Angels RBI league teaches fourth-graders core values by playing baseball

• May 3, 2023

Integrity, commitment, determination and persistence are a few of the nine core values that fourth-grade students at Garden Grove’s Iva Meairs Elementary School will be learning over the next seven weeks — but not in the classroom.

They will learn them playing baseball as part of the Angels RBI League on the Go program.

Angels RBI League President Dave Smith will be instructing the fourth-graders once a week on the basics of baseball and softball.

“We teach them life skills and character development and have some fun playing baseball,” Smith said. “Jackie Robinson had nine core values and those values are the pillars of our program.

“If it is integrity, play with integrity. If you didn’t catch the ball it’s OK. Just say you didn’t catch the ball. You’ll catch the next one,” Smith said. “If it’s persistence, if you swing the bat and don’t hit the ball every time that’s OK. Most players don’t hit the ball every time. Be persistent, and you’ll hit the ball and have fun.”

On the first day of the program, each student received a free Angels glove, jersey, tote bag and baseball cap.

“The beautiful thing about this program is it’s free,” Smith said. “Some of them will be introduced to the game for the first time, and (it will be) the first time they held a baseball. We don’t want it to be scary for them, so we’re going to do some fun things.”

When asked what she liked best about the program, 10-year-old Jade Fernandez said it was catching the ball and throwing it. “My favorite part is when we got in a circle and threw the ball in the air and whoever dropped it had to sit down.”

At the end of the first day’s lesson, students packed their new gear into their bags then received fist-bumps from Smith as they headed back to their classroom.

“It was fun,” Anna Loung, 10, said. “I got good at throwing and catching the ball.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Judge must reconsider effort to block Catholic diocese libel suit, appellate court rules

• May 3, 2023

A trial court must reconsider its denial of a motion to block a libel suit stemming from an email allegedly containing a false insinuation that Diocese of Orange Bishop Kevin Vann used Orange Catholic Foundation funds to cover legal expenses for clergy accused of child sex abuse, a state appellate court has ruled.

Suzanne Nunn, former interim executive director of the foundation, sent the email to 47 Catholic leaders throughout the country after Vann unilaterally terminated her and the organization’s board of directors in June 2020.

In the three-page email that bore the subject line, “You can’t make this stuff up,” Nunn asked a series of rhetorical questions regarding her firing and that of the board.

“Is this considered a hostile take-over to distribute funds the diocese needs to cover debt? Lawsuits?”  she asked, according to the appellate court. “Is this an overstep of authority? Is this the result of fatigue from the economic impact of the COVID crisis in addition to other financial stress? No one knows, it certainly was not shared or discussed prior to the removal of the foundation board.”

The foundation’s former board members reported Vann to the Holy See for allegedly acting beyond his authority and violating state and church law.

Vann and the diocese’s chief financial officer, Elizabeth Jensen, sued Nunn for libel and emotional distress, alleging the email implied they had committed a crime and engaged in unethical activities.

Nowhere does the email state that the bishop and Jensen planned to use Orange Catholic Foundation funds to litigate sexual abuse claims, according to the appellate court.

Vann and Jensen allege Nunn sent the email to repair her damaged reputation and increase potential job prospects with other Catholic institutions. They demanded that Nunn issue a retraction, but she did not respond.

Nunn filed a motion to strike the libel suit under California’s Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or anti-SLAPP, statute.

The statute, enacted by the state legislature in 1992, aims to protect defendants from meritless lawsuits that arise from protected activities such as the right to petition and engage in free speech.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Frederick P. Horn denied Nunn’s anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the libel suit after finding the complaint did not arise from protected activity.

Court disagrees with trial judge

Last week, California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed with that ruling.

Nunn’s email addressed several issues impacting the public, including Vann’s alleged attempt to access millions of dollars in donations despite donor agreements restricting the use of those funds as well as his purported “take over” of the Orange Catholic Foundation’s board of directors, the court concluded.

Neither Nunn nor her attorney could be reached for comment. Vann declined to discuss the appellate decision.

“However, the well-developed factual record speaks for itself, and Bishop Vann looks forward to receiving the trial court’s decision in the near future,” Jarryd Gonzales, a spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, said Tuesday.

Jensen’s attorney, Andrew Prout, also declined to comment.

The nonprofit Orange Catholic Foundation was established in 2000 to support the philanthropic and charitable goals of Orange County’s Catholic community. It manages millions of dollars in charitable gifts, grants, donations, endowments and bequests, and uses funds to support Catholic charities, ministries, parishes and schools.

