The bill is set to become law automatically just after midnight Saturday, thanks to a quirk of the Constitution rather than a presidential signature. President Trump had pledged not to sign the housing measure until Congress first passed a national voter identification proposal — legislation that has stalled in the Senate. With that impasse continuing and Trump reiterating his refusal to sign as recently as last week, the housing bill will take effect without his approval, simply by running out the ten-day clock the Constitution allows for presidential action.

Despite the anticlimactic path to passage, housing advocates say the substance of the bill is anything but minor. Rather than one bold stroke, the legislation bundles together 56 separate provisions — regulatory tweaks, pilot programs, low-cost loans and grants — aimed at chipping away at the nation’s housing affordability crisis from multiple angles. No single piece is likely to transform the market on its own. Supporters are betting that, together, they might.

“We don’t often get together to celebrate federal housing legislation,” Stephen Russell, president of the Housing Federation of San Diego, said at a press conference last week. “I think the last time Congress passed something of this magnitude, a lot of you weren’t even born yet… this is close to a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The bill’s momentum reflects a growing bloc of lawmakers aligned with the “Yes In My Backyard” movement, many of them from California, a state that knows a thing or two about sky-high housing costs. But the push to link affordability to housing supply has become a bipartisan cause nationally. Tellingly, the legislation was born out of a partnership between Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, one of the Senate’s most progressive members.

Though none of the bill’s provisions target California specifically, several stand out for the mark they could leave on the state.

BUILD NOW, OR ELSE

For expensive cities that have chronically underbuilt — a description that fits much of urban California — the bill pairs incentives with real consequences.

The legislation reworks the Community Development Block Grant program, one of the federal government’s primary funding streams for affordable housing and local economic development. Cities with high housing costs, measured through price and vacancy data, that have a history of sluggish construction and continue to build below-average levels of housing will see their block grant funding cut by 10 percent. Those savings will be redirected to cities building at a faster clip.

That could carry “real implications for cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco, which have traditionally lagged” in expanding housing supply, said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

According to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development data, the city of Los Angeles received $48.4 million in its most recent block grant allocation in 2024. San Francisco received $18.9 million. Those figures alone wouldn’t make or break either city’s budget.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action, in an email. “Which, applied nationally, could have a big impact! Small nudges add up.”

Beyond the dollar amounts, the precedent may matter more. Even in California, where the state has aggressively pushed cities to plan for more housing and penalized those that don’t, lawmakers have never before punished municipalities for failing to actually build — an outcome not always within a city’s control.

Garcia called the idea “inconceivable in past Congresses.” Even so, the provision hasn’t drawn much public pushback from local government groups. In an online summary, National League of Cities lobbyist Michael Wallace praised the broader housing bill as an example of the federal government “choosing collaboration with local governments over the imposition of laws,” highlighting other provisions that give cities more flexibility in spending block grant funds and new incentive programs to boost supply.

LOSING THE CHASSIS

Manufactured homes are often casually called “mobile homes,” but in practice, they rarely move. Built on assembly lines and trucked to their final destination, these naturally affordable homes — the type policymakers across California and the country say the market desperately needs more of — are typically installed on permanent foundations. Fewer than 10 percent are ever relocated again.

Yet the federal building code governing manufactured homes still requires a costly holdover from their mobile origins: a permanent steel chassis.

That chassis — a massive steel undercarriage complete with removable axles and wheels — is technically there to make transport easier. In practice, it functions as a bulky, 10-to-12-inch-thick floor that can’t be removed once the home is delivered. It adds thousands of dollars to the cost of each unit and makes it far more difficult to stack manufactured homes into two-story buildings or multifamily apartment complexes, according to Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute.

The new federal law eliminates the permanent chassis requirement — a change manufacturers and housing policy experts have pushed for since the mid-1980s.

“That relatively small change will expand access to one of the most affordable paths to homeownership,” said Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, at last week’s press conference.

Maxcy said she doesn’t expect the rule change to spark an overnight boom in manufactured housing. But especially in California, where high land costs make it more likely that new single-family homes will be built stacked on small lots, the change “gives us more opportunities and helps us bring the price down.”

DISASTER RECOVERY, MADE PERMANENT

In the months after a natural disaster, long after emergency federal funds run dry, Congress has historically stepped in with long-term rebuilding grants through the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program. Over the past three decades, the program has funneled more than $100 billion into long-term recovery work — building housing, repairing infrastructure, and helping with rental and relocation assistance. The money is typically reserved for low-income residents and communities “that won’t be able to recover without these funds,” said Marion McFadden, who ran the program under the Biden administration and now works at IEM, a disaster preparedness and recovery consulting firm.

Unfortunately for California, the program has never had a permanent, guaranteed existence. Since the mid-1990s, it’s been authorized and funded on an ad hoc basis, tucked into individual spending bills. That makes it difficult for communities trying to plan long-term recovery, and it means the rules governing the money — who gets it, when, under what conditions and for what purposes — get rewritten with every new administration, often slowing the process considerably. According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Los Angeles has yet to receive any disaster recovery block grant funding following the 2025 wildfires. Congress has not yet appropriated any.

The new housing bill would permanently authorize the program in law for at least three years.

“This allows HUD to have funds ready before a disaster and make a decision within 15 days on whether it will provide funding,” McFadden said.

What the bill doesn’t do: provide additional funding. Disaster-prone communities will still have to wait for Congress to address that separately.

CLEARING A BOTTLENECK

For the past two decades, public housing authorities in Los Angeles and the Bay Area have relied on the federal Rental Assistance Demonstration program to repair and modernize their aging public housing stock. The program works by diversifying funding sources, giving local agencies more flexibility to secure loans and attract private investment.

Until just after midnight on July 11, the federal government was only authorized to approve 455,000 of these conversions nationwide. The new bill raises that cap by another 100,000 units.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years, and that bottleneck has just been removed,” Russell said.

Not every affordable housing advocate is celebrating. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has consistently opposed expanding the program, arguing that shifting funding sources could weaken existing tenant protections. It’s unclear how much truth there is to that concern — a study last year found no evidence that conversions under the program lead to increased evictions.

KEEPING WALL STREET OUT OF THE SUBURBS

If there’s one thing most people have heard about this bill, it’s that it bars “large institutional investors” from buying up more single-family homes.

The final version includes some significant caveats. The bill defines “large” as any corporate entity controlling more than 350 single-family homes. It’s not retroactive, so investors who already hold large portfolios don’t have to sell them off. There are exemptions for new construction, renovations and senior housing. In California specifically, where corporations and other large investors don’t play an outsized role in the housing market, the impact is likely to be modest.

The provision “takes an issue that resonates deeply with people across the country and applies a fairly modest fix,” said Chad Maisel, a fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and a former housing policy adviser to President Biden.

Still, the measure enjoys broad bipartisan support. Earlier this year, Trump called for even tougher restrictions on so-called corporate landlords. Gov. Gavin Newsom made a similar call that same week.

