Cash out. Leave the Golden State for somewhere more affordable, less crowded and probably less cool. Sure, you lose the beaches, hiking, cuisine and culture. On the other hand, you gain cheaper living, the chance to save money and make your paycheck — or 401(k) — go further.

Decades of rising costs have prompted many to make this choice. But does it really pay off the way they expect?

New data from UC Berkeley strongly suggest that for people who moved out of the Golden State, taking part in the California exodus can bring dramatically improved financial conditions.

The researchers studied the finances of people who left California over the last decade to see how well they did in their new communities. The California Policy Lab research covered people who left or arrived in California from 2016 to 2025 — millions in total. They generally left for nearby states such as Nevada and Arizona but also for hot locales such as Texas and Florida.

Among the findings:

• People who left the state found that the move saved them almost $700 in monthly housing costs.
• They became 48% more likely to own a home in their new state compared with California, where housing prices are notoriously high.

Although the research covered all types of people who left the state, the differences were most notable for those who were struggling with affordability in California.

One surprise from the California Policy Lab’s findings: Those leaving the state are increasingly moving out of its wealthiest areas. The share of Californians departing the state from its top-third median-income areas rose by 6.4 percentage points between 2016 and 2025, while the shares from low- and middle-income neighborhoods dropped.

In other words, the pandemic caused a major shift in the type of person who leaves California, with residents of higher-income areas growing.

“The average exiter now leaves from a neighborhood that is 8.7% more affluent than in the pre-pandemic period,” the report stated.

Evan White, a California Policy Lab co-founder and author of the report, said he wasn’t exactly sure what caused the trend. But he noted that tech workers in upscale Bay Area districts who can work remotely might find more affordability elsewhere. Another possibility is that lower-income residents “can’t keep up with the Joneses and aren’t able to attain the type of lifestyle they want to have,” causing them to look elsewhere, he said.

The price of a basket of typical goods and services in California from 2016 to 2025 is up about 38%, according to the California Department of Industrial Relations. Median home sale prices went up around 75% over the same span, per the state Employment Development Department.

Indeed, the data suggest that those leaving California are in significantly worse financial shape than their neighbors who stay. Those who left had $5,500 more (twice as much) student debt on average than their neighbors and 16% higher rates of credit card utilization.

The data, compiled over 10 years, are an indication of the affordability gap across California.

But it is far from a full demographic snapshot. Some of those who left California have returned, saying they missed the lifestyle and nature. California has bounced back from the pandemic, with populations rising again in big cities. Even some critics have noticed a new boom in San Francisco, hit hard by COVID-19 but now enjoying a rebound thanks to the artificial intelligence gold rush.

While the entertainment industry has seen significant retraction in Southern California, the tech sector in Northern California has generally remained strong.

Dowell Myers, a professor of policy, planning and demography at USC who was not involved in the research, said the Berkeley data reinforce the affordability challenges California faces, especially when it comes to housing.

The nearly $700 a month in lower housing costs is less than adequate compensation for those who leave the state, he argued, adding that many people leave because they have no other choice.

“It’s a really sad story,” he said.

As for young professionals who come to work in the Golden State, “we can’t hold them, that’s the lesson,” he said. “They come for opportunities, but housing is really key.”

The chart above shows the average monthly housing expenses for three separate groups between 2016 and 2025: those who moved from other states to California, those who moved within the Golden State, and those who left California for other states.

Before leaving California, those who left paid on average $2,376 in monthly housing costs. After relocating to another state, former Californians spent just $1,705 per month, a drop of $671. Those who moved from other states to California saw the opposite effect, with costs rising a similar amount.

“Pretty much anywhere else is more affordable than California,” said White, the author of the report. “People were going to dramatically less expensive locations.

“Once we learned that,” he said, “it didn’t surprise me that they then became homeowners at higher rates.” What was surprising, however, was the magnitude of the change, White said.

White said he undertook the research to contextualize the shift in population over the last few years “because people care what’s happening with their friends and neighbors,” he said. “They don’t want to be the last one at the party” as others leave.

Still, the state’s outlook remains bright, White said. California continues to mint millionaires, “so there are good reasons to stay and good reasons to come here” besides the obvious attractions such as lifestyle and weather, he said.

White, who was born in Altadena, now calls the Bay Area home. He’s a homeowner, but if he weren’t, he might consider leaving the Golden State because of high costs: “Sure, I could see that influencing me.”

