State lawmaker Ted Lieu plans to introduce legislature today that would ban certain so-called exotic loan programs in California, and help homeowners more easily refinance into more traditional, fixed mortgages.
Lieu released details of his proposal to the Associated Press, which include a ban on “stated-income loans” and negative-amortization loans, also known as option arms.
His bill would also allow borrowers currently stuck in subprime and adjustable-rate mortgages to refinance without being subject to a costly prepayment penalty.
Lieu noted that despite an effort by mortgage lenders to toughen underwriting guidelines, most still aren’t up to the standards set forth by the government.
“The mortgage crisis no doubt shows what happens when you have inadequate regulations,” said Lieu, Chairman of the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee.
Like many other proposed laws before his, his plan would also prohibit mortgage brokers from earning yield spread premiums for steering borrowers into higher-rate loans.
Lieu was been an outspoken critic of the mortgage industry, criticizing Hope Now for doing little to stem the recent surge in foreclosures, saying the Bush Administration must devise a plan that will actually make a difference.
He has also proposed that borrowers receive more financial literacy information and wants to boost the number of housing counselors available to assist at-risk homeowners.
The news comes as data released yesterday revealed that foreclosures hit a 20-year high and defaults in California struck a 15-year high, suggesting that more must be done to ensure borrowers actually qualify for the loans extended to them.
California has been one of the most hardest-hit states subjected to the real estate bust, leading the nation in foreclosure filings.
Schwarzenegger Calls for Conforming Loan Limit Increase
In related news, Governor Schwarzenegger wrote to congressional leaders, urging them to increase the conforming loan limit in California to ease lending restrictions.
“In a state where the average price of a home far exceeds that loan limit, Californians find themselves priced out of the very help these loans are intended to provide,” Schwarzenegger wrote in the letter.
“When combined with the withdrawal of the jumbo loan market, it’s no surprise that current home sales activity in California is half the pace seen in 2006,” he added.
“Lifting the GSE loan limit in these areas would help put affordable home purchase and refinancing options within their reach,” the governor said.
Every few months over the last two years, a sea of California carpenters has clogged the state Capitol to voice their support of high-profile housing legislation, their yellow and orange vests, hard hats and work boots in stark contrast to the suits, dresses and fancy shoes more customary in the hallways and hearing rooms of Sacramento.
Their grassroots lobbying has paid off with major legislative wins, including a pair of housing construction bills that Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Wednesday.
The laws represent more than the possibility of desperately needed new homes in a state with a 2.5-million-unit housing shortage. They also signal a shift in power dynamics among unions in California, and which ones have the greatest influence over labor standards at residential construction sites.
Advertisement
“The carpenters’ engagement on housing policy has been an absolute game changer,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who chairs his chamber’s housing committee and is the author of both laws, Senate Bills 4 and 423.
The first bill, SB 4, will make it easier for nonprofit colleges and faith organizations to build affordable homes on their land, while SB 423 will expand current law that lets developers expedite construction of multifamily projects in cities that have fallen behind on their state-mandated housing goals. The measures build on Assembly Bill 2011, a law that went into effect in July to convert buildings traditionally zoned for commercial retail and office space into affordable housing.
The new laws come after years of gridlock on housing proposals, leading to a rift between the California Conference of Carpenters, which is gaining newfound clout in the state Capitol, and the State Building and Construction Trades Council, one of the most influential players in Sacramento over the last decade.
Divisions bubbled up last year when the carpenters broke with the council and other influential unions and sponsored AB 2011, legislation the broader labor movement opposedbecause it lacked more rigorous job standards.
AB 2011 still mandates developers pay union-approved, or “prevailing,” wages and provide some healthcare benefits to workers, whether they’re union members or not. But it lacks the work standard the building trades union prefers, known as “skilled and trained,” a mandate that generally means laborers on job sites are unionized.
In the Democratic-controlled Legislature, where labor has an outsize influence, last year’s union infighting put many lawmakers in the uncomfortable position of having to choose a side.
Opponents of the skilled and trained standard argue it’s unachievable for housing developers because there aren’t enough union workers to meet the threshold. The trades union contends it’s a model that protects workers against exploitation and inadequate job safety protections.
Advertisement
“I think that prevailing wage in legislation for housing is a positive step,” said Chris Hannan, who was selected president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council this summer. “We don’t believe that that’s enough.”
Hannan succeeded Andrew Meredith, who resigned as president this year as the fight over labor standards raged in the Capitol.
Leadership at the carpenters union say they had no choice but to move forward with their own plan after discussions with the council fell apart.
Jay Bradshaw, executive secretary-treasurer of the Northern California Carpenters Union, said the new standards will help dismantle the underground construction economy and create job opportunities for union members, while safeguarding all workers against wage theft and other unfair labor practices currently happening on residential job sites.
The carpenters’ approach with the new standards is to organize members on job sites, but the trades council historically preferred requiring a unionized workforce to begin with.
“The labor standards we developed will significantly help our current membership. … And it will also pull wages out of competition for those that are not represented,” Bradshaw said. “And then it’s our job to go organize those folks, not the government’s.”
Todd David, a political advisor to Wiener who served as executive director of the Housing Action Coalition in 2022, said the increased influence of the carpenters helped clear a path for new housing legislation.
“There were lots of quiet conversations between legislators with people who knew the carpenters very well, like, can they really do this?” David said.
They did.
So began a new era for the carpenters — and their Democratic allies eager to pass more sweeping housing bills into law using the same labor language.
“They showed up, and they really planted a flag in AB 2011,” said Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the Oakland Democrat who wrote the legislation and chairs the Assembly committee on housing. “It was a breakout moment, I think, for the carpenters, where they decided enough is enough, we’re going to build housing, we’re going to do strong labor standards, we’re going to break the juggernaut that has been preventing us from actually accomplishing stuff in California in housing policy, with regards to labor standards. And they did it.”
The building trades council and its allies see the fight as far from over.
Hannan and others still consider the dispute over the labor language an easy choice between protecting workers or leaving them vulnerable to exploitation and job safety issues that may result from a lack of training.
“Our members … are the very best at what they do. And they deserve us to fight as hard as we can for them,” Hannan said. “And we believe we are going to be the strongest, loudest voice for the construction worker.”
But the council lost its second battle this year after Wiener introduced his two bills, which largely include the same labor standards as last year’s deal.