The anti-investor language in the final bill was softened considerably from an earlier version that threatened to undercut “build-to-rent” developments — well-financed subdivisions of single-family homes built specifically for renters. That earlier draft sparked backlash from developers and YIMBY advocates who otherwise strongly supported the bill, arguing that such communities are among the fastest-growing sources of new housing in the country and offer renters rare access to suburban-style, single-family living.

After that provision was stripped from the federal bill, state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Fremont, now a congressional candidate, introduced state legislation reviving the idea. Her bill, SB 880, would have barred the bulk sale of multiple single-family homes, striking directly at the build-to-rent business model. That measure was rejected by the Assembly Judiciary Committee in late June.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What California’s “Once-in-a-Lifetime” Federal Housing Bill Would Mean for the State appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The bill didn’t arrive with the fanfare typically reserved for major legislation. It became law just after midnight without a signing ceremony, after President Trump declined to formally sign or veto it. The White House had actually scrapped a planned bill-signing last month amid a dispute over an unrelated voter ID measure stalled in the Senate. But under constitutional rules, a bill that sits unsigned for 10 days automatically becomes law — and that’s exactly what happened.

Despite the anticlimactic rollout, supporters describe the measure as historic: a rare bipartisan effort, born from a partnership between Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, aimed at chipping away at the nation’s housing shortage through dozens of smaller policy changes rather than one sweeping fix.

“We don’t often gather to celebrate federal housing legislation,” said Stephen Russell, president of the San Diego Housing Federation, at a press conference last week. “The last time Congress passed anything of this magnitude, many of you weren’t even alive. It’s almost a once-in-a-lifetime event.”

The law contains 56 separate provisions — regulatory adjustments, pilot programs, new loan products and grant incentives. None of them, on their own, is expected to solve California’s housing affordability crisis. But taken together, backers argue they could meaningfully shift the trajectory for cities that have struggled for years to build enough homes.

A carrot-and-stick approach for slow-growth cities

One of the more consequential changes targets the Community Development Block Grant program, a major federal funding stream for affordable housing and local development projects. Under the new law, expensive cities that consistently underbuild housing — based on measures like median home prices and vacancy rates — could see their grant funding cut by 10 percent. Those dollars would then be redirected to nearby cities that are building housing at a faster pace.

Housing policy experts say the change could have real consequences for cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, both of which have long lagged behind housing production goals. Los Angeles received roughly $48.4 million through the block grant program in 2024; San Francisco received about $18.9 million.

“I think this will be a small nudge,” said Laura Foote, executive director of YIMBY Action. “Which, taken across the country, could still have a good impact. Little nudges add up.”

More significant than the dollar amounts, experts say, is the precedent being set. Even California, which has aggressively pushed cities to plan for new housing, has never directly penalized municipalities for failing to actually build it — an outcome that isn’t always within a city’s control. David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, called the idea “inconceivable in previous congresses.”

Still, local government advocates haven’t pushed back hard against the change. The National League of Cities praised the broader law, noting it also includes new flexibility for how block grant dollars can be spent and new support for local planning efforts.

Easing rules for manufactured housing

The law also eliminates a long-standing federal building requirement that manufactured homes — often called mobile homes, even though most never move after being installed — be built on a permanent steel chassis.

Originally intended to make the homes easier to transport, the chassis in practice adds a bulky, expensive layer beneath the floor that serves little purpose once a home is placed on a permanent foundation. Removing the requirement, something industry advocates have sought since the 1980s, is expected to lower costs and make it easier to build multi-story manufactured homes or stack units into apartment-style buildings.

“That relatively minor change will expand access to one of the most affordable forms of home ownership available,” said Rep. Scott Peters, a San Diego Democrat.

Jess Maxcy, president of the California Manufactured Housing Institute, said the shift won’t spark an immediate building boom, but in a state where land costs push builders toward denser development, it “provides more opportunities and helps us reduce the price.”

More certainty for disaster recovery funding

For communities recovering from wildfires and other disasters, the law formally establishes — for at least three years — the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program, which has funneled more than $100 billion nationally into long-term rebuilding efforts like housing construction and infrastructure repair.

Until now, the program operated on an ad hoc basis, requiring separate congressional funding after each disaster — a process that has left communities like Los Angeles, still recovering from the 2025 firestorms, without any allocated funds so far. The new law won’t immediately send fresh dollars to fire-affected areas, but it does create a framework allowing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to have funding ready in advance and make decisions within 15 days of a disaster.

“It creates the ability for HUD to have money on hand before a disaster and then make a decision within 15 days about whether they’re going to provide funding,” said Marion McFadden, a former HUD official who ran the program under President Biden.

Removing a cap on public housing conversions

The law also lifts a longstanding cap on the Rental Assistance Demonstration program, which allows public housing authorities — including those in Los Angeles and the Bay Area — to tap private financing to renovate aging public housing stock. The previous 455,000-unit cap will rise by another 100,000 units.

“This has been a bottleneck in California for years, and that bottleneck just got removed,” Russell said.

Not everyone is celebrating the expansion. The National Low Income Housing Coalition has raised concerns that shifting funding sources could weaken tenant protections, though a recent study found no clear evidence that such conversions lead to increased evictions.

A modest curb on corporate homebuying

Perhaps the most talked-about provision bars “large institutional investors” — defined as entities controlling more than 350 single-family homes — from purchasing additional houses. The rule doesn’t apply retroactively, exempts new construction, renovations and senior housing, and is unlikely to have much impact in California, where large investors play a relatively small role in the housing market compared with other states.

Chad Maisel, a fellow at the Center for American Progress and former housing adviser to President Biden, described the provision as “a pretty modest intervention” to a politically popular issue. Still, it drew support from across the spectrum — Trump called for even tougher restrictions on corporate landlords earlier this year, and Gov. Gavin Newsom voiced similar concerns days later.

An earlier, tougher version of the provision had threatened to disrupt “build-to-rent” developments — planned communities of single-family rental homes — prompting pushback from developers and pro-housing advocates who argued such projects help address a shortage of family-sized rental housing. That language was ultimately removed from the federal bill.

In California, state Sen. Aisha Wahab of Fremont, now a congressional candidate, introduced a related bill, SB 880, that would have banned bulk sales of single-family homes to investors — striking directly at the build-to-rent business model. That legislation died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee in late June.

Original source: CalMatters

The post What California’s “Once-in-a-Lifetime” Federal Housing Bill Would Mean for Residents appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The settlement, finalized in May and made public this week, marks a significant win for immigrant rights advocates who have spent years pushing California lawmakers to bring private, federally run detention centers under closer state scrutiny. Eight such facilities currently operate across the state, and the number of people held in them has climbed sharply since President Trump returned to office.