The post Life after California: People find dramatically lower costs, are more likely to buy homes, new data show appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Inland Region Housing Justice Coalition — which includes Time for Change Foundation, IE Tenants Union, Victor Valley Family Resource Center, ACLU of Southern California, Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement (COPE), Inland Equity Community Land Trust, Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC), and Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity — opposed the measure and urged investments in housing and services.

“The number of encampments on county public property has increased over recent years,” said Board of Supervisors Chairman and Third District Supervisor Dawn Rowe. “These conditions threaten not only those living within the encampments, but also the broader community. The goal of this ordinance is to address critical health and safety risks, while also ensuring that people experiencing homelessness have access to the care and support they need.”

The County said the ordinance aligns with a July 2024 executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom encouraging local governments to adopt policies to address homeless encampments and to humanely remove encampments. Following adoption, officials said they will prioritize flood channels and other areas that expose inhabitants to critical health and safety dangers, and will connect individuals to housing and supportive services while continuing outreach.

“Passing this ordinance is an important step in our proactive approach to addressing homeless encampments,” said Rowe. “It also ensures that people experiencing homelessness have access to the appropriate supportive services.”

Coalition leaders said the ordinance targets people experiencing homelessness without solving the region’s underlying shortages of housing and care. “The ordinance fails to address the real crisis. Our region’s lack of affordable housing and supportive services,” said the Inland Region Housing Justice Coalition in a joint statement. “Criminalizing homelessness only deepens poverty and makes it harder for people to get back on their feet.”

“We need investment in housing, not handcuffs,” said Raynesha Belvins, Homelessness Survivor and Advocate of Time for Change Foundation.

“This ordinance may have passed, but our community is united in demanding dignity and solutions,” added the coalition. “We will continue to push for policies that reflect compassion, equity, and justice,” said Sharon Green – CEO of Victor Valley Family Resource Center.

During the public hearing, coalition representatives urged county leaders to prioritize permanent supportive housing, rental protections, addiction treatment, mental health care, and wraparound support. They emphasized that enforcement-targeted policies are harmful and costly to taxpayers, while housing-first models save money and lives.

The post San Bernardino County Bans Homeless Encampments; Housing Coalition and Time for Change Push Back appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

And that’s not a question to be answered based strictly on her prospects for winning.

Initially, at least, the former vice president would be the heavy favorite to succeed termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom — although, eventually, she could find herself in a tough election fight next year.

Rather, the answer should be determined based on what strengths, goals and ideas she would bring to the table — her specific plans for fixing California’s enormous problems, her eagerness to fight even political allies to achieve her objectives and her own desire to lead the state’s comeback.

She shouldn’t view the job as a consolation prize after losing the presidential election to Donald Trump. Voters would smell that and, anyway, Harris would be miserably bored in the state Capitol dealing with budget minutiae and relatively inexperienced legislative leaders.

So far, since returning from Washington to her native state, Harris, 60, has displayed none of the above criteria that California needs in its next governor.

But neither did she previously in any noteworthy way as a U.S. senator or — particularly — state attorney general. As attorney general, Harris refused to take positions on important ballot measures, including those dealing with her role as California’s so-called top cop — propositions to stiffen criminal sentences and both abolish and expedite the death penalty.

Harris has a record of being overly cautious about taking positions that could alienate interests she deems important to her political career.

Sure, Harris isn’t running for anything right now. So, she deserves a pass on issuing 10-point plans to patch up the state.

But, look, you don’t need to be a gubernatorial candidate to express concerns about your state. Any resident who’s conscious should be alarmed.

“Home prices have skyrocketed as supply slumped over the past three decades,” the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California noted in a report last week.

California’s median home price in March was $884,000 — very tough if not impossible for many middle-class families. The housing shortage is largely due to over-regulation, tangled red tape that slows issuance of building permits and abuse of California’s environmental protection laws.

There’s a strong move in the Legislature to ease regulations, but it’s highly controversial. Does Harris have a thought on this?

Homeowner insurance rates are rising fast in the aftermath of wildfires. And in many fire-prone regions, traditional policies are impossible to obtain. The next governor needs to fix this.

California’s poverty rate is the nation’s highest when the cost of living is considered, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite our spending many billions of dollars and regardless of ugly finger-pointing at each other by Newsom and local officials, 187,000 Californians are homeless — a 35% increase in 17 years. That’s the highest in the nation — only partly because we’ve got the largest population.

Gasoline prices are roughly $1.60 a gallon higher in California than the U.S. average. And two oil refineries are planning to shut down, invariably hiking pump prices even higher.

