant for long stretches of time.
Senate Bill 1079 would give tenants of a foreclosed property the exclusive opportunity to buy the house for a reduced price within 90 days of its foreclosure. If the tenant chooses not to buy the house, cities, counties, community land trusts and affordable housing nonprofits would be able to buy the house before it hits the open market and convert it to affordable housing.
The bill would also give cities and counties the authority to levy fines against companies for keeping a property vacant for more than 90 days. Funding from those fines would then be used for homeless services and
affordable housing assistance.
Skinner credited the Moms 4 Housing group for bringing the issue of vacant homes to light after four members of the group illegally occupied a vacant investor-owned house in West Oakland in November.
“There is no excuse for a vacant home when so many of our neighbors are homeless,” Skinner said. “And helping tenants buy foreclosed homes rather than be evicted will keep people housed.”
69 comments
This is wrong. Property owners are paying the largest amount to fund all of these programs that do not get audited and are siphoned off by the liberals, nanny state of California and Democrats that are in control.
Anything the government seems to run or control is a joke as they can’t find their way out of a paper bag with a approved lighting source.
Enough back off and stop telling us what to do.
Well said and I totally agree
Of course they’re audited. Contact them and request a copy and see that money is not being siphoned off. You can see the uses and sources. Nothing worse than an angry uniformed couch potato.
Another case of government over reach. Get rid of all the illegals and be amazed at how much housing opens up
Seriously. This is absurd and will turn foreclosed homes into blighted eyesores funded by responsible property owners.
Socialism works until you run out of other people’s land!
Only in California
To paraphrase an old saying, “When California catches a cold, the rest of the nation gets pneumonia!” California craziness spreads, which is why residents in so many other states resent it when people from California move in.
Talk about taking property from owners! This is the beginning right here.
How many houses do you own?
@Clyde – Why don’t you go buy some property of your own? And don’t cry about “I can’t afford it”
@Nope – I do have my own home. The question was, how many houses do YOU own?
So, what’s your point?
Any government that is able to declare two houses is too many can also decide that one house is to many.
^too
That is not even emminant domain anymore
I think the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional.
108RS
Curious of how many houses each person who is against this owns.
One for me
I’ll answer your question, but then you need to answer mine.
I own one house.
My turn:
Why does that matter to you?
Four houses here and we rent out to low income and section 8. Section 8 guarantees the rent will be paid. I don’t see how this has anything to do with corporations that scoop up properties just to make their portfolios bigger.
I feel this is a threat to the freedom of home ownership to those who legitimately work for a living, to be able to afford the American dream of home ownership. Instead, politicians and slackers want to be able to “acquire” properties. Wonder if they will have the same pride of home ownership when their friends visit and lower the property values?
@Cowellian – If you own one house, then how does this affect you in any way?
You didn’t answer my question, but fine, I’ll answer your second question. I spent too many years defending this country from communist takeover from external sources to tolerate a communist takeover from within the Country.
It doesn’t matter!!!
How many shares of Apple do you own? How many cars? How many vacations do you take? How many trips to the doctor? Under your own premise, the state should be able to come in and take the excess, as they define it, of all of these benefits.
I agree with Cowellian. I own three houses since you seem very concerned with how many houses people own, before they are allowed to comment. It really doesn’t matter though, whether you own one house, five houses, or still have yet to buy your first house. This sets a dangerous precedent of the government being able to tell citizens what to do with their private property. So what if you only own one home? It could still effect you. Someday these same nuts will tell you: now that your kids have grown up and moved out, and there’s only 2 of you living in your 3 bedroom home, we’re going to fill the other bedrooms with people we deem appropriate. Just because things do not negatively affect you personally, does not mean they are correct.
How many people live in your house Clyde?
California, the new Soviet Union.
California, under Single-Party Rule! What I find amazing is that people keep on voting for Democrats and yet expect different results. Absolutely crazy!