Considered this year’s most consequential housing measure, SB 423 will extend by another decade current policy that lets developers streamline multifamily development in cities that have failed to plan for enough housing, which was set to expire in 2026. The original law passed in 2017 and has led to more than 18,000 proposed units, the majority for low-income families.
Last year’s coalition included the California Housing Consortium and other affordable housing groups and two other major unions — the California School Employees Assn. and the Service Employees International Union. This year, Wiener and the carpenters expanded support for the labor changes to add more construction unions.
“We just hung tough, and I think the nature of the crisis sort of forced people to do what they were not comfortable doing in terms of the labor issues,” said Danny Curtin, director of the carpenters conference. “Breaking ranks, or however you want to put it, is never simple or easy. And you don’t want to do it unless you really think there’s no real alternative. But it was unassailable, our bill was unassailable.”
Others don’t see it that way.
Scott Wetch, a lobbyist who represented several unions in the negotiations, described SB 423 as an undemocratic law that would come back to haunt every legislator who voted for it, a “political aneurysm” that “one day will burst.”
He criticized how housing might get built in a streamlined capacity that edges out community input, and questioned whether the healthcare requirements will withstand future legal challenges.
And while some unions were going to bat for their members fighting for more rigorous job rules, Wetch said, others, like the carpenters, “sold their members down the river.”
“The carpenters went to a handful of developers, and said to them, ‘Hey, we want to get some work, we want to work with you, and we will be the Judases that remove these worker protections that you don’t like, because we want to get some work out of you,’” Wetch said.
The carpenters have shrugged off those criticisms. They see the issue as a done deal, the new labor standards now the blueprint for housing legislation in California.
“The carpenters would rather be problem solvers than just problem fighters,” Bradshaw said.
To the native Wintu people it was Bohem Puyuik, the “Big Rise,” and no wonder. Mt. Shasta towered above everything else, her loins delivering the natural springs and snowmelt that birthed a great river.
The Sacramento River provided such an abundance of food that the Wintu and many neighboring tribes — the Pit River, Yana, Nomlaki and others — had little to fight over. They thrived in pre-colonial times, on waters that ran silver with salmon, forests thick with game and oaks heavy with acorns.
But centuries of disease, virtual enslavement and murder wrought by European and American invaders scrambled the harmony that once reigned along the Upper Sacramento River.
Today, three tribes here are locked in a bloodless war. At issue is a proposal by one Indigenous group to expand and relocate its casino and whether the flashy new gambling hall, hotel and entertainment center would honor — or desecrate — the past.
The casino envisioned by the Redding Rancheria and its 422 members would rise nine stories on 232 acresalong Interstate 5. The rancheria — home to descendants from three historic tribes — began planning the development nearly two decades ago, envisioning a regional magnet for tourists and gamblers.
But the proposal has been buffeted by influential opponents, including the city of Redding, neighborhood groups and the billionaire next door — who happens to be the largest private landowner in America. The naysayers list a cavalcade of complaints against the new Win-River casino complex, saying it would despoil prime farmland, exacerbate traffic, increase police and fire protection costs and threaten native fish in the Sacramento River.
Those complaints have helped stall, but not kill, the project, whose fate rests almost solely in the hands of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C. And now the BIA’s obscure bureaucrats have been confronted with an explosive new charge from two neighboring tribes: that construction of the casino would desecrate what the tribes say should be hallowed ground — the site of an 1846 rampage by the U.S. Cavalry that historians say probably killed hundreds of Native people.
The Sacramento River massacre has not received the attention of other atrocities of America’s westward expansion, such as the one in 1890 at Wounded Knee, S.D., where U.S. troops killed as many as 300 Lakota people. Estimates of the carnage, recorded over the decades from witness accounts and oral tradition, range from 150 to 1,000 men, women and children slaughtered along the banks of the Sacramento River.
If the higher estimates of the death toll are correct, it would rank as one of the largest single mass killings of Indigenous people in American history.
“In my heart, I find it hard to believe that there are Wintu people that are willing to build a casino on … the blood-soaked dirt of the massacre site,” Gary Rickard, chair of the Wintu Tribe of Northern California, told a state Assembly committee in August. “There are dozens of other places along the I-5 corridor and the Sacramento River.”
Redding Rancheria Chair Jack Potter Jr., himself part Wintu, called the claim that his tribe would build its casino on the massacre grounds “a slander that will not be easily forgotten.” He told state lawmakers that the real massacre site is miles away. Rancheria leaders said their opponents have manufactured the controversy for a less honorable reason: to block what would be a sparkling new competitor.
“Gaming in Indian country can be a tide that raises all of our canoes,” insisted Potter, who appeared at times to fight back tears as he spoke at the Sacramento hearing. “We should not battle against one another, in that spirit.”
Column One
A showcase for compelling storytelling from the Los Angeles Times.
Advertisement
Friendships that go back decades and tribal ties of a century or more have been imperiled by the casino furor. Native people normally aligned against a hostile or indifferent U.S. government — “We’re all the children of genocide,” as one elder put it — have watched sadly as their conflicts turn inward.
It’s a dynamic that has played out before. Robbed of their ancestral lands, tribes now sometimes fight when one tries to claim new territory, often as a base for a lucrative modern endeavor: gambling.
The friction is exacerbated by the peculiar history of the Redding Rancheria — and by opponents’ eleventh-hour invocation of the Sacramento River massacre, 19 years after the rancheria began to assemble parcels for the project.
The Redding Rancheria refers to a nearly 31-acre stretch of land near the south end of Redding that the federal government bought in 1922 for “homeless Indians” who came to the area as seasonal workers for ranches and orchards. The rancheria sits in a relatively obscure location compared with the interstate-adjacent site of the proposed casino, more than three miles by car to the northeast.
In 1939, the Wintu, Pit River, Yana and other Indigenous peoples formed a rancheria government. It was recognized by the United States. But in 1958, an act of Congress “terminated” recognition of multiple California groups, including the Redding Rancheria, in an attempt to force Indians to disperse into the general population. It took a landmark 1983 court settlement to formally restore recognition of 17 rancherias, including the one in Redding.
The result is that there are Redding Rancheria members with Wintu blood, like Potter, 52, who firmly support the casino, while other Wintu descendants who are not descended from the original rancheria families, like Rickard, 78, adamantly oppose it. Rickard grew up with Jack Potter Sr. and has known his son since he was a boy.