The case dates back to the pandemic, when state lawmakers passed legislation granting California workplace safety inspectors access to detention facilities. In 2022, after fielding complaints from advocacy groups and detainees held at the Golden State Annex facility in McFarland, inspectors with Cal/OSHA opened an investigation and ultimately cited GEO Group for labor violations. Regulators alleged the company failed to stop the spread of COVID-19 among detained workers and did not take other necessary safety precautions.

The case is believed to be the first instance in which the state formally treated detained immigrants as employees — and the companies running their detention facilities as employers bound by California labor law.

Immigrants held in ICE custody are typically detained for civil immigration violations, not criminal offenses. Still, many participate in a voluntary work program inside detention centers, cleaning common areas, preparing meals or cutting hair for fellow detainees, tasks for which they are paid just $1 a day. Detainees often take part so they can afford items from facility commissaries or pay for phone calls to relatives.

As part of the settlement, GEO Group agreed to strengthen its illness-prevention protocols for detained workers and dropped its challenge to a state ruling issued last year that determined the company is subject to California labor law. In exchange, the state agreed to withdraw its citations. Neither GEO Group nor Cal/OSHA responded to requests for comment on the agreement.

The dispute over detention conditions is far from settled elsewhere in the state. Detention operators and federal immigration officials have repeatedly clashed with state and local regulators seeking access to facilities. Last month, a federal judge sided with San Diego County health officials, ordering the Department of Homeland Security and its contractor, CoreCivic, to allow a county inspector into the 1,400-bed Otay Mesa Detention Center near the U.S.-Mexico border. Days later, CalMatters reported that CoreCivic sold that facility, along with another one in Kern County, to the federal government.

Meanwhile, as several federal lawsuits challenge the $1-a-day wage paid to detained workers, GEO Group successfully lobbied ICE last month to revise its detention standards for contractors, according to the Washington Post. The updated standards now state that detainees “are not entitled to wages or benefits under applicable labor laws or wage regulations.”

Original source: CalMatters

UPDATE:

“A settlement has been reached affirming that private immigration detention facilities, operating under contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for civil detention, including those managed by the GEO Group, a Florida-based for-profit prison company, are subject to California’s workplace safety and health requirements.

The settlement also leaves intact the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board ruling that civil immigration detainees who participate in facility work programs may participate anonymously in proceedings before the Appeals Board acknowledging the potential for retaliation when individuals raise workplace safety concerns.

Every worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and should be able to report workplace hazards without fear of retaliation. Individuals who perform work in these facilities are entitled to workplace safety protections, and this settlement reinforces Cal/OSHA’s commitment to enforcing those protections and safeguarding vulnerable workers.

Cal/OSHA will continue to enforce California’s workplace safety and health laws as applicable under the facts and law governing each case including ensuring the settlement in this case is complied with.”

The post ICE Detention Center to Pay $100,000 in Landmark California Settlement appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

When most people picture the intersection of mental illness and homelessness, they imagine the most visible and severe cases — individuals living outdoors in the throes of untreated psychosis. But according to a new report from CalMatters, the far more common conditions among unhoused Californians are quieter struggles: depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

These conditions may not draw the same attention, but they can be just as disabling, often standing in the way of someone’s ability to secure stable housing. Filling out paperwork, making phone calls, and keeping appointments — tasks essential to escaping homelessness — can feel impossible for someone battling severe anxiety or trauma.

Complicating matters further, many unhoused residents simply can’t access traditional mental health care. Getting to a clinic, keeping a standing appointment, or navigating a health care system built for people with stable addresses is often out of reach.

In response, a growing number of therapists across the state have taken a different approach: meeting patients exactly where they are.

“You can find me on the riverbed, you can find me in a tent,” said Lisette Carmona, a Los Angeles-based therapist who conducts sessions wherever her patients feel safe. “Wherever the patient is comfortable, that’s where I’m conducting their therapy.”

That kind of flexibility has proven transformative for people like Jessica Scott, a 35-year-old Sacramento resident who once found the process of seeking housing paralyzing. Scott said her anxiety was so severe that simply scheduling appointments could trigger panic attacks. While living out of her stepfather’s car, she began working with a therapist who taught her grounding techniques to manage her symptoms. A few weeks ago, that progress culminated in a major milestone — Scott moved into her own apartment.

“When you’re panicking so much that you can’t really talk to people, it’s difficult to do anything,” Scott said.

Despite the clear benefits, this kind of street-based therapy remains scarce. Doctors, nurses and clinicians interviewed by CalMatters estimate that between 80% and 90% of their homeless patients are living with a mental health condition that could be treated with therapy — most commonly depression, anxiety or PTSD. Yet one street psychiatrist told reporters his team is able to reach only about 5% of the patients who could benefit from such care, underscoring how far the need outpaces available resources.

—

**Also in California news this week:**

State lawmakers are weighing a bill that would let insurance companies offer discounts to drivers who agree to have their driving habits tracked through in-car “telematics” technology — devices that can record speed, location, braking patterns and swerving. Supporters say the trade-off could reward safe drivers with lower premiums, but privacy advocates and some regulators warn it opens the door to expanded surveillance with limited oversight. A deputy state insurance commissioner cautioned in a letter to legislators that the proposal could create “broad liability loopholes” and shift regulatory responsibility onto private telematics vendors.

Separately, a CalMatters investigation into California’s public colleges and universities found inconsistent compliance with state laws requiring campus police departments to disclose military-grade equipment. Reporters combed through records from all 148 UC, CSU and community college campuses and found stockpiles that included hundreds of semi-automatic rifles and vast quantities of ammunition. Several campuses failed to hold legally required public forums on the equipment, while others — including San Jose State — reported owning gear, such as tear gas grenades, not authorized under system-wide policy.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Homeless Californians Find Healing Wherever Therapists Can Reach Them appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The investigation, conducted by The California Newsroom and UC Berkeley’s Investigative Reporting Program, identified 148 California law enforcement officers between 2014 and 2024 whose agencies sustained allegations involving explicit bias. The cases included officers using slurs, ridiculing transgender people, making derogatory remarks about immigrants or people who do not speak English, and sharing racist or homophobic comments involving members of the public, co-workers and incarcerated people.

Only about 12% of those officers were fired as a result of the conduct, according to the review. More than 40% of the officers identified — not including correctional officers — continued to work in California law enforcement.

Among the cases was that of Rafael Silva, a former Delano Police Department officer in Kern County. In April 2023, the FBI found that Silva had posted violent threats against transgender people on TikTok under a pseudonym, according to investigative records. The posts included threats involving firearms and comments suggesting transgender people would be killed.

Silva was allowed to resign from Delano rather than be terminated. He later worked for police departments in Avenal and Wasco. The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, known as POST, declined to revoke his certification. The city of Wasco confirmed that Silva remained employed as one of its police officers as of June 24, 2026. Silva did not respond to requests for comment. Delano police confirmed he worked for the department until 2023 but declined to discuss the matter further.