We’re a high-tax state, a fact Newsom is in denial about. We lean too heavily on the wealthy for tax revenue and that produces roller-coaster budget deficits and surpluses depending on the stock market. It’s ridiculous. State taxes should be modernized. But no politician has the guts to attempt that.

Then there’s California’s historic problem of not enough water for its thirst.

Does Harris have anything to say about any of this? She hasn’t so far.

Of course, the seven leading announced Democratic candidates have been practically mute themselves on matters that risk aggravating party interest groups.

One exception is former Los Angeles Mayor and state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who has been bolder than most of his rivals.

Harris has said she’ll decide by the end of summer whether to run for governor in 2026. Maybe she’ll seek the presidency again in 2028 or retire from politics and make a bundle in the private sector.

But Villaraigosa already is taking shots at her — including last week for allegedly helping to cover up former President Biden’s cognitive decline while in the Oval Office. Villaraigosa included in the attack another gubernatorial candidate: former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra.

Harris is a lot more vulnerable than Becerra on the issue.

But it’s a cheap shot. How many people would publicly accuse their boss of being mentally incompetent? And Harris would have instantly been blasted for being self-serving by plotting to push the president aside so she could grab the Democratic nomination.

Harris could help herself and California’s voters, however, by occasionally voicing some anxiety about her home state.

The little we’ve heard from her this year are attacks on Trump. She also has been lending her name to anti-Trump fundraising appeals by the Democratic National Committee.

But the last thing California Democrats need is another politician — especially a potential governor — telling them that Trump is an evil, ignorant con artist. They’re fully aware of that. They need someone who can tell them how their state can be fixed.

If she ran, Harris would be the initial favorite because of her broad name recognition, past election successes in California and fundraising ability. Some current candidates would probably drop out.

But there doesn’t seem to be a public clamoring for her to run.

Harris needs to start showing people why she should even consider seeking the job. Because, so far, she’s sounding more like a 2028 presidential retread.

The post Harris hasn’t shown much interest in being California governor appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But then I realized I already have.

I live in California.

If you do, too, you might be hungover, right about now. Or you’re wondering if this is all a nightmare.

It’s not. Well, it kind of is.

Vice President Kamala Harris, a California native, lost to former President Trump, and it wasn’t even close. A convicted male felon ran against a female former prosecutor and won decisively, running the table even in so-called battleground states, and Republicans also reclaimed the Senate and could well take the House.

A guy whose own running mate referred to him as “America’s Hitler,” called him a reprehensible idiot and “a total fraud,” will soon be moving back into the White House after months of juvenile name-calling and vulgarity.

Putin is partying. Ukraine is weeping. And you’re Googling real estate listings in Portugal, or Canada, or maybe you’re looking into those homes in Italy that sell for $1.

No need.

You live in California, which stands apart (along with 18 other states).

Not entirely, of course. Roughly 40% of the state’s votes will be logged for Trump when the counting is complete, with red streaks running down the center of the state.

And California had its own mini-version of a rightward tilt, with Proposition 36 (tougher penalties for criminal and drug offenses) leading in a rout as of Wednesday morning, and criminal justice reform-minded L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón’s reelection bid going down in flames.

To be fair, California’s dominant, super-majority liberal leadership has been feeble in the face of homelessness, income inequality, child poverty and the housing affordability crisis.

Not that Trump policies as president had much of an impact on those problems in California or any other state, and not that he’s come up with any new or ambitious plans since then.

“The state of California is a mess,” Trump said in September, using us as a foil, but also as a springboard, casting a global economic powerhouse as a failure, a sanctuary cesspool and a symbol of wretchedly woke excess.

Insult, or badge of honor?

California said no to the candidate who has waged an assault on women’s reproductive rights and called his female opponent dumb as a rock.

No to the candidate who called climate change a hoax.

No to the candidate who calls immigrants savages and animals.

No to the candidate who has embraced RFK Jr., who wants to pull vaccines off shelves, get fluoride out of drinking water, and who knows — maybe send the nation’s science teachers off to a gulag somewhere.

No to the candidate whose allies put together a second-term playbook called Project 2025, which would seek to wage war nationally on the very idea of California’s progressive policies on abortion, inclusion, gun control, immigration, LGBTQ+ rights and the environment.

No to the candidate who appeals to the worst in us.

Jimmy Carter once said, “We become not a melting pot but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.”

Trump once said, “They are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. … They are eating the pets of the people that live there.”

In California, we did not vote for that candidate.

We understand that immigration reform is badly needed but know that Trump’s promised deportation of millions of people would cost a fortune, destroy major industries, raise the prices of goods and services, rip families apart and cripple the economy.