Thank goodness our forefathers wrote our constitution to protect us from tyrants like Nancy Skinner . She really thinks the government and fake politicians like her can tell you who you can sell your private property to and how much you can sell it for ? That said,I Don’t think it’s right for large companies to buy up large numbers of houses and keep them vacant for years . So maybe a simple unoccupied housing tax after 6 months would be more suitable instead of giving cities and counties the authority to levy fines. Maybe Nancy should look to see if the high and rising property taxes and fees that she and her democrat cronies impose on the working class is making housing less affordable. I think we know the answer to that. .
Very good points you have raised!!!
Adios, freedom.
This is absurd. I don’t use my car everyday, does that mean I have to share it with a stranger even though I own it and pay all associated costs of operation?
This is very dangerous ground and extremely shortsighted. This will thwart anyone who owns investment property. They will shift their assets to other investment opportunities outside of California. Therefore there will be fewer rentals available and compound the homeless problem.
In our country we have the right to own things, and use them (or not) as we see fit within the law. No rational human who paid attention in school would ever support this.
{Nancy Skinner voice on}
“Comrades! We will confiscate the homes from the Greedy Capitalist Pigs. Free housing will be provided by the State for Everyone!”
{Nancy Skinner voice off}
So…their programs aren’t actually helping people (but in fact enabling them) and so the solution is to penalize anyone who owns a home and not using it in the way “they” want. Got it.
The Dems are only doing what they do best, taking away the liberties and freedom of every American citizen. They want to take away freedom of speech, they want to take away the right to keep and bear arms, they want to take away freedom of religion, and they want to take away the right to the pursuit of happiness.
The Democrat Party has become a fascist party. Fascism is a one party system, their goal is for a totalitarian one party state.
The Dems have demonstrated this is their goal by wanting open boarders and doing away with ICE. By allowing more illegal immigrants into the country and giving them the same, if not more rights than an American citizen, including the right to vote, own a home, and have a drivers license. The Dems allow illegals to attend our schools, and receive health and social benefits at tax payers expense. They not only want illegals to have the right to vote, now they want prison inmates voting and they want to lower the voting age to 16. By doing this it is in their opinion that they will have more people voting Democrat, which means the Dems will take over the entire country, making their own rules as they go. Fascism st it’s best.
Somebody coined the term, “vote as if your life depends on it.” Well they’re right, voting Democrat will destroy your life as you know it.
Non profits don’t have to pay property taxes, do they.
This is what you wanted
You voted for this to happen when you allow one party rule you allow corruption and a party to take what they want
This has nothing to do with low income or freeloaders or squatters
This is socialist assimilation
This is hat socialism is
You can now see how far the dem party has gotten
They are now outright taking what they want
Do you think these homes will be given to a low income family lol
This is as corrupt as you can get
Grabbing up housing at below market value sitting on it and reselling for huge profit
You voters really have no clue as to the power you have handed over
It saddens me to the core that you have accepted politicians as messiahs and allow them to take and take while offering nothing
How have the dems made your lives better
Please tell us because yet again they are taking and leaving you with nothing again
Exactly! When are people going to wake up.
And glad you’re back Random Task.
This is horrific.
Sadly it’s simply another step down the road of communism.
I pity the poor people who would support such an atrocious idea.
The people of CA need to vote for better representation.
Well said dawg. There’s so much insidious stuff these lefties are up to. They are domestic terrorists. The only reason they have their power here is because of the demographic changes and “woke” liberals. I mean what kind of self-respecting legacy American would vote for the Democrats that’s like cutting your own throat. How is Gavin Newsom not under arrest for giving our tax money to foreign invaders what’s going on here ? Do you Democrats think Benjamin Franklin or George Washington would agree with your current politics of the day? I don’t think so. I can’t help thinking how things would be much easier if they were less people coming here in droves competing for the same success. By the way resources are finite
This problem started when the ACLU sued the government to close mental institutions. Not Ronald Reagan. These people had no place to go so they started living in the streets. We also have people who may have just lost their job and people with nothing but a monthly social security check that just keeps them alive. Then the most who are drug addicts with no visible means of support.