Advertisement
Cordiality prevails, at least outwardly, when Rickard and Potter meet today. But the bad blood between their groups has become fierce, exacerbated by the yawning wealth disparity between the rancheria and the Northern Wintu.
Rancheria members have thrived largely because of the success of their existing Win-River Resort & Casino, which operates 550 slot machines, a dozen table games, an 84-room hotel and an RV park.
The complex is the biggest income producer for the rancheria, which also owns a Hilton Garden Inn and a marijuana dispensary in Shasta County. Sources familiar with the tribe said each enrolled member receives a monthly “per capita” payment of at least $4,000 and perhaps as high as $6,000.
The rancheria’s chief executive, Pitt River descendant Tracy Edwards, 54, declined to discuss the amount of the payments.
That income, along with health clinics and other benefits, makes the Redding Rancheria members the envy of Indigenous groups with comparatively paltry assets. Rickard’s Northern Wintu claims roughly 560 certified members, but like many groups across America, the tribe has been laboring for years and still has not received formal recognition from the U.S. government. That means the tribe can’t put land into trust, a prerequisite to casino development and also a shield against federal, state and local taxes.
“We don’t have the resources in order to obtain the things we need,” said Shawna Garcia, the Northern Wintu’s cultural resources administrator. “We don’t have the revenue to assist our members with things like college, housing and other assistance.”
Historians and ethnographers say the Wintu were the predominant tribe around the site proposed for the casino complex, an expanse of meadow and scrubland that locals dub the Strawberry Fields because of its agricultural history. And Rickard questioned why the “pure-blood Wintu people” he represents have been left to struggle, while the rancheria — representing an amalgamation of tribal groups — stands poised to create an even bigger cash cow with its new casino.
Rancheria leaders like Edwards, a UC Davis-trained lawyer, have emphasized how the tribal group has supported Native and non-Native people, both as one of the largest employers in Shasta County and through its charitable foundation.
In just one year, 2018, the rancheria said it gave more than $1.2 million to community organizations, helping serve the homeless and victims of the Carr fire. During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rancheria donated $5,000 each to 60 businesses struggling to stay afloat.
At a cost of $150 million, the rancheria’s new casino would feature 1,200 slot machines — more than double the number at its current casino — and with 250 rooms, the new casino hotel would be more than triple the size of the existing hotel. The tribal group has pledged to close its current Win-River casino when the new one opens.
The rancheria’s outsized community presence has created substantial goodwill around Redding, but a portion of residents have stepped forward — via petitions and ballot measures — to express disdain for large developments they feel could harm the rural character of their community.
Among the more powerful opponents is Archie Aldis “Red” Emmerson, president of logging giant Sierra Pacific Industries, whose sprawling estate looms along the Sacramento River, just south of the casino site.
Advertisement
In 2020, an Emmerson-allied company purchased property from the city of Redding that included a portion of a road that would be the north entry to the casino site and created an easement that would have barred access to the rancheria land for all but agricultural purposes. The easement effectively would have thwarted the casino by blocking vehicle access to the development.
But in 2022, a Shasta County Superior Court judge voided the deal, saying that in selling the land (for just $3,000 to the billionaire) the city had violated its “own processes, procedures and the relevant law.” The ruling nullified the easement, preserving the rancheria’s unrestricted access to the property.
The Redding City Council and neighboring homeowners have maintained their opposition to the project for years, while a new conservative majority on the Shasta County Board of Supervisors recently reversed the county’s earlier objections. The supervisors supported the casino, despite admonitions from the sheriff, fire chief and county counsel that the agreement with the rancheria did not provide sufficient compensation to cover the increased costs of serving the big development.
The rancheria agreed to make one-time payments totaling $3.6 million to support Shasta County, the Sheriff’s Department and fire and emergency services. That initial infusion would be supplemented by recurring payments: $1,000 for each police service call and $10,000 for each fire/emergency service call.
No issue has unsettled intra-tribal relations, though, like the debate flowing out of the terrible events along the Sacramento River 177 years ago.
Oral histories of the Wintu and neighboring tribes recall how Native families and elders had gathered along the river known as the Big Water each year in early April for the spring salmon run. Traditionally, the season signaled rebirth.
But Capt. John C. Fremont had other ideas.
Fremont diverted his men from their ordered assignment: completing land surveys in the Rocky Mountains. The Americans instead went adventuring to California, where, in the spring of 1846, they responded to sketchy claims from settlers that they were endangered.
About 70 buckskin-clad white men set upon the Native people, the locals far outgunned by the invaders, each toting a Hawken rifle, two pistols and a butcher knife, according to UCLA historian Benjamin Madley‘s detailed account of the massacre.
The horsemen completed their grisly work with such evident pride that legendary frontiersman Kit Carson later bragged that the coordinated assault had been “a perfect butchery.”
The massacre marked the beginning of “a transitional period between the Hispanic tradition of assimilating and exploiting Indigenous peoples and the Anglo-American pattern of killing or removing them,” according to Madley’s “An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe.”
Fremont (later a U.S. senator from California and a Republican presidential candidate) would say that his party attacked the natives because of reports of an “imminent attack” upon settlers. But the “battle” was one-sided, with the federal troops suffering no known casualties. Afterward, according to Madley’s account, Fremont’s men feasted on the Native people’s larder of fresh salmon.
In the nearly two centuries since, the tragedy would be more forgotten than remembered. There is no historical marker around Redding noting the event.
Advertisement
The Wintu people believed to have been the principal victims have preserved memories of the mass killing in their oral history. But no ceremony marks the atrocity. And at the Wintu cultural resource center in Shasta Lake City, a wall-size timeline of the group’s history makes no mention of the 1846 bloodshed.
There’s also the now-pressing question — pushed to the fore by the casino feud — about precisely where the massacre occurred. The Northern Wintu and another outspoken opponent, the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, insist that the Strawberry Fields property was a key location in the atrocity.
The Paskenta commissioned a study by a retired anthropologist from Cal State Sacramento that drew on research from the late 1800s by a linguist from the Smithsonian Institution who, in turn, got much of his information from a Wintu elder who survived the massacre. The report, by Dorothea Theodoratus and a colleague, said that the “center” of the massacre was “opposite the mouth of Clear Creek” in the Sacramento River, a point roughly two miles south of the proposed casino location.