The findings were based on thousands of pages of internal affairs records, disciplinary files and court documents obtained from nearly 500 law enforcement and oversight agencies across California. The records show a wide range of discipline, from reprimand letters and training orders to suspensions, demotions, pay reductions and firings.

POST has the authority to decertify officers, which prevents them from working as peace officers in California. But investigations and discipline are generally handled by the officers’ own agencies or local oversight bodies.

The issue reaches into Southern California agencies as well.

In 2022, Orange County District Attorney’s Office investigator Eric Franke referred to a security guard who had asked him to leave a building as an “angry Black lady,” according to records. In another incident, he made a remark that Mexican people drink excessively. Franke received a written reprimand and remained employed by the district attorney’s office.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office said it takes biased conduct seriously and noted that Franke was disciplined. Franke did not comment.

In separate cases, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Armando Magana and San Diego Police Department Officer Alan Dyemartin mocked people for not speaking English. Magana’s case occurred in 2015, and Dyemartin’s in 2018. Both officers received reprimand letters and kept their jobs. The LAPD declined to comment on Magana’s case. A San Diego police spokesperson said the department takes prejudiced behavior seriously and disciplined the employee involved. Magana declined to comment, and Dyemartin did not respond to requests for comment.

Legal scholars, police officials and civil rights advocates said sustained findings of explicit bias can damage public confidence, raise questions about an officer’s credibility in court and harm efforts to recruit and retain a diverse workforce.

Vida Johnson, a Georgetown University law professor who has testified before Congress on white supremacy and policing, said officers who show clear bias should not remain in the profession.

“With such an important job, if someone is exhibiting any type of bias against a member of their community, I just don’t think they should have that job,” Johnson said.

Experts said biased behavior by officers can discourage residents from seeking help from law enforcement. Stefan Vogler, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said marginalized communities may feel both heavily policed and inadequately protected — a dynamic researchers describe as the “overpolicing, underprotection” paradox.

“They’re not getting the services that they’re promised by the state,” Vogler said.

Bias findings can also affect criminal cases. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors must disclose evidence that could undermine the credibility of law enforcement witnesses. Former Los Angeles police commissioner Richard Drooyan said documented bias can make it difficult to rely on an officer’s testimony without supporting evidence.

Reporters requested information from district attorneys’ offices in counties where officers in the investigation had been disciplined for biased conduct, seeking to determine whether the officers appeared on so-called Brady lists. The Madera County District Attorney’s Office said it does not maintain such a list. Several offices said they could not locate Brady material involving the officers in question, while most declined to say whether the officers were on their lists, citing disclosure exemptions.

The investigation also found dozens of cases involving anti-Black bias, including 23 officers disciplined for using the n-word. Some officers shared or made comments mocking George Floyd after he was murdered by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in 2020.

Ben Grunwald, a Duke University law professor, said the stakes are especially high because police officers have the power to detain, arrest and use force.

“The idea that these decisions that are really high stakes might be influenced by things like racism, sexism, homophobia — those should raise really serious concerns for everyone,” he said.

Bias also appeared in correctional settings. Of 61 correctional officers identified in the review, more than half were still employed at the end of 2024, according to state controller data. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which employs more law enforcement officers than any other state agency, would not confirm whether those officers remain employed today.

In two cases at Pelican Bay State Prison, officers made casual remarks about killing or shooting Black people and received reprimands. At California Men’s Colony, an officer mocked a transgender inmate by telling the person to put on lipstick before going to the yard; that officer received a temporary salary reduction.

In response to the investigation, a CDCR spokesperson said the department takes corrective and disciplinary action when warranted and has adopted new staff misconduct rules intended to reduce bias, improve transparency and strengthen accountability.

James King, program director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and a formerly incarcerated person, said biased language from correctional officers carries particular weight because incarcerated people depend on staff for safety, basic needs and access to rehabilitative programs.

“It becomes much deeper than mere words because there’s so much power and authority behind those words,” King said.

Most of the cases reviewed — 79% — involved conduct directed at or made in the presence of other people in the justice system, including fellow officers, court employees, civilian staff and, in one case, a judge during court proceedings.

In Orange, a Black police officer reported seeking work at another law enforcement agency because of racist jokes and homophobic slurs used in the workplace by Orange Police Sgt. Darrin Hall between 2020 and 2022, records show. Hall received notice that he would be demoted and retired later that month. The Orange Police Department declined to comment, citing personnel confidentiality.

Drooyan said bias among officers can damage morale and create safety concerns, particularly when officers must depend on one another in dangerous situations.

“When they get into a tough situation, if they can’t trust each other, I think it becomes problematic,” he said.

Grunwald said the findings also present a challenge for departments working to diversify their ranks and retain officers of color.

The review found that 39% of the 148 officers identified were suspended, demoted or had their pay reduced. About 20% received reprimand letters or were ordered to complete training — measures that may not remain permanently in personnel files.

Experts cautioned that the cases likely represent only a small portion of biased conduct in policing.

Johnson pointed to fear of retaliation, difficulty filing complaints and the long-standing culture of silence in law enforcement as reasons many incidents may never be reported.

State data show that more than 19,600 complaints alleging prejudiced behavior by California law enforcement officers were filed between 2016 and 2024. Agencies sustained 349 of those complaints. The figures do not include complaints involving racially biased traffic stops.

The review was limited to records available under California public records laws, meaning reporters could only examine certain sustained misconduct cases.

King said the findings should not be dismissed as isolated misconduct by a few officers. He argued that law enforcement agencies can develop workplace cultures that are difficult to change through training or hiring alone.

Sheryl Victorian, police chief in Waco, Texas, said agencies must respond promptly and appropriately when biased conduct occurs, whether through reprimands, retraining or more serious discipline.

“If nobody actually addresses the behavior when it occurs, then they continue to talk that way, and that behavior becomes acceptable,” she said.

Some officers successfully appealed discipline, with penalties reduced in at least 38 cases. Others resigned before disciplinary proceedings were completed.

The investigation relied on records collected through the Police Records Access Project, which obtains misconduct files from law enforcement and oversight agencies throughout California. Reporters searched files and summaries for terms associated with prejudice and slurs, then reviewed cases to determine whether agencies had sustained allegations involving explicit bias against protected groups. Certification and employment records from POST and the state controller’s office were used to assess whether officers remained employed in law enforcement.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Officers Disciplined for Bias Rarely Lose Their Jobs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Master Plan for Higher Education, adopted by the Legislature in 1960, was designed to create a coordinated, affordable system with distinct missions for community colleges, the California State University system and the University of California. Community colleges were expected to focus on vocational training, adult education and preparing students to transfer to CSU and UC campuses. The CSU system would provide bachelor’s degrees and master’s programs in fields such as education, engineering and other professions, while UC would serve as the state’s primary research institution and offer doctorates in addition to undergraduate and graduate degrees.

But the clean division of responsibilities envisioned in the plan has eroded over time. Economic pressures, political decisions and changing student needs have pushed the three systems into competition rather than cooperation. In addition to seeking state funding for campus growth and operations, the systems have increasingly battled over academic territory.

