Transfer Tax Bill Stalled

C.A.R. opposed AB 827 (Yamada). AB 827 would permit counties to impose a recording "tax" up to $3 per property-related document to fund archival services. While this amount may seem small, it is only the beginning of what it is anticipated to be a growing trend of taxing property-related services to fund all manner of local government expenditures. C.A.R. is troubled that sponsors of this legislation are attempting to circumvent local voters by calling this proposal a “fee,” rather than what it really is – a tax. After a recent C.A.R. Red Alert, this week AB 827 was placed on the Inactive File by its author.

Bills to Expand Government Agency Powers Stopped

C.A.R. opposed two bills that relate to the powers of the California Coastal Commission which oversees development of coastal properties. These are not just bills about the beach - the coastal commission would have extended its control over much of the population centers of California, and the bills would set dangerous precedents for state government agencies that may affect you in the future.

Both AB 226 and AB 291, not having the support necessary to pass, were placed on the Inactive File by their authors and can be voted on next year -- stay tuned.

C.A.R. opposed AB 226 (Ruskin) which proposes to expand the California Coastal Commission’s enforcement authority by allowing the Commission to impose its own civil penalties rather than pursuing fines and penalties through the courts. AB 226 would give the Commission the power to be judge, jury and executioner thereby limiting due process.

C.A.R. also opposed AB 291 (Saldaña) which would allow Commission staff to halt permit application processing for violations that have no relationship between the application and the existing violation on the parcel in question.

Study finds walkable neighborhoods command price premiums

A new study says that homes located in more walkable neighborhoods command a price premium over similar homes in less walkable areas.

The study, “Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities” was commissioned by CEOs for Cities and conducted by Joe Cortright using data from Walk Score and ZipRealty.

Key findings include:

• In 13 out of 15 metro areas (sales data provided by ZipRealty), higher levels of walkability were directly linked to higher home values.
• In the typical metropolitan area, a one point increase in Walk Score was associated with an increase in value ranging from $500 to $3,000. Gains were larger in denser, urban areas and smaller in less dense markets.
• In the typical areas studied, the premium commanded for neighborhoods with above-average Walk Scores ranged from $4,000 to $34,000.

More info here

HUD posts FAQ on new RESPA rule

The U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development recently released a frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning implementation of the new Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) rule, according to the California Association of REALTORS®. The FAQs were compiled from questions raised within the industry since the publication of the rule.

Some of the topics covered include requirements and delivery of the Good Faith Estimate, the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, and specific information about completion of the GFE and HUD-1 forms.

"If we learned anything from the current crisis, it's that it is hard for borrowers to make responsible decisions if they don't have all the necessary information," said U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner David Stevens. "I believe these changes will take away much of the uncertainty borrowers have about the accuracy of disclosures."

California Coastal Commission may be given excessive judiciary powers

Two bills under consideration in the California Senate, AB 226 (Ruskin) and AB 291 (Saldana), give the California Coastal Commission judicial powers and gives Commission staff new, unprecedented authority to stop permit applications.

AB 226 would greatly expand the Coastal Commission’s enforcement authority by allowing the Commission to act as both prosecutor and judge and impose civil penalties and allow the Commission to retain the penalties it assesses to augment its own budget. Currently, civil penalties are imposed by the Attorney General’s office on behalf of the Coastal Commission. Meanwhile, AB 291 would allow the staff of the Coastal Commission to halt processing of a permit application if the Commission staff asserts that any violation exists on any property for which a permit is filed.

Staff discretion does not equal due process. Under AB 291, the executive director of the Coastal Commission has sole discretion to completely halt an application for a coastal development permit without any basis other than an assertion of a violation, which may not be related to the permit application. The Commission, not its staff, is the decision-making body, and it should remain that way.

The Coastal Commission already has the necessary tools by which to enforce the Coastal Act. Besides, the Attorney General has been effective at collecting civil penalties for the Coastal Commission through the judicial system, collecting millions of dollars in fines and penalties over the years.