In California, defeat does not signal the end of the fight (the state could well end up in court, forced to defend and preserve its progressive policies against Trump attacks). And don’t forget that while we stand apart, we do not stand alone.

The other states that went for Harris are Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland.

So I suppose you could consider moving to one of those places in these ever-more-divided United States.

But I was born in California and plan to stay put for now, here in the home of the resistance.

The post Column: Trump return could be a growing California nightmare. But leave the U.S? No need appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California voters regularly name out-of-reach housing costs and homelessness as among the most important issues facing the state. Now lawmakers are calling their bluff. Next year the electorate will likely get the chance to put unprecedented gobs of money where its mouth is.

There’s the $10 billion bond proposal, spearheaded by Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and currently slated for the March ballot, that would replenish the coffers of some of the state’s premier affordable housing programs. If a majority of voters approve, it would be the largest housing-related IOU that California has issued since at least 1980. Next, there’s the $4.68 billion measure, backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and also scheduled for March, to build housing and expand psychiatric and substance abuse treatment for homeless Californians.

That would be the largest-ever expansion of behavioral health funding in California, according to the governor’s office. As a housing-related bond, it would also be the third largest such measure in recent memory. But both of those state measures could be dwarfed by a third proposed at the regional level. The recently created Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, tasked with funding affordable housing projects across the nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, is still figuring out exactly how much it wants to ask voters to sign off on in November 2024.

But it could be as much as $20 billion. Three of the largest housing bonds in California history would seem to be great news for housing advocates. So why are some so worried? “I’m a runner. I’ve never run my three best races in a row,” said Louis Mirante, a lobbyist with the Bay Area Council, where he focuses on housing legislation. With lawmakers considering a bevy of other bond measures in 2024 that could total as much as $80 billion — more potential debt than the state has put on the ballot since at least 1980, even adjusting for inflation — the sheer scale of the state’s potential borrowing plans could test the upper limit of what voters are willing to stomach. “It’s conventional wisdom that if you put a bunch of bond proposals in front of voters, they get overwhelmed and are like ‘I don’t want to pay all of this money, so I don’t want to pay any of this money,’” said Mirante. And even before the question is put to voters, lawmakers will have to negotiate what goes on which ballot in the first place.

Unlike the other initiatives, constitutional amendments and referenda that will already crowd the 2024 ballot, bond measures can only be put before voters with a vote by the Legislature and approval of the governor. “There is only so much capacity that the state has for debt,” said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which lobbies for more affordable housing construction in the Legislature. “And politically, for the governor and the Legislature, there’s only so much they are willing to take on.”

Lawmakers may not have long to hammer out those negotiations. Any bonds bound for the March ballot need to clear the Legislature by the end of the session on Sept. 14. Branch-on-branch negotiations have been slow to get going so far, but may ramp up once the lawmakers return from recess on Aug. 14. “We want to make sure that we’re presenting a ballot to the electorate, in as much as we have the ability to, that is thoughtful and aims to tackle some of our tougher challenges, but in a way that doesn’t confuse voters with, like, ‘Here are your ten opportunities to vote for housing,’” said Wicks. “I anticipate over the next probably two or three months that we’ll start landing some of these planes.” Not everyone in housing world is so concerned.

The mere fact that so many housing-related bond measures are vying for space on next year’s primary and general election ballots is a sign that the state’s affordability crisis is finally getting the political and fiscal attention it deserves, said Kate Hartley, who directs the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. “I don’t know what voters will think about” a glut of bond measures next year, she said. “But I do know that voters really care about this and they want solutions.”

‘You name it, there’s a bond’

Some of the most competitive real estate in California these days is a spot on either of the two 2024 ballots. The Legislature is considering as many as ten borrowing measures for either the March primary or November general election next year.

Among them are competing school bonds, climate and flood protection proposals and a bond aimed at fighting the fentanyl crisis. Though it isn’t likely that all will make the cut, taken together, they come with a collective debt of at least $80 billion, with the price tag on one proposal still undetermined. “We have so many crises for people facing so many different challenges,” said Chris Martin, policy director with Housing California, an affordable housing advocacy group. “You name it, there’s a bond for it being considered in the Legislature and there’s only so much bonding authority.” The Newsom administration has reportedly set the borrowing limit for both of next year’s ballots at $26 billion, but the final number is likely to be ironed out in negotiations with legislative leaders.