But other accounts from participants and witnesses said Fremont’s soldiers chased down victims after the initial assault, leaving the exact range of the bloodshed unknown. The Theodoratus report says that six villages, including two on the proposed casino property, were so thoroughly intermingled that all “would have had some direct involvement with that massacre.”
Andrew Alejandre, chair of the Paskenta Band, told the Assembly Governmental Organization Committee in August that his tribe is seeking to have the state and federal governments designate the Strawberry Fields a sacred site, off-limits to development. Alejandre, 35, said his tribe vehemently opposes building a casino “on top of men, women, children and elders. The spirit of these ancestors … Let them rest!”
Advertisement
In rebuttal, Potter and rancheria CEO Edwards note that during the many years that they and others have pursued developments in the region, the rival tribes never mentioned the massacre. Divisive fights over a proposed auto mall and a sports complex (both scrapped) came and went without any discussion about desecration of a mass grave site.
“I would never disrespect the remains of my ancestors,” Potter said.
Fifty miles south of Redding in rural Corning, the 288-member Paskenta Band opened the Rolling Hills Casino and Resort two decades ago. The luxe gaming hall is just one part of an economic surge by the tribe, which has also opened an equestrian complex, an 18–hole golf course, a 1,400-acre gun and hunting center and a 3,000-person amphitheater, where Snoop Dogg performed in May.
Potter charged that the fight over the historic massacre is really a ploy by the flourishing Paskenta to squelch the Redding Rancheria’s hopes for a shimmering destination casino “because of the mistaken belief that it … will cut into the profits of their gaming facilities.”
Paskenta’s Alejandre, a designer who once ran a clothing company, denied that is the case.
While representatives for the Paskenta and Northern Wintu tribes bashed the casino proposal at the August hearing, representatives of at least eightother California tribes argued in support of the Redding Rancheria. One said the Redding group had proved itself a good steward of cultural resources.
Another speaker at the hearing was Miranda Edwards, the 28-year-old daughter of the rancheria CEO. The Stanford-educated Edwards and her mother spoke about the importance of moving the tribal group forward for the “Seventh Generation,” future descendants whose livelihoods must be planned for today.
“We work hard every day to provide for this rural community and make it the best that we can for everyone that lives there,” Miranda Edwards told legislators. “It’s disheartening to hear from those that choose not to see that. But it will not stop our work.”
Potter, the rancheria’s chairman, had a sardonic take on the dispute.
“We always talk about crabs in a pot,” Potter said. “We are like all these crabs, stuck in a pot. When one tries to get out of the pot, all the others reach up and pull him back in.”
Will arguments about the Sacramento River massacre sway the final outcome of the Redding Rancheria’s casino quest? A BIA spokesman said only that “these issues are under review.” Nearly two centuries after representatives of the U.S. military decimated a civilization here, the federal government still retains ultimate authority over the fate of Native people.
Watch L.A. Times Today at 7 p.m. on Spectrum News 1 on Channel 1 or live stream on the Spectrum News App. Palos Verdes Peninsula and Orange County viewers can watch on Cox Systems on channel 99.
Reviewer: MacKenzie Chung Fegan, contributor Model tested: Article Nordby Sofa The details: TK TK TK
Before delivery
What’s the story behind the brand?
Article, a Canadian DTC furniture company that’s been around since 2013, combines a straightforward online shopping experience with well-designed, modern pieces at reasonable prices. Along with very handsome sectionals and sleeper sofas, the brand’s stylishly designed furniture and home decor options include lounge chairs, full dining sets, bedroom furnishings, and more. And unlike traditional retailers, the Canadian brand’s offerings are only available to shop online, meaning no showrooms or storefronts to assess options in-person.
Price: How much does it cost? Are there payment plans available?
At $1499, the sofa bed is in league with comparable IKEA sleeper sofas, but the online images made it look slightly more upscale—and, crucially, sturdier, like it wouldn’t wreck a house guest’s back.
What are the upholstery or customization options? Did you choose any?
The Article Nordby sofa comes in three colorways, a denim blue and two shades of gray. (I opted for the lighter Pep Gray.)
What is the lead time for customization, manufacturing, and delivery?
Each version was available for delivery to my zip code within two weeks, and payment plans are available through Affirm.
Delivery + assembly
What was the delivery process like?
Article offers free front door delivery for orders over $999, but the company has white-glove service options as well. For $119, they will place your furniture in the room of your choice, and for $199, they’ll also handle assembly. I opted for in-room delivery since the pull-out sofa was going to the top floor of our narrow Brooklyn brownstone, and Article made the process incredibly easy. This was key since, at 205 pounds, the Nordby is quite heavy—both pieces of the sofa bed have a steel frame and solid wood legs.
What was the assembly process like? How long did it take and how many people?
Assembly was similarly breezy, with the instructions fitting on one side of an index card. It took zero tools and two people to screw on the legs and maneuver the sleeper into place.
Is the sleeper sofa suitable for particular decor styles? If so, which?
Design-wise the Nordby is fairly innocuous. It doesn’t make a statement, it doesn’t elicit curious comments from visitors, it doesn’t pull focus from the rest of the room. It would be well suited to a minimalist, modern, Scandi-style household.
Is it durable / practical in a modern home?
The performance fabric seems quite durable—less luxury home decor and more office furniture—and there are no sharp angles or pokey pieces. I was able to convert it from sofa to bed by myself.
After delivery
What are the dimensions (both regular and pullout)? How does it fit in your space when it’s not expanded versus when it is? Would it be better suited for a different type of home?
Closed, the sofa measures 33 inches tall by 87 inches wide by 35 inches deep, which feels a little ungenerous proportionally—particularly the seat depth (29.5 inches), since the back cushions are plump. When open, the mattress measures 54 inches by 72 inches. We actually prefer to keep it open—more on that below—so if you’re planning on doing the same, it might not be appropriate for a small room.
A popular state grant program to help low- and moderate-income California homeowners build accessory dwelling units may end up with $25 million in new funding following a tussle over dollars in the state budget.
The California Housing Finance Agency’s ADU Grant Program offered up to $40,000 to qualified homeowners to cover pre-construction costs of an ADU, including planning and permit fees for the structure. The program exhausted its initial $100 million months ago, and since then, Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers have gone back and forth over $50 million in additional funding for ADU financing that had been included in a previous year’s budget.
For the record:
12:21 p.m. Sept. 5, 2023An earlier version of this story stated that the $50 million in last year’s budget for ADUs was for the grants program. It was for ADU financing, with grants as one of several possible uses.