Many of the foundation’s donors earmark contributions for specific purposes and funds are distributed in accordance with each donor’s desire.

“Orange Catholic Foundation exists in large part to support the diocese in fulfilling its mission, which includes helping the needy,” the court said, adding it is fully independent of the diocese and is governed by an autonomous board of directors.

Vann, as the foundation’s sole member, has the authority to remove any board member who fails to act in accordance with the organization’s bylaws.

Diocese asks foundation for funds

As the COVID-19 pandemic began to rage In March 2020, forcing the shutdown of Catholic schools and worship services and prompting a drop in tuition payments and collections, Jensen asked the foundation to provide $12 million to offset a working capital deficit at the diocese, according to the court.

“Nunn declined the request and explained that Orange Catholic Foundation did not have any undesignated funds,” the court said. “According to Nunn, Jensen replied that Orange Catholic Foundation had buckets of money.”

Three days after the request, Jensen purportedly sent a letter to the foundation’s chairman asking for about $2.6 million from endowment funds to cover the financial needs of parishes and schools in light of the “unprecedented times.”

The foundation declined the diocese’s request for funds, but in April 2020 agreed to allocate $1.5 million to support churches and schools most impacted by the pandemic shutdown, said the court.

Two months later, Vann held a Zoom meeting with the Orange County Foundation’s executive committee. However, what transpired during the meeting is in dispute, the court said.

The bishop claimed that he expressed disappointment in delays in the search for a permanent executive director and the lack of progress in establishing a strategic plan for the foundation.

However, Nunn alleges Vann told the executive committee she was a liar, had caused irreparable damage by refusing to invade endowment funds and demanded that she be fired.

Board fired without warning

On June 19, 2020, Vann fired the foundation’s entire board without notice and then appointed a new board, which terminated Nunn’s contract and appointed a new interim executive director. The new board also began efforts to hire a permanent executive director.

The appellate court has remanded Nunn’s anti-SLAPP motion to Orange County Superior Court.

​ Orange County Register 

Orange County scores and player stats for Tuesday, May 2

• May 3, 2023

Support our high school sports coverage by becoming a digital subscriber. Subscribe now

Scores and stats from Orange County games on Tuesday, May 2

Click here for details about sending your team’s scores and stats to the Register.

TUESDAY’S SCORES

SOFTBALL

CIF-SS PLAYOFFS

Wild-Card Round

DIVISION 1

Pacifica 4, Bonita 1

Pac: Nally (W, CG 1R 11K). Ma’ae 3-3, HR, 3RBI. Bragg, 3B, R.

Other D1 scores

Mission Viejo 7, Camarillo 1

Chino Hills 3, Villa Park 0

DIVISION 3

La Canada 10, Beckman 3

Kennedy 8, Crescenta Valley 4

Fountain Valley 17, Sonora 6

DIVISION 6

Monrovia 8, Savanna 0

GIRLS LACROSSE

CIF-SS PLAYOFFS

Round 1

DIVISION 1

Marlborough 16, Santa Margarita 8

​ Orange County Register 

Mortgage fees to rise for buyers with high credit scores, fall for those with lower scores

• May 3, 2023

Heads up, homebuyers! Big changes have arrived in the way mortgage fees are calculated, and they could offer a windfall — or an unexpected surcharge — for your next home purchase.

Starting Monday, some fees will rise for homebuyers with higher credit scores, while buyers with lower scores will see a fee reduction.

The move is part of a broader effort by the federal government to “increase support for borrowers historically underserved by the housing finance market.” That includes people of color who have long faced discrimination in homebuying. Still, borrowers with lower credit scores will, for the most part, still pay much larger fees than those with higher scores.

Felicia Mares, a real estate agent in Oakland, said the change is a net positive. She said many of her clients with lower credit scores struggle to pay the steep closing costs that come with the Bay Area’s exorbitant real estate market.

“If anything, this is just an overdue balancing act for making it a little more affordable for those who need the help the most,” Mares said.

Many factors beyond credit scores go into determining closing costs, which can make up between 3% and 6% of a home loan. The updated fees are just one of those costs, and lenders can structure home loans in different ways to balance out the higher charges.

Even so, real estate experts say many buyers will feel the impact of the increases in one way or another. And they are coming at the same time that typical mortgage rates have risen to more than 6% over the past eight months, spiking monthly payments.