In recent decades, community colleges have sought authority to offer four-year bachelor’s degrees in select career fields, arguing that such programs can provide lower-cost, locally accessible pathways for students. CSU leaders have often resisted those efforts, saying some proposed programs duplicate existing university offerings. At the same time, CSU has pushed to expand doctorate programs, a move the UC system has viewed as encroaching on its traditional role.

Those conflicts have exposed the limits of a higher education structure created for a different era. Rather than broadly reconsidering the missions of the three systems, lawmakers have addressed disputes piecemeal, approving individual expansions with restrictions meant to ease opposition. The result is a patchwork of community college bachelor’s programs and CSU doctorate offerings governed by academic and geographic limits.

The latest dispute emerged in February, when the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office approved three new bachelor’s degree programs at Mesa College, Moorpark College and Southwestern College despite objections from CSU officials, who argued the programs overlapped with existing university offerings.

Soon after, lawmakers introduced two bills intended to make it easier for community colleges to add bachelor’s degree programs. Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694 would limit the ability of CSU to block proposed community college programs on the grounds that they duplicate existing degrees within certain geographic areas.

The measures are opposed by four-year universities, whose concerns come as the CSU system faces stagnant or declining enrollment. Still, the proposals are advancing, reflecting continued legislative interest in expanding degree options at community colleges.

The debate carries consequences for students across California, including those in Southern California and the Inland Empire, where access, affordability and proximity to degree programs remain major concerns. Community colleges often serve students who are place-bound by work, family responsibilities or transportation barriers, while CSU and UC campuses remain key destinations for students pursuing traditional four-year and graduate degrees.

The competition is likely to intensify as California’s population growth slows or declines. Fewer K-12 students ultimately mean fewer college applicants, and enrollment plays a major role in how much state funding campuses receive.

That demographic shift adds urgency to calls for a comprehensive update of California’s higher education plan. Supporters of a new approach argue the state needs a system designed around current workforce demands, student access and regional needs, rather than continued disputes over institutional boundaries established in 1960.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California College Dispute Points to Need for Updated Higher Education Plan appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California saw a slight improvement in homelessness last year, but the crisis remains vast: an estimated 182,000 residents across the state still lack stable housing. In Sacramento, lawmakers are considering a mix of policy changes that reflect ongoing debates over housing, addiction treatment, local authority and accountability for public spending.

One closely watched proposal comes from Assemblymember Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, who is again trying to clarify whether state homelessness dollars may be used for sober housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed Haney’s similar bill last year, surprising advocates who had supported the measure. That proposal, Assembly Bill 255, would have allowed cities and counties to spend up to 10% of certain state homelessness funding on “recovery housing,” where residents are required to remain sober.

The idea challenged California’s longstanding “housing first” approach, which generally emphasizes placing people into housing without requiring sobriety, treatment participation or other preconditions.

In his veto message last year, Newsom said state funding already could be used for sober housing. His administration pointed to guidance posted shortly after the veto as evidence that such funding was permissible.

Haney argues the guidance has not been clear enough. He said providers still believe they cannot use state money for sober housing, and he is not aware of any providers who have done so since the veto.

His new measure, Assembly Bill 1556, would spell out requirements for sober housing providers seeking state funds. Providers would need a relapse policy intended to help residents return to sobriety. The policy could also allow eviction if a resident continues using drugs or alcohol and does not comply with program rules.

That provision has drawn concern from critics who warn it could push vulnerable people back into homelessness. Sharon Rapport, director of California state policy for the Corporation for Supportive Housing, said the bill could redirect money away from low-barrier housing for people who are not ready or able to stop using substances.

Unlike Haney’s previous bill, AB 1556 does not cap how much state funding could be used for sober housing. It also does not provide additional money, meaning funding decisions would come from existing homelessness resources.

Rapport said the concern is heightened by the Trump administration’s support for prioritizing sober housing with federal dollars.

Haney said this year’s discussions with the governor’s office have been more productive and that he expects a different response if the bill reaches Newsom’s desk.

Another major proposal would require the state to calculate what it would actually take to end homelessness.

Assembly Bill 1165, by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Gardena Democrat, would direct the California Department of Housing and Community Development to produce a financial plan by January 2028. The plan would have to identify the cost of meeting the housing needs of people currently experiencing homelessness, as well as those expected to fall into homelessness in the future. It also would include performance measures to track progress.

California has already estimated that it must plan for 2.5 million homes over the next eight years to meet housing demand and reduce the affordable housing shortage. Gipson’s bill would require the state to go further by identifying the resources needed and creating a road map to reach those goals.

The Corporation for Supportive Housing has estimated that ending homelessness in California would cost $8.1 billion annually for 12 years. By comparison, the budget plan recently proposed by the Legislature includes $900 million for Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grants, the state’s primary homelessness funding program.

Supporters say AB 1165 could improve accountability, particularly after a 2024 audit found California had not adequately tracked homelessness spending or measured outcomes. However, the bill does not itself provide new funding, which could make implementing any resulting plan difficult in a tight budget year.

A separate proposal, Assembly Bill 1924, would require the California Interagency Council on Homelessness to create a statewide homelessness prevention strategy by July 2027.

Prevention programs have gained attention because keeping people housed is typically less costly and less disruptive than helping them after they have become homeless. Some organizations have found that targeted financial assistance of several thousand dollars can be enough to help at-risk residents avoid losing housing.

Like AB 1165, the prevention bill does not include new funding.

Lawmakers are also debating how much homelessness data cities should be required to report to the state.

Senate Bill 866, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, would require more cities to submit data about homelessness, services and outcomes, even if they do not receive state homelessness funding.

Currently, counties, regional homeless services agencies known as continuums of care, and the state’s 14 largest cities are eligible for funding through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention program. In exchange, they must report information about their homeless populations, available services and progress in moving people off the streets.

Blakespear argues that homelessness does not stop at city or county lines and that statewide data is needed to understand and address the crisis.

The proposal has faced significant opposition from local governments. The League of California Cities and dozens of cities oppose the bill, saying it would create new reporting responsibilities without providing the staff or funding needed to carry them out.

In response, Blakespear agreed to exempt cities with populations of 50,000 or fewer, which would remove about half of California’s cities from the requirement. Still, some lawmakers remain opposed.

Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, a Modesto Republican, criticized the bill as an unfunded mandate and questioned why it was moving forward despite broad opposition from cities.

Another bill could affect people cited for minor offenses, including many unhoused residents who receive tickets while living outdoors.

Assembly Bill 2122, by Assemblymembers Ash Kalra and Josh Lowenthal, does not specifically mention homelessness. But advocates say it could have major consequences for people who are cited for infractions and then miss court dates.

As cities across California increase enforcement of laws related to camping and public spaces, unhoused people can be cited for unauthorized camping, loitering, trespassing, public urination, park rule violations and other offenses. Police typically issue a paper citation with a court date.