In July, lawmakers approved and Newsom signed a budget bill that would restore the $50 million for the grants. On Aug. 30, the Assembly Budget Committee advanced a budget bill for fiscal years 2022 and 2023 that would take back the $50 million. Now, however, Chairman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) says an amendment will put half of the money for ADUs back, specifically to restart the grants program, before the bill moves on this month.
Advertisement
The ADU money is in flux because of a disagreement between lawmakers and CalHFA over how to use it.
In an interview Friday, Ting said one of the hurdles for ADU construction has been the reluctance of California lenders, and particularly major banks, to develop attractive ADU loans. So two years ago, he said, lawmakers provided $50 million to CalHFA to create a loan loss reserve fund that would backstop ADU loans from private lenders.
The goal was to bring about systemic change in the industry, rather than just provide more grants for individual ADUs, Ting said. But after CalHFA studied the issue, “there was still a significant amount of hesitancy” at the agency to start a loan loss reserve program, he said.
Meanwhile, as homeowners built more ADUs, more lenders took an interest in the field. So after initially agreeing to redirect all $50 million to other programs, Ting said, he’s proposing to put $25 million into the existing ADU grant program and redirect the remainder.
Under the current income limits for borrowers, homeowners earning up to $194,000 in Los Angeles County would qualify for a grant. Ting said he may propose a lower limit to make sure the grant program is “much more targeted” on lower-income Californians who could not otherwise afford to build ADUs.
Advertisement
Supporters of the grant program argue that it does, in fact, direct help to borrowers who need it. For example, a joint letter from the California Community Economic Development Assn. and Homeplex, which helped the association distribute ADU grants for the state, notes that more than 60% of the recipients they’ve helped have been low-income households making less than 80% of the median income in their area.
“Many of these homeowners would not have been able to move forward with their ADU to build financial security for their families, if not for the support of the State Legislators and your support,” their letter to Ting and Senate Budget Committee Chair Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) stated. “These projects employ hundreds of workers and provide affordable rental housing for the local communities we serve. ADUs are the least expensive and quickest housing to build in the State.”
More aid for first-time home buyers
Ting’s latest proposal would steer $20 million of the $50 million to the California Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loan program. The Legislature initially provided $500 million for the popular program, which provides no-interest loans to first-time home buyers, but Newsom put $200 million of that on hold to help manage the state government’s budget crunch. Lawmakers and Newsom agreed to restore the $200 million in July.
The extra funding hasn’t translated yet into new loans, however.
The California Dream for All Shared program launched in late March, offering qualified first-time home buyers loans worth up to 20% of the purchase price of a house or condominium. The loans were especially attractive because they carried no interest and required no monthly payments.
If it sounded too good to be true, it was — but only because the program hit its application limit (and the number of people it could help, an estimated 2,300) in only two weeks and was effectively halted.
In the initial rollout, the loans were available only to households with earnings below CalHFA’s income limit for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
The loans, which can be used for down payments and closing costs, are structured as a second mortgage, which means they aren’t repaid month by month. Nor do they accrue interest the way an ordinary loan does. Instead, when the mortgage is refinanced or the house is sold again, the borrower pays back the original amount of the loan plus 20% of the increase in the home’s value.
If the home is ultimately sold for the same amount it was purchased for or less, the buyer won’t need to pay the additional 20%.
To receive a loan, borrowers must complete a home buyer education and counseling course (there are options for online and in-person classes on the CalHFA site) and a free online course specifically for shared appreciation loans.
The agency said it will provide an update on the Dream for All Shared Appreciation Loans program this fall that will include a timeline for applications. It’ll do so through email updates and newsletters you can sign up for.
Last year, amid a drum-tight rental market, Sydney Wright pondered leaving California.
With her $72,000 salary, the 30-something from La Crescenta said the only one-bedroom apartments she could find were either too pricey, too run-down or in neighborhoods she felt were unsafe.
Then Wright had a change of fortune. She moved into the Hudson, a luxury apartment complex in downtown Pasadena that has a swimming pool, two gyms and in-unit washers and dryers. Wright got a relative deal and signed a lease for just above $2,300, almost $200 less than what similar units there averaged a year before even though rents in Pasadena had soared.
Advertisement
But it may be too good to be true.
The discount was the result of a unique program catering to middle-income earners in a state trying to chip away — project by project, program by program — at its housing crisis.And the legal knot it is tied in reflectsthe difficulties in taking even small steps forward.
In this program, government agencies known as joint powers authorities, or JPAs, partner with private companies to purchase apartment buildings and lower the rent. The agencies say this works because, as the government, they don’t need to pay property tax, allowing them to pass along that savings to tenants.
But, under an obscure tax rule, thousands of tenants like Wright may need to cough up some of the lost revenue and pay individual tax bills upwards of $1,000 a year.
Tenants said leasing agents never disclosed such a possibility prior to moving in, and backers of the program say they didn’t anticipate it either.
“It just seems kind of ridiculous to me that you would have this crisis going on and then turn around and punish the people you are supposedly trying to help,” Wright, 32, said.
John Drachman, co-founder of Waterford Property Co., which runs the Hudson and 14 other properties on behalf of a JPA, put it more succinctly: “It’s just insane.”
The fact tenants may need to pay extra for living in subsidized housing centers on an arcane concept in tax law known as possessory interest.
Advertisement
Though government owned property usually is exempt from property taxes, if the government leases part of its property to a private entity, then that entity can have a “possessory” interest that must be taxed.
Examples include a rental car company at the airport, or a restaurant in a public park.
Joint powers authorities first started buying apartment complexes for middle-income housing in 2019, and one acquired the Hudson in 2021.
Attorney John Bakker represents three JPAs with such projects.
He said the agencies didn’t anticipate tenants would face possessory taxes because at the time they relied on existing guidance from a state board that he argued should be interpreted as exempting any person receiving rent breaks at the projects.
Last year, several assessors were less sure and specifically asked the state board if such projects created a taxable “possessory interest.”
In October 2022, they received a response from the California State Board of Equalization, which promotes uniformity in property tax law.
In a letter, the board said residents at JPA properties do have a taxable possessory interest, but assessors should refrain from taxing it only if tenants are low-income, as defined by California law.
The board characterized its guidance as “longstanding,” which Bakker disputes.