Whatever the borrowing cap, it’s as much a question of political arithmetic as it is budget math. There is no legal limit on how much debt voters can approve in a given election. Budget analysts keep their eye on different metrics comparing the state’s debt payments to its discretionary cash cushion, its overall budget or the total size of the California economy. Projections of future interest rates and future budget surpluses and deficits also get considered. One measure — the ratio of the state’s annual debt payments to the budget’s discretionary “general” fund — currently sits at roughly 3.5%, depending on how you measure it. That’s a tad high compared to other large states, but it’s far lower than it has been in the past.

Keeping that figure below 6% is “generally considered prudent,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance. There’s no evidence that voters have any of that in mind when they vote “yes” or “no.” Californians have generally been perfectly happy to put big projects on the state’s credit card. That may be because bond proceeds are typically directed at politically sympathetic causes and the downsides of borrowing — higher debt payments in future years — are more abstract for the average voter.

Since 1980, the electorate has signed off on more than 75% of all state bonds put before them, approving $182 billion in new debt and rejecting only $42 billion. In contrast, voters have approved only about 40% of all non-fiscal propositions.

The prospect of ‘bond fatigue’

There are clear exceptions. Sometimes the voting public, presented with particularly eye-popping sums, gets into a tight-fisted mood. The November 1990 election was the most bond-happy in recent history, with 14 borrowing proposals in total.

Voters batted down 12 of them. A more recent example of bond failure: The March primary election in 2020, when voters rejected what would have been the largest school bond in California history, a $15 billion IOU. One of the possible post-election explanations offered at the time: Voters, saddled with a bumper crop of borrowing measures at the local level, succumbed to “bond fatigue.” Now, with 2024 approaching, some housing advocates worry the electorate is susceptible to the same condition.

As a matter of fiscal reality, the two major housing proposals — the affordable housing measure and the Newsom-backed mental health bond — are dipping from the same pool of fiscal overhead and electorate will. But as policies — one that supports the construction of more housing and the other that boosts behavioral health treatment capacity for people living on the street — they could very well complement one another. According to the governor’s office, his mental health bond would allow for the shelter and treatment of 10,000 more unhoused Californians.

As negotiations kick into gear, some proponents of both measures are hoping the governor and legislative leaders will see things that way. “If you have temporary shelter beds and services for an individual suffering from mental health or substance abuse disorder but no affordable housing, that person is likely going to return to homelessness,” said Alex Visotzky, senior California policy fellow at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which supports the affordable housing bond and is still reviewing the mental health-related proposal. “Conversely if you have affordable housing, but no services available, then that individual is going to struggle to maintain their housing.” “We feel the Legislature has a real opportunity to connect the two,” he said.

A race against the clock

Politically, California voter frustration with unaffordable housing and homelessness could cut one of two ways. Voters who believe public dollars are poorly spent may not welcome proposals to throw more money at the problem. Earlier this year, lawmakers directed the state auditor’s office to dig into how the state’s homelessness funds are actually being spent.

A 2020 audit from the same office called for an “overhaul” of California’s “cumbersome” affordable housing funding process, after the state allowed $2.7 billion in bonds to expire untapped. (The state application process has since been streamlined.) But many housing developers hope it will translate into the popular political will to ratchet up the spending. In fact, they’re counting on it.

Of the roughly 2.5 million units the state Housing and Community Development department says California communities need to build over the next eight years to make up for years of under-building, roughly 1 million must be set aside for people earning less than 80% of the median income in their region. But that planned-for boom in affordable housing won’t materialize without some extra help, said Heather Hood, who manages the northern California market for Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit that funds, consults and advocates for affordable housing. “The state’s been, on one hand, very clear about what the ambitions and goals are,” she said. “And yet (it) hasn’t supplied the resources to enable that to happen.” It’s unclear how many additional units $10 billion in extra state funding could bring online.

The cost per-unit of affordable housing climbs year after year, occasionally exceeding $1 million. By that math, the eye-popping face value on the bond would only be enough to fund 10,000 new units. But state funding is almost always used to supplement private, federal and local sources of cash. “Housing isn’t completely paid for by public dollars,” said Hood. “Having this kind of security in the public realm means that there’s more security in the private realm and so it smooths the pipeline.”The last time the state turned to the voters to fund affordable housing construction was in November 2018. Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1, giving the state the go-ahead to borrow $4 billion.

Of that, about half went toward the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of income-restricted rental housing. The remainder was meant to be split between programs that promote homeownership, the construction of farmworker housing and other housing-related infrastructure projects. The timing of Wicks affordable housing bond next year is also no coincidence. With a little over $656 million remaining, that Prop. 1 funding is expected to run dry by next year.