For people living outside, getting to court can be difficult. They may lack transportation, have no safe place to leave belongings or pets, or lose track of court dates while facing the instability of street homelessness. Missing a court date can lead to a bench warrant, meaning the person could be jailed during a later police encounter.

AB 2122 would prohibit someone from being jailed for missing court after being cited for an infraction. It also would prevent courts from issuing arrest warrants for failure to pay traffic tickets.

The bill applies only to infractions, and cities classify offenses differently. Conduct treated as an infraction in one jurisdiction could be a misdemeanor elsewhere.

The California State Sheriffs’ Association opposes the bill, arguing it would weaken accountability for people who fail to appear in court.

Lawmakers are also revisiting the issue of RVs and other vehicles used as shelter, a concern visible in many California communities as more people live in cars, vans, trailers and motor homes parked along streets.

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, a Los Angeles Democrat, carried legislation last year intended to make it easier for local governments to dispose of inoperable RVs left on public streets. He said the goal was to address vehicles that create neighborhood blight and public safety concerns.

The bill was narrowed to apply only to Los Angeles and Alameda counties. But the final language created an unintended problem: the counties themselves could use the law, but cities within those counties could not. The issue became clear when the Los Angeles City Council approved an RV disposal program and a court later blocked it.

Assembly Bill 647 is intended to correct that mistake. It would allow cities in Los Angeles and Alameda counties to destroy RVs valued at $4,000 or less.

Opponents warn the measure could encourage cities to seize more RVs that people are living in, leaving them with no shelter other than the street.

Together, the bills illustrate the competing pressures facing California as homelessness remains one of the state’s most visible and difficult problems. Lawmakers are weighing calls for accountability, treatment-focused housing and local enforcement tools against concerns that some proposals could deepen instability for people already living without permanent homes.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Take Up New Homelessness Bills as Key Measures Advance appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assembly Bill 1751 would speed approval for new townhouse projects in California. Developers using the streamlined process would have been required to pay construction workers at least $28 an hour.

That wage requirement was removed during a hearing before the Senate Housing Committee after Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat and co-author of the bill, said the change was necessary because of firm opposition from the State Building and Construction Trades Council.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín, a Berkeley Democrat who chairs the committee, made removal of the wage provision a condition for moving the bill forward. He said lawmakers would continue working on a separate approach to establish a minimum pay standard that could gain support from all sides, including the Building Trades.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council represents unionized electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers and other skilled trades. The coalition had opposed the measure since its introduction in April, arguing that the proposed wage floor could weaken federally determined prevailing wage standards, which set higher pay requirements on publicly funded construction projects.

California’s unionized carpenters, who often clash with the Building Trades over housing policy, disagreed. They argued that residential construction workers are rarely employed on projects governed by federal public works wage rules. AB 1751 is sponsored by the New California Coalition, a centrist advocacy organization made up largely of business groups.

After lawmakers agreed to remove the wage requirement, the Building Trades shifted to a neutral position on the bill. Many of its members attended the hearing in opposition before the change was made.

The bill advanced out of the Senate Housing Committee, though several Democratic lawmakers voiced disappointment that the pay provision had been stripped.

Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat, said some workers need wages above the state minimum.

Wicks also expressed frustration, saying raising the floor from $16 to $28 should have been a straightforward step for Democratic lawmakers.

AB 1751 still faces uncertainty. Sen. Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat who serves on the Housing Committee, said the latest amendments did not resolve her concerns that the bill would bypass local control over land-use decisions. Durazo chairs the Senate Local Government Committee, where the measure is scheduled to be heard next.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Construction Workers Help Defeat Proposed $28 Minimum Wage appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Water pooled along the mostly dirt roads inside the mobile home park, mixing with waste from septic systems that regularly backed up. On wet mornings, parents loaded their children into cars and drove them through the contaminated mud to the front entrance so they could catch the school bus.

Summer brought a different hardship. In the Coachella Valley, afternoon temperatures often climb above 110 degrees. The park’s aging electrical system frequently failed, cutting power to older, poorly insulated mobile homes and leaving families without air conditioning. Rubi Castro, a mother of four, remembers placing her children in large buckets of cold water until the electricity came back on.

That chapter ended in late April, when Shady Lane reopened after a major rehabilitation.

The project, partly funded through a state program created to help restore California’s aging mobile home parks, replaced the park’s failing infrastructure. Shady Lane now has an upgraded electrical system capable of handling heavy air-conditioning use, new connections to local water and sewer service, paved roads and a shaded playground. Its 32 deteriorating mobile homes were replaced with new manufactured homes, and eight additional units were added.

Castro, speaking in June on a day when temperatures reached 113 degrees, said the heat has been intense since residents returned in April. But inside her new home, she said, the air conditioning has made life comfortable.

“It feels like we live in winter,” she said.

For the first time in years, she added, she is looking forward to the rain.

Shady Lane’s transformation under the ownership of the nonprofit Caritas Corporation is one of the first visible results of a broader overhaul inside California’s housing agency. In 2023, state officials reworked a little-used program that had been intended to provide financial help to struggling mobile home parks but had largely sat dormant for a decade because of a complicated application process and narrow eligibility rules.

The revamped effort, now known as the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization program, or MORE, expanded the kinds of projects that could receive state help.

Shady Lane received $10.6 million through the program, in addition to funding from Riverside County and the city of Coachella. It was one of 28 parks awarded money and became the first rehabilitation project completed under the new version of the program. State housing officials say construction has started at 19 other mobile home parks.

In a state where affordable housing remains scarce and expensive to build, the completed project represents a rare success story. But it also highlights the scale of the challenge: California has thousands of older mobile home parks that provide some of the last relatively affordable housing options for low-income residents, and many need costly repairs.

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, the state has 4,635 mobile home parks with nearly half a million homes. Most units are occupied by their owners. Manufactured homes are generally far less expensive than similarly sized single-family homes or townhomes, making them a critical housing option for many Californians with limited incomes.

“While it is not as flashy or glamorous as a large, beautiful new rental apartment building, it is a vital source of affordable housing,” said Betsy McGovern-Garcia, vice president of Self-Help Enterprises, an affordable housing developer in the San Joaquin Valley that manages two mobile home parks.

Even with MORE funding, some projects remain delayed by permitting issues or have had to scale back because available funding is not enough to cover their original plans. Housing advocates say the nearly $140 million awarded to more than two dozen parks, covering more than 1,000 mobile homes, is likely only a fraction of what is needed statewide.

For now, there is no additional state money in sight.

The MORE program grew out of a bureaucratic overhaul of a 1980s state loan effort called the Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program. As the name suggested, the original program was designed to help mobile home owners, who typically own their homes but not the land underneath them, buy their parks and operate them as resident cooperatives. The program was later broadened to help nonprofits and local governments purchase parks.