The ultimate decision on the taxes lies with county assessors, but evidenced by their original request, assessors turn to the board for guidance and there’s no argument that the recent opinion does not offer an exemption for most residents at JPA projects.
Typically, one third of units at the projects are reserved for people making the legal definition of low-income: 80% or below area median income. The remaining two-thirds are usually set aside for households making between 81% and 120% area median income — individualswho can still struggle to find a nice home in some of the country’s most expensive markets.
Two county assessors with projects in their jurisdictions, Los Angeles and Alameda, said they don’t want to tax middle-income residents and are investigating the issue further after receiving the board’s guidance. But if the state Legislature doesn’t step in, they caution, they may ultimately decide the law requires them to tax tenants.
Los Angeles County Assessor Jeff Prang estimated annual taxes for individual tenants could range from $500 to $1,500. Initial bills may be higher since tenants would be charged for each year they’ve lived there.
If taxes go unpaid, residents would face a lien that could make it more difficult to qualify for mortgages and other loans.
For Wright, the prospect of paying an extra $1,500 a year, the equivalent of $125 extra a month, presents yet another obstacle.
Despite the rent discount at the Hudson, she said she lives paycheck to paycheck and will soon have an added expense when student loan payments resume, one Wright estimates will be more than $300 a month.
“I don’t even know how I would make it all work,” she said. “Honestly, the thought of that makes me want to cry.”
JPA projects rely on a complex framework, but in general, backers say they work like this.
Joint powers authorities issue bonds to purchase a building and, with the property off the tax rolls, they use that money to reduce rent. After 15 years, the local city, which must approve the initial JPA purchase, can direct a sale of the property or take out a loan on the building to recoup lost tax revenue.
To run the deals, JPAs partner with private real estate firms that set up the bond financing and manage the projects.
The deals are not without controversy, and some cities and affordable housing consultants see the programs as risky and not worth it. In particular, the JPAs and the private real estate managers, known as project administrators, have faced criticismthat their fees are excessive and thus limit the rent reductions a project can offer.
At least two county assessors, those in Orange and San Diego counties, have taken the positionthat project administrators, not tenants, should pay possessory interest taxes.
“These guys are making money and … they don’t want to pay any taxes, but you got to pay your taxes,” said Orange County Tax Assessor Claude Parrish, arguing project administrators control the buildings and thus have a possessory interest.
One project administrator, Waterford Property Co., received possessory tax bills for multiple projects it runs in Orange and San Diego counties. The company is appealing, arguing it doesn’t meet the qualifications to have a possessory interest.
If the taxes ultimately go through, the middle-income projects would cease to exist, according to Waterford’s Drachman.
Despite concern over its fees, which Waterford disputes as being excessive, the annual possessory taxes are more than what the company makes each year to run the buildings, Drachman said.
One example, he said, is the Parallel apartments in Anaheim, where Waterford faces a $1.2-million annual tax bill and earns roughly $700,000 a year.
Rather than lose money, Drachman said, the company would walk away from the projects and since no one would likely run the properties at a loss, they would be sold to real estate firms that would charge market rent and erase all savings.
If instead tenants get the bill, Waterford said no future deals could be done. That’s in part because investors who buy the bonds that fund the deals do so because they think rental discounts will keep occupancy high — and their income assured.
“The group they are going to hurt the most by their actions is the renters,” Drachman said of assessors. “Ultimately whether they go send them a possessory interest bill or whether they come after us and are successful.”
Prang said he doesn’t want to be an “obstacle” to creative solutions but has to follow the law, and criticized the JPAs for not consulting assessors before.
Prang said he is waiting on an opinion from county counsel about whether taxing project administrators is an option, but warned the County Board of Supervisors in March that he may have to tax middle-income tenants.
“We are trying to find a solution” to not do that, Prang said in an interview. “But one of the things slowing that down is having a firm legislative proposal and a legislator that is willing to run with it.”
The California Assessors’ Assn. recently agreed to ask state legislators to clarify that project administrators — not tenants — have a possessory interest, according to the group’s president, Kristine Lee.
So far Sacramento’s efforts to exempt middle-income tenants have stalled. Two bills aimed at doing so, Assembly Bill 1553 and Senate Bill 320, are dead for the year after failing to meet legislative deadlines.
Alternatively, a third bill that specifically leaves middle-income tenants open to possessory taxation passed its first house unanimously.
The bill, Senate Bill 734, codifies existing Board of Equalization guidance by exempting only low-income tenants.
According to a bill analysis, author Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) said the bill is necessary because despite the tax board’s guidance, “existing law is ambiguous” as to whether low-income tenants actually are exempt.
The bill, which must pass the Assembly by mid-September, is supported by the Board of Equalization and opposed by some cities that have middle-income housing projects.
In a letter to Rubio, Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo said the city has nearly 1,100 units in its JPA housing projects and rent has been reduced by an average of 20%.
“If SB 734 passes as drafted, 60% of the tenants in these units are eligible to receive possessory interest tax bills, which we do not believe is in the best interest of housing policy in California,” Gordo wrote.
Overall, Bakker said JPAs own about 14,000 units across California, with around 9,000 currently home to middle-income families or reserved for such households in the future.
Rubio’s office declined to answer several specific questions about the bill, including why it does not exempt middle-income tenants. In a statement provided by her spokeswoman, the senator said she is trying to “keep families housed” and is working closely with the Board of Equalization on the measure.
BOE Chairman Antonio Vazquez said he doesn’t support extending an exemption to middle-income individuals, at least for now.
“I think we have to be careful, because that would create a huge hit financially for cities and counties who depend on the revenue [from property tax],” he said.
Waterford executives dispute that taxing individual tenants would recoup a sizable amount of revenue, but Vazquez’s concern echoes long-running criticism of the JPA housing model, specifically that rent reductions are too modest to justify the loss in property tax.
For example, the JPAs have frequently purchased newer, luxury apartment buildings and, though they’ve lowered rent, there’s often cheaper, older housing nearby.
Wright now pays just over $2,400 in rent at the Hudson after receiving the allowable annual increase in the program.
That’s far less than the roughly $2,800 to $3,000-plus that similar, nearby buildings typically charge. But on a recent day, there were 53 older one-bedroom apartments in Pasadena listed for rent on Zillow that were at least $200 cheaper than what Wright pays.
If Wright gets hit with possessory taxes, she doesn’t see those older units as a simple solution.
For one, she said, she doesn’t have enough money to cover upfront moving costs.