“I have a feeling it’s going to be passed on more to the consumer, which kind of sucks because everybody’s getting squeezed at the moment,” said Brett Nicoletti, a mortgage loan officer with Academy Mortgage in Los Gatos.

The updated fees — meant to offset the risk of borrowers going into default — will apply only to mortgages backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The quasi-governmental entities buy and sell the majority of home loans in the U.S. Their “conforming loans” generally come with lower interest rates than those not backed by the two entities.

How much could mortgage fees shift?

A buyer who makes a 20% down payment with a credit score of 660 — considered a “fair” score — would see their fee dip from 2.75% to 1.875%, for example. For a $1 million home loan, the change provides a $8,750 discount, reducing a fee of $27,500 to $18,750.

Another buyer, also making a 20% down payment, who has a credit score of 740 — considered a “very good” score — would see their fee climb from 0.5% to 0.875%. For a $1 million home loan, the fee would increase by $3,750 to $8,750.

The more money a buyer puts down, the lower the fee. A buyer with a 660 credit score making a 30% down payment, for instance, would see the fee drop to 0.75%. With a 40% down payment, they wouldn’t pay a fee at all.

To reduce the higher charges for some buyers, lenders can raise the mortgage rates they offer and cover some of the upfront costs themselves. But that still increases the overall cost of a loan. “You have to take into consideration how much leeway lenders have in eating some of that,” Nicoletti said.

Related Articles

In Washington D.C., some lawmakers are pushing back on the change. In a letter to the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Republican Reps. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Warren Davidson of Ohio demanded the agency reverse the new rules — which they argued “amount to a tax on all creditworthy … homebuyers to subsidize borrowers with riskier loans.” They threatened legislation to repeal them.

In response, agency Director Sandra Thompson denied the move is a subsidy. She said the agency is instead aiming to “more accurately align pricing with the expected financial performance and risks of the underlying loans.”

Whatever ultimately comes of the brewing fight, maintaining good credit will still give buyers a leg up on owning a home.

“The fact remains true that the better your credit is, the better your rate is going to be,” Mares said.

​ Orange County Register 

Anaheim ‘hospitality worker bill of rights’ heads to city leaders

• May 3, 2023

A union seeking higher wages and workplace protections for Anaheim hotel and event center workers is ready to place a “hospitality worker bill of rights” ordinance before the city council for a vote.

The city’s mostly non-union hospitality workers gathered more than 26,000 valid signatures for the UNITE HERE Local 11-led initiative — far more than the 16,643 that were needed. The city council is tentatively scheduled to consider the measure on May 16.

The council will have the option of adopting the ordinance, sending it back for economic review or denying it. If it opts to deny the ordinance, the measure will be placed before voters as a ballot initiative.

SEE MORE: Hotel workers to rally for higher pay, better working conditions

Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Glendale and West Hollywood have adopted similar hospitality ordinances in recent years, while Irvine became the first Orange County city to do so in 2022.

If passed by the City Council, the ordinance would provide:

Panic buttons with a security guard on call, mandatory training and security protocols to protect hotel housekeepers from sexual assault and threatening conduct by guests and others
Fair pay when housekeepers are assigned heavy workloads and a prohibition on mandatory overtime after 10 hours
A $25 minimum wage for hotel housekeepers and other hotel and event center workers with an annual increase in wage to reflect the cost of living
Protections ensuring workers are retained when new owners or operators take over

The push to adopt the ordinance comes as workers across the hospitality sector say they have been forced to perform increasingly burdensome workloads without fair pay as business returns to pre-pandemic levels.

RELATED: Long Beach hotel workers hail $4-an-hour pay hike in new contract

At the same time, the hotel industry’s profits are soaring as pricing for hotel rooms exceeds the rate of inflation, the union said, and the industry’s revenue per room has surpassed pre-pandemic levels.

Inflation’s sting

Unite Here Local 11 represents a small portion of the city’s hospitality workers and many of the non-unionized employees are hurting, union co-President Ada Briceno said.

“Many of them are couch surfing or living in their cars,” she said. “They are one paycheck away from homelessness. They are really getting squeezed right now.”

SEE MORE: Janitors say they’re understaffed, overworked at Irvine Co.-owned properties

Unionized hospitality workers who feel their existing benefits are superior can have their labor contract supersede the ordinance, the union said.

If the law is approved by Anaheim’s city Council, hospitality workers who make beds, cook meals, serve coffee, wash dishes and cater to the thousands of guests who travel to Anaheim’s tourist attractions such as Disneyland and the Honda Center could afford to live in the city where they work, Briceno said.