But even if voters are feeling generous next year and sign off on each of the housing bonds on the ballot, Wicks said she is only just getting started. “We have to have significant ongoing investments for a serious amount of time in order to crawl out of where we are right now,” she said.

That could mean putting yet more bond measures on the ballot or dedicating more money from the state budget on an ongoing basis. “That’s something that I want to work on next year. And probably the year after that.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California could borrow a record-breaking $35 billion to tackle the housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The housing market has seen significant changes in the past year. Mortgage interest rates have been climbing and housing inventory has declined. Even though the median home sales price in the country has dropped, it’s still a challenge to find affordable real estate.

Not only that, but a housing crisis could be on the horizon. Not every area of the country will experience a crash, but some metropolises in California could be in danger.

Ranked best to worst, these metros are Visalia-Porterville, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Merced, Chico and Bakersfield.

Visalia-Porterville

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 0.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.37%

Located in Central California, the Visalia-Porterville metro is home to just over 477,000 people. The area is known for the Sequoia National Monument and the Sequoia National Park, as well as an abundance of natural rivers, forests and creeks.

As of February 2023, the metro’s unemployment rate was 10.6%. And, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the annual mean wage in the area is $50,100.

When it comes to real estate, approximately 52% of homes sold under their listing price. Around 18% of homes had at least one price cut before being sold. This could all be a sign that the housing market in the area is slowing down or that not as many people are buying.

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.4%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.35%

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, more than 4.6 million people live in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area. This California metro is located just west of Arizona and Nevada, near Los Angeles. It’s known for manufacturing services and citrus industry.

The current unemployment rate in this metro is 4.5% — slightly higher than the national average. The average annual mean wage is $55,050.

Around 21% of property listings in the area experienced a price cut before they were sold. The percentage of homes that sold below their listing price was 53%.

Merced

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 0.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.48%

Merced — the Gateway to Yosemite — is uniquely positioned between Yosemite National Park, the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay. The metro is home to nearly 290,000 people.

In February, the metro’s unemployment rate was a whopping 10.5%. The annual mean wage, meanwhile, is $50,900.

Unlike many other areas, Merced’s home prices have declined in value over the past year. Just over 56% of homes sold under their listing price. Along with this, 17% of homes had a price cut before being sold.

Chico

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.9%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.37%

Located in Northern California, Chico is home to an estimated 208,000 people. Featuring trails, Bidwell Park and other outdoor activities, this metropolitan area has long been popular with nature lovers.

As of 2021, the annual mean wage in Chico was $55,290. Currently, the unemployment rate is 5.6% — just over two percentage points higher than the national average.

According to GOBankingRates data, 62% of homes in the area sold under their listing price. About 19% of homeowners cut their home price before selling.

Bakersfield

• Homeowner Vacancy Rate: 1.4%

• % of Mortgages 90+ Days Delinquent: 0.53%

Bakersfield — or the Bakersfield-Delano metro — has over 917,000 residents. The metro is known for its country music and agricultural and oil industries.

The annual mean wage in Bakersfield is $54,570, while the unemployment rate is 8.9% and rising. Like the other metros on this list, Bakersfield also might be headed for a housing crisis.

Not only are the mortgage delinquency rates in Bakersfield fairly high, but 51% of homes were sold for less than their listed price. Just under 19% of listings saw a price reduction as well.

Signs of a Looming Housing Crisis

Only time will tell whether these California metros are heading for a housing crisis. In the meantime, here are some signs of an impending market crash:

• Increased rate of mortgage delinquencies (especially those above 90 days)

• Economic downturn (e.g., increased unemployment rate or reduction in property sales)

• Rising mortgage interest rates

• Decreased value in housing prices after a recent history of faster appreciation

• Increased number of foreclosures

• Higher inventory of available homes (and fewer buyers)

Whether you’re a prospective buyer or current homeowner, it’s important to keep an eye out for these signs. This could keep you from spending too much on real estate.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post 5 California metros that could be headed for a housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Progress is abysmal. The state called for the construction of 180,000 new units annually between 2015 and 2025 to close the gap. We built fewer than half as many, only about 80,000 new units per year.

This is unacceptable, but there are solutions. As members of the Little Hoover Commission, the state’s independent government watchdog, we spent months examining this problem, and we know there are ways to move forward: get more data, use better metrics, organize government more efficiently, and – most of all – build more houses.

The problem is not new. The issues are all too familiar. The opportunities to make a long-term impact are often deemed too controversial and squandered by a lack of political will. Sometimes they’re blocked by existing homeowners who already have what others seek.