What to do? All mental patients institutionalized. All drug addicts in rehabilitation. All of the rest find a place where they can live. That shouldn’t be too hard once the rest are off of the streets.
If not just get used to the homeless because nothing else will work.
Using someones vacant house is not the answer.
Of You’ve got part the mental health hospital story right – the ACLU did sue, but you did not explain why. I suggest you go back to your reference source, refresh your memory, and add the reason why it brought suit. It provides a totally different slant to your biased post.
Nancy needs to go, too. You can’t take over someone’s private home, is she nuts?
And hmmm non profit foundations
Who or rather what entities are famous for those
Oh that’s right democrats
So essentially they are turning the state into a tax funded bank and money laundering shelter
You voters have really shown Your ignorance now sorry
I mean man hole covers
To allowing the politicians to snatch up below market housing with tax money and then benefit off of it
Corruption at it s best along with money laundering extortion of the people racketeering basically everything the mob would be charged with including collusion and frauding the tax payer as well as mail fraud and tax evasion
But hey you get non designated sewer covers and restrooms
Your children and their children will make great pets
Excellent voting you have shown your education level
This is ridiculous!
People are complaining without even reading the text of the bill.
This bill refers to foreclosed homes that are owned by corporations and banks. This doesn’t apply to private home owners who have another piece of property (inherited property, vacation home, or a home that is rented out).
The bill only applies to properties that have been vacant for at least 90 days. If the home is actively being used, a local government cannot take possession of the property.
This bill doesn’t allow local governments to just seize land. There must be financial compensation per the rules of imminent domain.
AMAZING NEWS!!! Screw the banks and the hedge fund billionaires! Our people need to BUY and RENT the homes we have around here! Having them in SPECULATION is not helping all the teachers, office workers, Walmart workers, Amazon workers, Uber and Lyft drivers, etc.!! We need to live, too! THANK YOU!!!
Here’s an idea… if it isn’t yours,LEAVE IT ALONE.
Another Dem attempt to redistribute wealth from those who own to those who don’t.
Their logic is flawed. “Hmmmm, we have homeless people living on the streets, and vacant buildings that are not being used. Let’s give the home to the have-nots”. This goes against EVERYTHING that the US stands for. If this type of crap goes is enacted and enforced, then get ready for some real fun. Do you own a house with more bedrooms then occupants? Well, you must house some unfortunate soul. Do you have idle savings sitting in the bank? That $ is not helping an unfortunate soul….give it to them! Do you have clothing in the back of your closet that you rarely wear? Give it to the guy with holes in his pants. Is there food in your pantry? There are hungry people out there…. they get it!
This is an extremely slippery slope that these morons are demanding. At least it will never get past the Supreme Court.
I didn’t see the word give. I did see purchase.
They should be purchased at appraised value which is probably below market anyway since it’s vacant or abandoned.
“Senate Bill 1079 would give tenants of a foreclosed property the exclusive opportunity to buy the house for a reduced price…”
Ozzie, your ignorance is truly amazing. If you own something, then it is yours. You get the benefit of whatever it is if you choose. In the example of a house, you can live in it, rent it out, donate it, sell it, etc. As the owner, you can also choose to not get a benefit, I.E. you can let it sit idle. IT IS YOURS!
Now let’s review the quote that I have cited. First of all, it gives the tenants first refusal to buy the foreclosed home. Who did not pay the mortgage, thereby causing the foreclosure? The people living there. So now we are going to allow people to skate on the mortgage, get foreclosed on, and then get to re-buy the house but at a much lower cost. Maybe we should do that with cars too. Don’t pay the bill and we’ll allow you to walk away from the loan and then force the car company to re-sell you the same car but at a lower price. Or how about credit cards? Buy stuff that you don’t need and then default on the loan. Then allow you to buy that same stuff but at a lower price. That is not how things work.