Irayda Torrez, who has worked as a housekeeper at the Hilton Anaheim hotel for 33 years, applauded the measure.

“I want Anaheim to know that all hotel workers have the right to protections and fair pay for heavy workloads,” Torrez said in a statement. “Housekeepers want to feel respected by having fair pay for our hard work and a wage that accounts for the rising cost of living.”

Related links

Disney security workers getting $8 an hour raise in new contract
Long Beach hotel workers hail $4-an-hour pay hike in new contract
Grocery workers rally in opposition of Kroger/Albertsons ‘mega-merger’
Healthcare workers holding rallies statewide to protest low staffing
Papa John’s workers picket after sudden store closure, layoffs

​ Orange County Register 

Real gridlock: Homebuyers eager, sellers scarce

• May 3, 2023

By Gregory Schmidt | The New York Times

The housing market typically comes to life in spring, when buyers emerge in the warmer weather. This year, the market appears stuck in a deep freeze, and the biggest culprit is a lack of sellers, housing experts say.

There is interest among buyers — mortgage applications were up 10% in March from the month before — but the number of homes for sale is low. The mismatch is caused in part by homeowners who are inclined to sell but are sitting on the sidelines, scared off by the steep prices and mortgage rates that they would face as buyers.

More than three-quarters of sellers said they felt “locked in” to their home by their own low mortgage rate, according to a recent survey by Realtor.com. More than half said they planned to wait until rates fell before putting their homes on the market.

Sandy Robinson, a 71-year-old retired teacher in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, is daunted by the market. She would like to sell her two-bedroom town house but is worried about being able to afford a new home. “It’s a little scary now, and you have to be careful,” she said.

A stalemate has mired the housing market when it should be more robust. Sales of existing homes in March were down 22% from the year before, according to the National Association of Realtors. The inventory of unsold homes on the market at the end of March totaled 2.6 months’ supply, meaning it would take that long to sell them. Inventory is typically twice that amount to balance supply and demand.

“We are in a real gridlock situation,” said Robert Frick, corporate economist at the Navy Federal Credit Union. “It’s going to be a tortuous process to unfreeze the market and take a long time to get back to a normal supply-and-demand situation.”

Fewer homes for sale mean more competition among buyers, which leads to bidding wars and drives up prices. Although down from recent highs, the average price of a house remains about 40% higher than at the beginning of 2020, according to the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller index, which measures prices across the nation.

“Everybody is a little surprised at the level of price resilience,” said Todd Teta, chief product and technology officer for Attom Data Solutions, a real estate analytics firm.

Matt Berger would like to sell his three-bedroom starter home in Lebanon, Ohio, where he lives with his wife and two young children, but is holding back. “It feels tight now and will only get tighter as the kids grow,” he said.

They are looking to move closer to Cincinnati, but homes they could afford a year ago are now out of their price range. Adding to the pressure is the low mortgage rate on their current home: “We are in the mid-threes” — roughly half the national average — “and I’d hate to have to say goodbye to that,” said Berger, 42.

“It’s a doubly whammy of the higher interest rates and the home values being so high, and that is scaring us off,” he added. He and his wife are hoping that mortgage rates will fall and they find a cheaper home in a year or two, before their children are settled in school.

The average rate on the most popular home loan, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, is 6.43%, Freddie Mac reported Thursday, more than twice what it was two years ago. Mortgage rates peaked above 7% late last year, but the decline since then has been slow and uneven.

To get sellers more motivated again, rates will have to fall to the “magic mortgage rate” of 5.5%, according to a survey by John Burns Research and Consulting. More than 70% of prospective homebuyers told the researchers that they were not willing to accept a mortgage above that rate.

“Homeowners seem to be pretty patient right now,” said Maegan Sherlock, a senior research analyst at John Burns. “Until things get a little better, those people are going to hold out,” she added.

Most industry experts believe the tipping point is still a ways off. “This is going to be a transition year,” said Danielle Hale, the chief economist of Realtor.com. “As we move into 2024, we should see more people with an appetite to buy.”

The market also may thaw as demand from frustrated buyers is met by homebuilders, which “historically created first-time home opportunities and move-up opportunities,” said Teta of Attom.

A lack of inventory of existing homes appears to be pushing buyers to newly built homes, a smaller market where sales have held up better. Sales of new single-family homes jumped nearly 10% in March from the month before, according to the Census Bureau.