In our new report, California Housing: Building a More Affordable Future, we offer targeted actions state leaders can take immediately to address this crisis:

First, California must expand its affordable housing strategy – in both policy and funding – to include a greater emphasis on affordable homeownership. This policy expansion must also include an emphasis on increasing supply.

Add CEQA Flexibility to Expedite Projects

The state can jumpstart affordable housing production by treating California’s housing shortage with the same urgency as the state’s wildfire crisis. This includes creating targeted working groups charged with tackling logistical and policy challenges within a set period of time and building in CEQA flexibility to expedite projects.

We can also use “shared equity” models. In effect, the government helps homeowners buy at a lower price on the condition that they sell at a limited price later – helping to ensure that the home stays affordable for future generations.

Second, the state must consolidate housing functions. The state’s housing departments are spread across four agencies and divided among the purviews of the governor and the state treasurer. This organization is inefficient. By consolidating housing functions, through reorganization or formalizing a strategic working relationship, the state can craft a better affordable housing strategy and improve operations.

Third, the state should reconsider how it measures local governments’ progress toward housing goals. Local jurisdictions are responsible for developing and executing a strategy to meet the housing needs of their communities. While this process considers how much housing needs to be built and where, it fails to account for how much housing is actually built. This must change.

The state should also boost enforcement of local governments’ housing plans. When a locality fails to adequately plan for its housing needs, the state can decertify its housing plan. As a consequence of decertification, certain affordable housing projects can “automatically” receive permits.

What’s the catch? Developers typically must get a court order requiring the locality to issue the permit. However, in the face of overwhelmed courts and developers who are incentivized to keep the peace, this enforcement method falls short.

Every County Should Have a Housing Ombudsman

To improve its enforcement capabilities, the state should appoint an ombudsman in every county with the authority to approve affordable housing projects when a local jurisdiction is noncompliant with its housing element.

Finally, the state must fill data and analysis gaps. California is missing key pieces of information that would help policymakers better understand the state’s housing crisis. Using the best technology and methodologies available, the state should fill these gaps. Information found should be used to guide policymaking, and tools should be shared with local governments either at cost or, preferably, for free.

The cost of housing may be the biggest issue facing the state. But action-by-action, state leaders can chip away at the problem.

Pedro Nava, Cathy Schwamberger, and Dion Aroner | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Solving California’s Housing Crisis Starts With Building More Homes appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This grim situation got the decisive response it deserved on Thursday when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 9, which effectively eliminates single-family zoning by allowing duplexes in most neighborhoods, and Senate Bill 10, which makes it far easier to add housing near transit hubs.

These measures alarm many homeowners who fear drastic changes in their communities. They also have critics who believe they will fuel speculative building by hedge funds and wealthy investors more focused on making money than adding cheaper housing. There’s no way to know how many new homes will result. But in an interview Friday, a Newsom administration official emphasized any measure that increases the amount of available housing stock is ultimately going to be positive. Economists agree. The cost of housing is inevitably going to be high if there is far more demand than supply.

These bold measures may disrupt and possibly diminish the quality of life in some communities. But they have the potential to improve the quality of life of millions of California families who now spend half their income or more on shelter. Thanks to Newsom and state Senate President Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, for shepherding them to passage.

SAUT Editorial | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California housing crisis finally gets bold response it needed. Thanks to Newsom, Atkins. appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Fresh from beating back a recall, the governor signed a package of bills to address the California housing crisis. But what do these new laws mean for housing affordability in a state where median home prices have already shot past $800,000?

Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed some of the biggest housing bills in years, including a measure that allows more than one house to be built on the single-family lots that comprise the vast majority of California’s developable land.

“The housing affordability crisis is undermining the California Dream for families across the state, and threatens our long-term growth and prosperity,” Newsom said in a bill-signing statement on Sept. 16. “Making a meaningful impact on this crisis will take bold investments, strong collaboration across sectors and political courage from our leaders and communities to do the right thing and build housing for all.”

Two days after Californians gave him a vote of confidence by rejecting the recall , Newsom chose to return to the state’s housing crisis as his first significant policy action, with 700-odd bills on his desk awaiting action.

But what do these new laws mean for housing affordability in a state whose median home prices have already shot past $800,000?

Not as much as the governor promoted, according to Dan Dunmoyer, president and CEO of the California Building Industry Association.

“We’re not going to build, like, 500,000 homes next year. We’re still going to build 100,000, and we need 180,000 just to break even,” he told CalMatters. “So as far as production moving enormously, that’s not going to happen, because there are so many other levers.”