She also chose the Hudson for a reason.
The program is supposed to keep rent in line with her income. And when the tax preparer works late into the night during tax season, she doesn’t need to hunt for street parking when she comes home. She can pull into her own secure spot and do the next day’s laundry in the comfort of her apartment.
Older units she saw seemed like temporary landing pads with broken sinks, worn carpets and shoddy paint jobs, but the Hudson feels more permanent.
“I deserve to have a place to call home and not constantly be in flux,” Wright said. “This felt like somewhere I could see myself living.”
It took a lot longer than expected, but California homeowners who received mortgage debt relief last year won’t be on the hook for state taxes tied to so-called phantom income.
California Assembly Bill 1393, introduced by Assembly member Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno), extends tax relief on the forgiveness of mortgage debt by conforming California law to federal law.
The California State Senate approved the bill on June 30th, passing it with an overwhelming 33-0 vote, which was later followed by a 68-0 vote by the Assembly last Thursday.
Thanks to this bill, which should be signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown shortly, California homeowners who had certain debt canceled or forgiven last year will be able to amend their taxes and get refunds.
New Bill Will Provide State Relief to Align with Existing Federal Law
Early last year, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 was given a one-year extension, meaning those who were foreclosed on or sold short didn’t have to worry about federal taxes on gains they never actually realized.
Typically, mortgage debt that is forgiven by a bank or lender must be included as ordinary income on your tax return, but the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act allows borrowers to exclude certain canceled debt tied to a principal residence.
Additionally, debt reduced through mortgage restructuring such as a loan modification (principal reduction) also qualifies for tax relief.
But while federal taxes may have been avoided last year, some California homeowners were still subjected to state taxes in certain cases.
It’s unclear how many homeowners actually got taxed thanks to anti-deficiency laws already in place that protected many of those who sold their homes for less than what they were worth, but the state estimates taxpayers will save roughly $39 million, per the Sacramento Bee.
The bill also protects homeowners from penalties regardless of whether they reported the discharged debt on their 2013 tax return.
Unfortunately, this bill will only cover transactions that occurred in 2013, meaning uncertainty still looms for mortgage debt forgiven this year. Another extension will likely be necessary…
The same goes for federal tax relief, which also hangs in the balance as politicians work on a tax extenders package.
Of course, much of the mortgage relief has already been doled out, with short sales, foreclosures, and loan mods all dropping in numbers considerably as home prices continue to rise.
Still, the passage of this bill should give homeowners a lot more confidence to move forward with such an action without fear of being on the hook for state taxes.
However, even if the discharged debt isn’t taxable, a taxpayer may still have to deal with taxes if there was a gain from the sale or foreclosure of the property.
As always, be sure to consult with a lawyer, CPA, and/or tax preparer to ensure you understand the implications of this bill and other related laws. It’s certainly complicated, so enlisting a professional is probably not a bad idea.
Amanda recently sent J.D. an e-mail looking for advice about gift-giving:
My husband and I have made huge lifestyle changes since our son was born with congenital heart disease four years ago. He’s had five open-heart-surgeries, and we’ve had some killer medical bills. My husband stays home with both of our kids to help prevent Liam from getting sick too often, so we’ve gone down to one income, one car, basic cable, and a really aggressive budget.
One of our worst budget breakers however is gifts. I have eleven nieces and nephews, two kids, etc. At Christmas we’ve convinced both sides to just do a name exchange and then we only have to buy for two nieces/nephews on either side, which helps and we’ve just outright stopped exchanging gifts with our brothers & sisters, but there are still our parents, his grandparents, kids of friends who have birthday parties, and graduations, weddings, and baby showers!
We actually do plan most of these things into discretionary spending since we know when people have birthdays, but it’s always those gotchas like weddings and new babies (and we didn’t pre-think graduations with this year’s planning).
Could you offer any advice on fitting generosity and gift giving into a frugal budget? No one wants to be a grinch, but it really adds up some months. Sometimes, it’s half of our discretionary spending just to get small gifts (we only spend $10-15/kid!).
Ah, Amanda, I hear you! Gifts can be a budgeter’s downfall! Many of us readily accept our own sacrifices in the name of being frugal, but don’t want to seem “cheap” when it comes to giving gifts to others. I’ve struggled with both sides of this issue.
One side of me likes choosing and giving gifts, likes having those gifts appreciated, likes receiving gifts in return. But the other side opposes the commercialism and expectations that accompany holidays and occasions. Too often, hastily-purchased gifts can seem like a substitute for the spare time and energy we don’t have to make a gift meaningful. These gifts can be merely an obligation, which is no fun for either giver or recipient.
For big family gift-oriented occasions like Christmas (Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, etc), you must have “The Talk”. In some families, money is a difficult subject, but your options are either to continue spending more than you want on presents, or to mystify everyone when you cut them off cold turkey. A good way to start is to explain your budget goals, as in, “We’re starting to save for the kids’ education funds,” “…to buy a house,” “to be able to afford to live on one salary,” “pay off the credit cards” or something like that — just make sure you’re being honest.
Whatever you do, don’t insist that everyone stop giving gifts to you (or your kids). You have the right to stop giving gifts, but for many people, being generous with presents is a true pleasure and you should avoid depriving them of that pleasure. It may seem wrong to accept without giving, but you can give back in other ways. Of course, your relatives and friends may be relieved at the prospect of the never-ending gift-exchange ending — maybe they were just too shy to bring it up.
If you don’t want to stop all gifts, here are some ideas to cut costs.
Draw names. As Amanda does, this can allow you to focus on one or two recipients instead of the whole clan. There are various arrangements. Some families write their name and a gift suggestion or two on a slip of paper. In some systems, adults pick an adult and each kid gives to a kid (with adult help as needed). Or, if everyone is gathering together, each person can bring one gift (marked as adult or child) and you can do a sort of “Yankee swap” exchange where unwrapped presents can be stolen or traded until everyone ends up with someone.
Be creative. On J.D.’s side of the family, we have been doing $5 gifts for several years. Everyone (7 adults, 4 kids) buys a $5 (or under) gift for everyone else. (This was my sister-in-law’s idea.) J.D.’s mother asked to be excepted — she loves piling gifts on everyone and exercises her grandmotherly rights to do so. The $5 limit has forced us to be bargain hunters and the results are often both surprising and hilarious. We found a practically new set of drafting pens for a brother’s gift: $80 new, marked as $10 at a garage sale but we bargained it down to five!