After an early wave of acquisitions, however, the program fell into disuse. From 2013 to 2023, it issued only one loan despite having tens of millions of dollars available.

The 2023 overhaul expanded the program to address another urgent problem: the poor physical condition of many mobile home parks. Funds could now be used not only for purchases, but also for repairing and replacing park infrastructure and, in some cases, deteriorated homes. Private park owners became eligible to apply. The state simplified the application process and made loan terms more flexible, including the possibility that many loans could be forgiven.

Lawmakers also added $200 million in one-time funding through two budget bills.

“It better responds to the range of challenges facing park residents and owners,” said Brian Augusta, a housing policy lobbyist who supported the changes.

Roughly two-thirds of the money awarded through the program went to repair and rehabilitation projects.

Caritas Corporation had been the only organization to receive funding during the final decade of the old program. State housing officials encouraged the nonprofit to return that money and apply under the revamped program instead.

“It is an excellent program, much simpler,” said Tracy Bejotte, chief operating officer for Caritas. “They really got it organized.”

Bejotte said Shady Lane is evidence that the changes can work.

Residents agree the difference is dramatic.

“Before, it was a hard and dangerous place,” said Joel Beltran, who sells fruits and vegetables at a local store and lives in the park with his wife and five children. He remembers sparks coming from outlets in his former home.

“Today, it is like Disneyland,” he said.

The high cost of maintaining and repairing homes affects communities across the country, but California’s mobile home parks present a particularly difficult case. Residents are less likely to have the savings needed for repairs and less likely than traditional homeowners to rely on insurance or home-equity loans. Affordable insurance for manufactured housing can be difficult to find, and banks often do not view mobile homes as strong collateral.

The problem is especially acute for older units. Homes built before 1976, when stronger federal standards took effect, are more vulnerable to moisture, mold and fire damage. Many are poorly insulated, making them uncomfortable and potentially dangerous during extreme heat or cold.

Andrew Rumbach, a researcher at the Urban Institute who studies mobile home parks, said many pre-1976 units “probably are no longer fit to live in.” Those older homes are particularly common in California. Rumbach and his colleagues estimate that nearly 40% of the state’s mobile homes were built before the federal standards were adopted, one of the highest shares in the country.

Even when individual homes are in decent condition, the parks themselves often are not. Many were built in less desirable areas on the edges of cities and are more likely to lack reliable utility service. Increasingly, they also face wildfire risks. In many parks, sewer, water and electrical systems are owned and operated by the park owner.

“These systems are often run by whoever manages the park, which may be an absentee owner or a property manager,” said Gregory Pierce, a UCLA researcher who studies urban planning and water insecurity. “Even if they have the best intentions, that person may not be trained to operate a water system.”

While Shady Lane is largely complete, another project funded through MORE has moved slowly.

Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, owned and managed by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, received the largest rehabilitation award under the program: $24.6 million.

The money, awarded in winter 2023, was initially intended for a sweeping redevelopment. Older mobile homes would be replaced with new models, leaky gas lines and deteriorating roads would be upgraded, and the housing authority proposed a mid-sized apartment complex with a community center for renters in the park.

But in 2024, those plans were sharply reduced. Housing authority officials cited unexpected cost increases, inadequate funding, resident opposition and a state deadline requiring the mobile home renovation money to be spent by mid-2027. Under a revised plan released late last year, the work will focus only on shared infrastructure, including water, gas, electrical and sewer lines.

Residents of 49 homes were told they would be relocated during an estimated eight months of construction and then return to their existing homes. The move-out date was originally expected in February but has been delayed until September.

“It keeps getting pushed back again and again,” said Sabrina Ramirez, a child care worker who has lived at Buena Vista since 1999.

The uncertainty has been stressful, she said. But the summer delay has helped protect the dozens of outdoor plants she began cultivating during the pandemic, which now surround her 1960s-era home.

“My jungle is delighted,” Ramirez said. “I did not want to move them earlier in the year.”

She and other plant-loving residents have been working with neighbors outside the park to care for flowers, succulents and fruiting vines once construction begins.

The MORE program ultimately distributed $136 million in grants for repairs, replacements and acquisitions in 2023. It rejected applications seeking another $186 million.

That gap between requests and available funding reflects a deep need, but it may still understate the problem, said Kate Rose, deputy director of the Sacramento-based California Coalition for Rural Housing. Some park owners may not have known about the new program in time to apply. Others, particularly small family owners, may not have had the capacity to complete applications before the deadline.

For projects that were not selected, or that never applied, there is no clear source of future help. Most of the money came from one-time state budget allocations, and California’s tight budget for the coming year includes no new funding for the program. The remaining money came from a special fund supported by mobile home park permit fees. According to the latest state figures, that fund had $27 million and has grown by less than 0.5% over the past two years.

Rose described that amount as insignificant compared with statewide need and not enough to support another major round of funding.

That leaves few options for owners trying to stabilize older mobile home communities.

When Self-Help Enterprises acquired La Hacienda Mobile Home Park in Fresno, McGovern-Garcia said, the nonprofit did not have a long-term revitalization plan.

“We just knew there had to be an intervention,” she said.

After years of legal disputes and conflict between residents and the previous owner, the park was in poor condition. All but one of the homes were built before 1980, McGovern-Garcia said. Nearly two dozen were abandoned and boarded up. Most had moisture damage and mold.

Self-Help applied for a $3.7 million improvement grant with the hope of offering homeowners low-cost or deferred-interest loans to replace their homes. The application was not funded.

“It would have completely changed the trajectory of the community,” McGovern-Garcia said. “It is like getting the golden ticket in the mobile home world.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Stepped In to Help Aging Mobile Home Parks. What Happened Next? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Summer brought a different danger. In the unincorporated Coachella Valley, afternoon temperatures routinely climb past 110 degrees, and the mobile home park’s old electrical system often could not keep up with the demand from air conditioners. When the power failed, the aging, poorly insulated homes became stifling. Rubi Castro, a mother of four, recalled cooling her young children in large buckets of cold water while waiting for electricity to return.

That changed in late April, when Shady Lane reopened after a major renovation backed in part by a state program created to preserve and improve California’s aging mobile home parks.

The rebuilt community now has an upgraded electrical system designed to handle dozens of air conditioners, connections to local water and sewer utilities, paved roads and a shaded playground. The park’s 32 older mobile homes were replaced with new manufactured units, and eight additional homes were added. The project now provides 40 homes for more than 140 residents.

Castro, speaking on a June day that reached 113 degrees, said she had been comfortable since moving back in April. Inside her new home, she said, “it feels like we live in winter.” After years of dreading storms, she added that she now “can’t wait to experience the rain.”

The transformation of Shady Lane under the ownership of the nonprofit Caritas Corporation is one of the first visible results of a major revamp inside California’s housing bureaucracy.