What we have here is an extreme moral hazard. When you take out a loan (for whatever), you agree to pay that loan back with monthly payments over a set period of time. These pandering politicians want to reward people for stiffing the lender. This then leads to tighter credit, higher costs, and even more homelessness.
I’m told that DVC has some pretty good economics classes. I suggest that you enroll.
There is reason why a person is a tenant, in most cases they can’t afford to buy. They may have money but also have bad credit history, or medical bills, collection debt and can’t get a mortgage …. There are a lot of reason why some peoples are tenants for life. Cities and counties allowed to bye houses before they are on the market will make it more difficult for first time buyer to be able to bye.
Under what U.S. (not Venezuelan) Constitutional authority does this guy think he can use to compel a property owner to sell their property to someone else, at a reduced price???
How about forcing cities in the Bay Area to build affordable housing on some of the land they own? There is all kinds of open space, owned by cities, which could be used for this purpose.
I agree. If privately owned homes can be forced to accommodate folks then privately owned land should be similarly developed by force. If single story homes house a few people, can we not force demolition of single story residences to build taller homes? Let’s get busy!
“..the authority to fine corporations…”
“…fines against companies…”
It doesn’t say what they’re going to implement to regular folks.
WTF. What in the world gives them the right to steal my house. If I decide to buy a house it is my choice on what I do with it.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP!
I can not afford to live in Orinda so please find me a vacant house so I can have affordable housing there.
This does not make any sense
Pretty soon other states are going to say “ oh you are from California so you can not move here. “ They don’t want Californians ruining their states.
What bothers me is that the home was foreclosed upon in the first place. The person that paid years of a mortgage is the one who lost out and is now homeless. No one considers that.
What should really bother you is that the homeowner stopped writing checks to the mortgage holder. The reason nobody considers it is because they didn’t pay their mortgage. They failed to meet their obligation. They broke their contract.
Yes it’s a shame that they have had their house repossessed. But it is not the banks’ fault.
People who pay their mortgage don’t get foreclosed on.
Soooo
If I was as a scumbag…I could stop paying my mortgage and wait until I am about to be foreclosed on, I can whine to the govt and then I can buy it cheaper?
I hope this passes! I can create a shell LLP sign my house over to the company, rent the house out to myself quit paying my mortgage then have it go into foreclosure then buy it at a below market rate! I love this law!
Great thinking! Now make sure your shell is designated as a church and viola (behold), no taxes either!
Lady you are soo far off the beaten path.
The third amendment comes to mind and the underclass are their “soldiers “. Dump the nancys.
So what is the principal involved here? These companies are buying assets called houses and holding them. There is nothing special about houses as an asset or inventory. So what about inventory for other companies not used for 90 days? If Friedman’s appliances hasn’t sold a floor model of a washer/dryer, can the government just take it? And what is special about the 90 day period? Nothing. So why can’t the government officials walk into any company and claim any asset available? Wait. Isn’t that socialism? OMG!
There is no excuse for a vacant home? There are plenty! How about starting with it’s none of your business what a person, bank or lender does with their property. It’s their property!
Sen. Nancy Skinner is introducing another law to take away your rights.
That is correct. Your property is your property! You can choose to have an empty house. You choose to sell it to whom you choose and how much. People do not have the right to take your empty house and sell it to the lowest bidder so an unhoused person can buy it.
If someone can’t qualify for Fannie/Freddie, VA, or FHA financing, then any loans underwritten will have a strong likelihood of default. Then that subsidized owner becomes a squatter yet again. And who will finance that bad debt? The California tax payer.
This ill conceived financial model is in the shape of an inverted pyramid. If someone can’t afford to be a renter, they certainly can’t afford to be an owner. This is not new.
Comments are closed.