The National Association of Realtors forecasts that sales of new homes will increase 4.5% this year and 12% in 2024. It expects existing-home sales to drop about 9% this year and then bounce back in 2024.

And there are always reasons that reluctant homeowners could be compelled to sell, like job relocations, downsizing or divorce, said Iliana Abella, executive director of sales at the Abella Group, a real estate brokerage in Miami.

“If you are planning to stay in your home for longer than five years, 6% is not going to kill you,” she said of current interest rates.

Still, many homeowners are content to wait.

Ellen Goldman, a 72-year-old retired lawyer in Naples, Florida, is looking to downsize. She and her husband, Sam Savage, have lived in their two-story home since 2004 but realize that the stairs will get more difficult as they age.

“We both work out, and it’s not an issue,” Goldman said, adding that “we want to make the move now before it becomes too hard.”

But they are in no rush. “We don’t have to do this,” she said as they keep an eye on local prices. “We would be fine staying, too.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Is worst of California banking crisis over?

• May 3, 2023

What started in March with the stunning collapse of Santa Clara-based Silicon Valley Bank continued Monday, as state regulators announced that they had seized San Francisco-based First Republic Bank, the second biggest bank failure in U.S. history.

Quickly, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation said it appointed as receiver the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which brokered a sale of First Republic to JP Morgan Chase, the nation’s biggest bank.

Gov. Gavin Newson, in a statement: “In close partnership and coordination with the FDIC, California DFPI took decisive and critical action to stabilize the situation, avert layoffs, and protect Californians. The swift action by FDIC to secure a purchaser for the bank will protect depositors, including uninsured depositors.”

Despite the quick action and reassurances, inquiring minds may want to know:

Should we be worried about California-based banks being bought by out-of-state companies?
Is this the end of the immediate banking crisis, as JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon told analysts Monday?
Will California lawmakers do anything, or can they?

The answers to those questions seem to be: Maybe, maybe not — but a joint banking committee oversight hearing will be held on May 10, when state regulators will field queries about how these banks failed, whether new policies can be passed to prevent more failures and how state and federal laws can work together to protect consumers.

State Sen. Monique Limón, chairperson of the Senate committee on banking and financial institutions, told CalMatters that the public hearing was scheduled before First Republic Bank’s collapse, but now it’s “very, very timely” and the information they’ll learn “will apply to two banks and not just one.”

The Democrat from Santa Barbara said Monday that she hopes we’ve reached “the bulk” of this crisis, but “it’s a little premature to say what may come out in terms of legislation.”

Limón: “More than anything we want well-managed banks operating in California communities, period.”

But she also noted that if lawmakers want to pass new banking regulations, they may be preempted by the federal government. President Biden called Monday for more federal regulations over large and regional banks “to make sure that we’re not back in this position again.”

Everyone wants to avoid a repeat of the 2008-09 financial crisis, when several global financial institutions and investment banks failed, causing a recession and crashing economies around the world. Afterwards, Congress put in more guardrails for the banking industry, but in 2018 and 2019, rules were relaxed for regional banks with less than $250 billion in assets — including Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic.

On Friday, the Federal Reserve issued a report blaming those lessened regulations, bad management and its own lack of oversight for Silicon Valley Bank’s failure in early March. That spooked customers and investors at First Republic, which lost $100 billion in deposits since and saw its stock lose 97% of its value. Both California banks catered to wealthy clients whose accounts had more than the $250,000 protected by federal insurance.

The FDIC said that 84 of First Republic Bank’s offices, located in eight states, will reopen as JP Morgan Chase branches. First Citizens Bank, headquartered in Raleigh, N.C., bought the remaining assets of Silicon Valley Bank, doubling its size.Still, it’s the dollar amount that is likely to be the most contentious recommendation. Up to this point, the task force sought to downplay the number. One member, Cheryl Grills, told Wendy in April that the figure is “the least important piece” of its study, and that the news media’s “preoccupation” with it is “unfortunate.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Next housing crackdown? More homeless shelters

• May 3, 2023

All over California, cities are falling far short when it comes to providing enough shelter for their homeless communities.

More than 69,000 homeless residents live in Los Angeles County, for instance, but that county has just over 21,000 beds in shelters and temporary housing programs.

It’s a similar story in Sacramento County, which counted nearly 9,300 unhoused residents in its last census, but has just over 3,000 shelter and temporary housing beds.

