The loss of redevelopment tax increment funds for housing has led to considerably fewer financial resources and capacity for cities and counties to further fair housing, affordable housing development, housing rehabilitation, and infrastructure needs. Finding local funding for affordable housing is problematic because there are usually a multitude of competing needs for any unrestricted (e.g., general funds) or even moderately restricted (e.g., CDBG) funds.
Over the past RHNA cycle, State and Federal funds have been limited. Funding opportunities have expanded at the State level and there are also possibilities at the Federal level as well, especially related to pending legislation that could support infrastructure needs.
At the Federal level, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Investment Partnership (HOME) funds have been the mainstay for funding affordable housing projects.
State funding options are improving, and recently enacted law will focus on streamlining HCD’s rental housing programs to align eligibility criteria, scoring, and fund releases, allowing for a coordinated and concurrent single application and award process. Homeless funding and resources have also been expanded. Additionally, many of the funds target specific populations (e.g., farmworkers, veterans, homeless) or have specific uses (e.g., infill infrastructure, transit-oriented development). This section addresses a number of housing funding and financing impediments, opportunities, and best practices, including:
- Local funding barriers
- Lack of State and Federal housing funding
- Market and feasibility implications for affordable and higher-density market rate housing
- Prevailing wages
- ADA and Title 24
- Capacity to deliver housing
- Mello-Roos community facilities district (CFD)
- Tax-increment financing
- Community revitalization and investment authority (CRIA)
- Housing trust funds
- Housing impact and linkage fees
- Development agreements
- Revenue bonds