It’s going to take a few years to translate the legislation into ramped-up construction, but this is a meaningful start, according to David Garcia, policy director for the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley.

“It signals that lawmakers are willing to take on the traditional sacred cows of housing and single-family zoning. From a political standpoint, that’s a pretty significant shift in the housing landscape,” he said.

The League of California Cities urged Newsom to veto the bill, calling it a “top-down mandate that disregards local voices and decision-making.” After the bill signing was announced, the league said it would “explore all options to ensure local governments have the necessary tools and resources to plan for the types of housing actually needed in their communities.”

Opponents calling themselves Californians for Community Planning are already seeking to qualify a proposed constitutional amendment for the November 2022 ballot to reassert local control over zoning and land-use decisions.

More sweeping bills to reduce local control over zoning and create more affordable housing failed in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

What’s allowed under the new law?

Senate Bill 9 — introduced by Senate leader Toni Atkins, a San Diego Democrat, as the centerpiece of her affordable housing package — will allow most homeowners to build two homes or a duplex on a plot zoned for a single house, and in some cases, split their lot and build two additional homes, starting on Jan. 1. The total number of units on a single lot is limited to four.

Manuela Tobias | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Victorious in recall, Newsom refocuses on California housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“This is something that we will see in the future, it’s part of our climate,” says Dr. Julie Kalansky, a Climate Scientist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “It’s part of the Mediterranean climate. It’s part of California. So we will continue to have these droughts.”

Drought caused water issues as recently as 2015. During that dry spell, then-Gov. Jerry Brown instituted a 25% cut in water usage. People turned off their sprinklers, replaced their lawns with artificial grass, and began using more efficient, low-flow shower heads, toilets and faucets.

This month, Gov. Gavin Newsom asked Californians to cut their own water usage by 15%, although he did not make it mandatory.

Stricter restrictions could cause problems in the housing market.

Dr. Tom Corringham, a Research Economist from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says coastal areas may not see the drought impact housing. But, he says rural and inland communities that depend on groundwater will be a different story.

“In some parts of the state it is becoming increasingly difficult to get hookups for water in certain communities because of the drought conditions,” he says.

A drought-related drop in new housing developments would cut into years of improvement when it comes to building homes in San Diego.

Data from the Real Estate Research Council of Southern California shows new home construction has gone up significantly since the recession (see chart above).

During the last drought, as restrictions went in place, nearly 10,000 homes were built in San Diego County in both 2015 and 2016.

In 2020, that number was just under 9,500.

While those numbers are high, experts say they’re just a drop in the bucket compared to what the area needs to keep pace with demand. Some housing experts say about 20,000 homes need to be built in San Diego every year.

Building more houses requires more water.

“It’s a serious problem,” says Dr. Norm Miller, a Real Estate Professor at USD. “But it’s solvable.”

Miller believes San Diego already has enough water to build that many new homes. But he thinks the State and Federal Governments need to make housing a priority over other water users, like agriculture.

Miller believes the state should reallocate water away from farming, especially from growing produce that uses a lot of water, like rice and almond trees.

“I don’t really buy into the fact that we have a water shortage,” Dr. Miller says. “We have a political problem.” Miller also says California can diversify its water sources to be more drought tolerant.

San Diego is on the cutting edge of doing that. The region already has desalination plants in Carlsbad and Chula Vista, pulling water from the ocean.

Several cities in San Diego County have also started “Pure Water” programs, where used water is recycled into potable “grey” water.

“I think San Diego has been thoughtful and proactive in what we have,” says Dr. Kalansky. “Not just in terms of natural resources, but other new technologies that we can use to make ourselves more resilient.”

Dr. Corringham adds that new homes could be built with less landscaping, or even drought tolerant yards that use the areas natural ecology as a guide.

“If you go and visit Arizona, for example, and you look at the front yards there, it’s all desert plants,” he says. “Somewhere like Southern California, it is basically a coastal desert ecosystem.”

Doing all of that could make San Diego’s housing market more drought resistant.

But the drought could still have an impact. Dry climates make wildfires more dangerous. That means any homes build in the wildland/urban interface areas at risk. Building in fire-prone areas could be restricted, and any homes that are built in those parts of the county would be expensive to insure.

Dr. Kalansky and Dr. Corringham also say prolonged drought is only one aspect of climate change that could impact the housing market.

As temperatures rise, it could get too hot to build inland or in desert areas. And as sea levels rise, homes along the coasts will be put in jeopardy.

Jared Aarons | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post In-Depth: Drought could worsen California housing crisis appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.