SEE MORE: New California housing lawsuits face major obstacles, attorney says

Those massive gaps – which ensure thousands of people remain homeless – are visible in cities throughout California. But despite constant reassurances from Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers that getting people off the street is a top priority, there’s no state requirement for cities and counties to make sure they have enough shelters or housing for homeless residents.

A bill working its way through the Legislature could change that, and potentially lead to sanctions against local governments that fail to plan for the needs of homeless Californians.

Senate Bill 7 would — for the first time — require cities and counties to plan enough beds for everyone living without a place to call home. It would go beyond just temporary shelter, also including permanent housing placements.

Its author, Sen. Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, called it a “transformational idea” that could help move the needle on homelessness where other attempts have failed.

“Everything we’re doing currently, it will result in homelessness growing,” Blakespear said in an interview. “It will not result in homelessness going down.”

Housing goals

Currently, the state makes sure every city and county plan for new housing through a process known as the regional housing needs allocation. In all, the state requires cities and counties to plan for 2.5 million new homes over the next eight years — about 25% of which must be affordable for very low-income occupants.

RELATED STORY: Most cities still falling behind affordable housing mandate, state numbers show

But this method doesn’t require cities and counties to plan any housing that is specifically for homeless residents.

If the bill passes, local officials would have to include homeless housing in their plans. How much is yet to be determined, but it would be based on each city’s point-in-time census count of its homeless population. Ideally, Blakespear said, the plans would require a unit for every single person counted.

The idea comes at a time when the state is forcing local governments to take more responsibility for providing housing.

Newsom’s administration sued the Orange County coastal enclave of Huntington Beach earlier this year for failing to adopt a housing plan. And cities that flout state housing law also are subject to the “builder’s remedy,” which allows developers to bypass local zoning laws for certain projects.

Blakespear’s bill has gained some early support from housing activists, and recently passed out of the Senate Governance and Finance Committee by a 6-2 vote. While some local leaders are sure to chafe under yet another state-imposed housing requirement, several big-city mayors are tentatively supportive.he final details in the bill matter,” Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg said in an emailed statement, “but any bill that moves the state and cities closer to making housing and services for the homeless a mandatory obligation for government is a step in the right direction.”

Los Angeles County has 21,100 placements in its temporary housing, safe parking and motel programs, according to a county dashboard — not enough to accommodate even a third of its unhoused population.

More money for homeless housing

At a recent hearing, some bill critics wondered where the money would come from to build all this extra housing.

“The funding’s going to be incredibly critical,” said Jason Rhine, assistant director of legislative affairs for the League of California Cities. “If we do not have the money, we will not be able to house individuals.”

The league hasn’t officially opposed the bill, but says it has concerns.

Blakespear wants to pair her bill with a new state fund, which would help cities, counties and nonprofits build housing for people who are homeless or at risk of losing their homes. But it remains to be seen how much — if any — money the Legislature allocates, as the state faces a budget deficit of at least $22.5 billion this year.

Some aspects of the legislation are still up for negotiation. It’s unclear what type of homeless housing cities and counties could use to fulfill the new requirements. Blakespear envisions it would include both permanent and temporary — meaning apartments, but also shelters, RV sites, single-room-occupancy hotels, and more.

It’s also unclear exactly what each city and county would be on the hook for under the new bill, and what the penalties would be for noncompliance. The state’s current process requires cities to plan for housing, including zoning for it and removing roadblocks from its construction, but doesn’t require them to get it built.

Much of the housing cities plan for during that state-mandated process never gets constructed. And low-income housing fares the worst. In the last eight-year planning cycle, just 20% of the very-low-income units needed statewide were permitted.

The California Building Industry Association opposes Blakespear’s bill, worrying money to fund it would come from raising taxes and fees paid by homebuilders. Furthermore, existing law already requires cities and counties to assess their need for emergency shelter, said Cornelious Burke, the association’s vice president of legislative affairs.

Blakespear said she has no intention of using construction fees to cover the cost of her bill. And she disagreed the state’s existing shelter-assessment requirement renders her bill unnecessary.

“Those are just words,” she said. “That is not an actual obligation to provide anything for people who are unhoused.”

Ray Bramson of Destination: Home, a nonprofit that helps spearhead the homelessness response in Santa Clara County, said the bill could help get more homeless housing built. But it depends on how the details of the bill shake out, he said. For one thing, the bill should focus on permanent housing that comes with supportive services like mental health care – not on temporary shelter, Bramson said.

And, the bill must come with funding.

“If not,” he said, “then it’s just another goal that we’re going to struggle to meet collectively.”

​ Orange County Register