Emphasize the experience. Some people have more time than money. If you fit in that category, you can use it to your advantage for all sorts of occasions. Do friends have a new baby? Deliver dinner to the new parents, then stay to hold the baby while they eat the meal. Clean up afterwards, of course. Nieces and nephews? For that special occasion, invite them to join your family for camping, a hike, miniature golf — whatever your family does for fun. You’ll all get to know each other better, too. Parents and grandparents often would rather have you spend time than money on them, as well. Invite them over for brunch, or go feed the ducks at the park, or hear a free concert together.
Don’t turn your nose up at used. Aren’t we silly Americans! We talk about how great recycling is but we want everything we get to be new, new, new! It’s all about mindset. For kids’ toys, as long as they’re in safe condition, the fact that they’re “pre-owned” means little to a child — unless non-stop commercialism has already gotten to them! J.D. and I found two wooden sleds set out for the trash pickup in a ritzy neighborhood. After swallowing our hesitation, we grabbed them. With a cleaning and a few minor repairs, they were good to go — and looked great under the Christmas tree. Keep your eyes open all year for bargains, or arrange a toy exchange or toy hand-me-down system with friends and neighbors. Get to know people’s tastes and decorating styles so you can choose gifts they will appreciate.
Kids love the dollar store. I know, I know — everything’s made in foreign countries by underpaid workers. But seriously, if you are spending more than $3 for a kid’s birthday party gift, you need to visit a dollar store. The kids I know are fascinated by dollar store stuff until age 6 or 7. The parents may turn up their noses, but what kid wouldn’t love growing giant lizards or sharks (600% growth — just soak ’em in water!), red-white-and-blue glow necklaces, or a hundred fuzzy animal stickers?
Agree that gifts are only for the kids. Not having kids myself, I wouldn’t vote for this option, but I know many families like it. I think a better choice if you’re going to do this is to have adults buy small gifts for the kids ($5-10), and let kids make homemade gifts for the adults. I think this gets kids to think about giving as well as receiving.
Use homemade gifts. I’m a big fan for using the homemade gift for most every occasion. Special birthdays get a bouquet of garden flowers in a mason jar. Or, I take the time to write a sincere note in a beautiful card. If someone’s a fan of sweets, I’ll whip up a batch of cookies. If the season’s right, I might present them with fresh berries or a holly and cedar swag. The cost for all these gifts is minimal, but the gesture is still meaningful.
Mass produce. Last year, English Major offered a great tip about gift-giving ideas. You can save lots of dough by the assembly line approach. Pick a gift that will be appropriate for your list of recipients and buy craft items, ingredients, or components in bulk. Before you start, figure out how many gifts you’ll need and the cost per assembled gift. Check the figures against your budget. To maximize this idea, choose an idea that still allows for some personalization, say in the color or style of gift.
Just speak up. At my workplace, the envelope is constantly being passed for one event or another. The loss of a parent, a new baby, a retirement, etc. The flowers or gifts purchased with the collected cash may very well be much appreciated. But if your budget prevents you from chipping in, instead write a heartfelt note or tell the person face-to-face. A verbal expression of sympathy or support may be just what they need.
Shrug it off. Unfortunately, some people are all about the goods. If the people in your life aren’t going to appreciate or adjust to your frugal mindset, you have a choice to make. Keep spending to keep up with the Joneses, or go your own way and hold your head high. Find ways to show you care that don’t just involve handing over your debit card. Give when you can; give what you want to.
The side benefit of implementing any of these ideas is that it moves the whole concept of giving gifts back to thoughtfulness, effort, and individual creativity, rather than the focus on prices and packaging. Think of it as one small chink in the great wall of marketing and consumerism!
These are just some thoughts on the topic to get the discussion rolling. I’m sure there are scores of creative solutions out there.
The next wave of real estate technology will bring exciting new possibilities for solving some of humanity’s biggest problems. From co-living and affordability fixes to helping solve social issues faced by a large segment of society, today’s innovators are rethinking the way we work, play, and live. Here’s a look at a few smart startups that are taking a broader approach for addressing our needs through communal thinking.
Despite a digital movement that’s grown up through social networking, globalization, and an ever increasingly interconnected world, real community has slipped through our grasp these last few decades. The millennial generation, along with the younger cohort who about to enter the workforce in the era of smartphones and laptops, they’re ironically the loneliest and most disconnected group in history. A recent nationwide survey by health insurer Cigna reveals epidemic loneliness in the U.S. This study, and others, reveal the importance of human connectedness and real community that must be rejuvenated.
This is where startups like The Assembly and The Riveter come in offer special classes, free member events, and a speaker series to help in building connections. Then there’s a startup called HubHaus that uses roommate matching algorithms to help people locate their next home and to select the people who live in it. There’s also a startup that provides dormitories for adult professionals. StarCity is all about co-living focused on not just “place,” but on finding their housemates, build relationships, and collective caring for helping each other. And there’s New York-based Ollie, which offers fully hotel-style, furnished studios and shared suites replete with luxury amenities and even curated events. And the list goes on, and on.
All these and more innovations aim to solve for regenerating community, while at the same time helping to fix America’s longstanding housing and rental crisis. Not everyone knows, but more people in America rent today than at any time since the mid 1960’s. This is ironic too, since it was the mid 20th century when co-living was the fashion. As David Friedlander put it in a 2015 story for Life Edited:
“In general, there’s a growing market for minimal, all-inclusive, affordable, community-centric housing.”
Taking the trend a step farther, this story at urbanNext predicts that “by the fourth decade of the 21st century, 70 percent of the world’s population will be urbanized.” The report goes on to frame the larger problem that will arise out of the ever-increasing cost of affordable living space. In the years to come billions of people around the world will grapple with how to find and pay for a place to live.
This digital age has cause us to redefine much of what we considered conventional wisdom. The desire for home ownership, long thought of as the “American Dream,” is one of these conventional ideas. It’s high time we reconsidered our individual and collective dreams in order to create a healthy and sustainable future for us all.
Phil Butler is a former engineer, contractor, and telecommunications professional who is editor of several influential online media outlets including part owner of Pamil Visions with wife Mihaela. Phil began his digital ramblings via several of the world’s most noted tech blogs, at the advent of blogging as a form of journalistic license. Phil is currently top interviewer, and journalist at Realty Biz News.