For years, a state program intended to help struggling mobile home parks was so difficult to use that it sat largely dormant. In 2023, the state reworked and renamed it the Manufactured Housing Opportunity and Revitalization program, known as MORE, giving it a broader mission and more money to address one of California’s most overlooked forms of affordable housing.

Shady Lane received $10.6 million through the program, along with support from Riverside County and the city of Coachella. It was one of 28 parks awarded funding and is the first rehabilitation project completed under the revised program. Another 19 projects have broken ground, according to the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

For a state struggling with high housing costs and an affordable housing finance system often criticized as slow and expensive, the completion of Shady Lane is a rare success story. But the early record of the MORE program also shows how difficult it remains to repair and preserve older mobile home communities.

California has 4,635 mobile home parks, according to the state housing department, with space for nearly half a million homes. Most units are owner-occupied, and they are often far less expensive than comparable single-family houses or townhomes. For many lower-income Californians, they represent one of the few realistic paths to homeownership.

“While it’s not as shiny or flashy as a big beautiful new rental apartment, it’s a vital source of affordable housing,” said Betsy McGovern-Garcia, vice president of Self-Help Enterprises, an affordable housing developer in the San Joaquin Valley that manages two parks.

Still, even projects that secured MORE funding have run into permitting delays, funding gaps or reduced ambitions. The state awarded nearly $140 million to more than two dozen parks with more than 1,000 mobile homes, but advocates say that addresses only a small portion of the need. No new major funding round is currently expected.

The MORE program grew out of a 1980s state loan program called the Mobile Home Resident Ownership Program. Its original purpose was to help mobile home residents buy the land beneath their homes and operate parks as resident-owned cooperatives. Later, the program was expanded to help nonprofits and local governments acquire parks.

After early activity, the program faded. From 2013 to 2023, it issued only one loan despite tens of millions of dollars sitting available.

The 2023 overhaul widened the program’s purpose. Money could now be used not only to buy parks, but also to repair and replace infrastructure and, in some cases, dilapidated homes. Private owners became eligible to apply. The application process was simplified, and loan terms became more generous, with the possibility that many loans could eventually be forgiven.

Lawmakers also added $200 million through two one-time budget measures.

“It’s more responsive to the range of challenges that park residents and park owners are seeing,” said Brian Augusta, a housing policy lobbyist who supported the changes. About two-thirds of the money awarded through the program has gone to repair and rehabilitation work.

Caritas Corporation was the only organization to receive money through the previous version of the program in the decade before the revamp. State housing officials encouraged the nonprofit to return that money and reapply under the new program.

“It’s a great program, much easier,” said Tracy Bejotte, Caritas’ chief operating officer. “They really got their act together.”

For residents, the change is visible. Joel Beltran, a produce vendor who lives at Shady Lane with his wife and five children, said the park had once been a difficult place to live. He remembered sparks coming from outlets in his old mobile home.

“Today, it’s like Disneyland,” he said.

The need for repairs in California’s mobile home parks is widespread. Lower-income residents often lack the savings to fix their homes and may have fewer options for insurance or loans than traditional homeowners. Manufactured homes, especially older ones, are often difficult to insure affordably, and lenders may be reluctant to use them as collateral.

Homes built before 1976, when stronger federal manufactured housing standards took effect, are especially vulnerable to moisture, mold and fire damage. They often have poor insulation, making them uncomfortable and potentially dangerous during extreme heat or cold.

Andrew Rumbach, a mobile home park researcher at the Urban Institute, said many pre-1976 units are “probably no longer suitable to be living in.” California has an especially large share of those older units. Rumbach and his colleagues estimate that nearly 40% of the state’s mobile homes were built before the federal standards took effect, one of the highest shares in the country.

Even where the homes themselves are sound, the parks often rely on aging infrastructure. Many were built on cheaper land at the edges of communities and may not be connected to public utilities. Some are increasingly exposed to wildfire risk. Water, sewer and electrical systems are frequently owned and operated by park owners rather than public agencies.

“These systems tend to be run by whoever runs the park, which may be an absentee owner or a property manager,” said Gregory Pierce, a UCLA researcher who studies urban planning and water insecurity. “Even if they have the best of intentions, that person may not be well-equipped to run a water system.”

While Shady Lane has been largely completed, other MORE-funded projects have moved more slowly. Buena Vista Mobile Home Park in Palo Alto, owned and managed by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority, received the largest award among the 28 funded rehabilitation projects: $24.6 million.

The money, awarded in winter 2023, was originally intended to support a broad redevelopment. Plans called for replacing decades-old mobile homes, leaky gas lines and deteriorating roads. For renters living in the park, the housing authority proposed a mid-sized apartment complex with a community center.

By 2024, however, the project had been sharply reduced. Housing authority officials cited cost overruns, insufficient funding, resident opposition and a state deadline requiring the mobile home park funds to be used by mid-2027. Under a revised plan released late last year, the work will focus only on shared infrastructure, including water, gas, electric and sewer lines. Residents in 49 homes are expected to relocate during about eight months of construction and then return to their existing units.

The move-out date was initially set for February but has since been delayed to September.

“It keeps getting pushed back and pushed back,” said Sabrina Ramirez, a childcare worker who has lived at Buena Vista since 1999. The uncertainty has been stressful, she said, though the delay has benefited the many outdoor plants she began tending during the pandemic around her 1960s-era home. “My jungle’s loving it. I did not want to move them during the beginning of the year.”

Ramirez and other residents with plants are working with neighbors outside the park to care for flowers, succulents and fruiting vines while construction is underway.

The MORE program awarded $136 million in repair, replacement and acquisition funding in 2023, while denying applications totaling another $186 million.

That gap reflects the scale of the need, said Kate Rose, deputy director of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. It may also understate the problem. Some park owners may not have known about the revamped program in time to apply, while smaller owners may not have had the capacity to complete applications before the deadline.

For parks that were not funded, there is little immediate relief available. Much of the program’s money came from one-time state budget allocations, and the next state budget does not include another infusion. The remaining source is a special fund supported by park permit fees. At last count, that fund held $27 million and had grown by less than half of 1% over the previous two years. Rose called that amount “peanuts” compared with the statewide need.

That leaves owners of older parks with limited options.

When Self-Help Enterprises acquired La Hacienda Mobile Home Park in Fresno, McGovern-Garcia said the organization did not have a complete long-term revitalization strategy. “We simply knew there had to be an intervention,” she said.

The park had endured years of legal conflict and tension between residents and the previous owner. Its condition reflected that history. All but one of the units were built before 1980, McGovern-Garcia said. Nearly two dozen homes had been abandoned and boarded up, and many of the remaining units had water damage and mold.

Self-Help applied for a $3.7 million MORE grant to help homeowners replace their units with low-cost or interest-deferred loans. The application was denied.

“It would have changed the entire trajectory of the community,” McGovern-Garcia said. “It really is like getting Willy Wonka’s golden ticket for the mobile home world.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Offered Aging Mobile Home Parks a Lifeline. Did It Work? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.