Arcata Receives $1 Million in Housing Grant Funding
Press release from U.S. Representative Jared Huffman:
Today, U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (CA-02) announced that he secured $6 million in grant funding for two projects in his district through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) program. PRO Housing aims to identify and remove barriers to affordable housing production, preservation, and lower housing costs. This program, which was established by the FY23 Omnibus that Rep. Huffman voted for, is awarding its first-ever grants and it includes two winners in California’s Second Congressional district: $1 million to Arcata and $5 million to the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
About the Projects
- $1 million to Arcata, CA: With a rapid influx in population due to nearby fires and increased university enrollment and geographic constraints that add lengthy environmental permitting procedures for new affordable housing, Arcata will use its awarded $1 million in PRO Housing grant funding to develop streamlined, ministerial permitting processes that will reduce costs for builders. The City will also develop an ordinance supporting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units and create a marketing campaign to encourage property owners to take advantage of the City’s loan program.
- $5 million to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the Bay Area: With some of the highest housing costs in the nation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the Bay Area will use its awarded $5 million in PRO Housing grant funding to begin building and incentivizing the construction of new homes. The Bay Area has an estimated need for 1.4 million units to address the region’s chronic housing shortage over the next 25 years. The MTC will expand its regionwide technical assistance to remove barriers to site advancements and launch Priority Sites Catalyst Projects, which will be targeted investments in housing-supportive infrastructure.
About the Funding
PRO Housing provides grant funding to communities actively taking steps and demonstrating progress in addressing local housing barriers such as outdated local regulations and land use policies, inadequate infrastructure, lack of available financing for development, and risks associated with extreme weather and an aging housing stock. Winners of the PRO Housing competition will update state and local housing plans, revise land use policies, streamline the permitting process, and take other actions to create more housing-forward communities.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
With some of the highest housing costs in the nation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) of the Bay Area will use its awarded $5 million in PRO Housing grant funding to begin building and incentivizing the construction of new homes.
After administration costs, permits, construction costs they should be able to build possibly 3 homes.
This money will go to HO homes. It is strictly for development and the consultants are the ones at the end of the day taking home the money.
The money will be for planning things like maybe fire services??????
A million bucks to “develop a procedure “?
More money for people who are not doing any work or producing actual progress…
>”PRO Housing grant funding to develop streamlined, ministerial permitting processes that will reduce costs for builders.”
—
A MILLION bucks to er… develop a ‘ministerial’ process ? OMG.
—
Hmm… Have you ever wondered why there is rampant inflation ?
—
This is it.
Great news, let’s build a bunch of housing so that people actually have a place to live. I’d rather see 8 story towers and sprawling suburbs than a bunch of broken homeless people with nowhere to live.
How about just the towers, and we leave the open spaces alone?
Have you ever seen the glamorous towers of north korea?
What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?
I used to be very against sprawl. But the reality is people who live in dense cities don’t have very many kids. Definitely not at the replacement rate.
Over the next 50 years the United will suffer less of a population decline due our mostly suburban population (as compared to other denser countries).
Never ending sprawl is the lesser of two evils compared to having fellow citizens living on the street.
Population decline is a great thing.
All people, urban and rural, should be encouraged to have fewer kids.
Q) How to separate the down on luck to the wannabees?
Does it really matter all that much?
Free public housing can be as simple as a dormitory-style room.
Whether somebody is down on their luck or just lazy,
it still gets them off the street and gives them a warm dry place.
It’s been tried before. You’ve never been to Jordan downs or nickerson gardens. Ever walked through the tenderloin at night? I doubt you have, because the reality escapes you. Enablers like yourself have destroyed our society. Enjoy your internet anonymity, you obviously need it.
It hasn’t really been tried before in the US, otherwise the people in the places you mentioned would be in homes and not out on the street.
It has been tried in other countries and has been wildly successful.
When people are in a stable home environment, other services such as drug treatment and mental healthcare are more likely to be successful.
Two of the places I mentioned are government housing projects, and one is a govt subsidized open air drug market in San Francisco. You’d know that if you’d ever been. These places were designed with your exact ideals in mind. Of course organized crime moved in with the poor, took over, and the projects failed. Extreme violence, heavy drugs, and sex crimes off the charts and spilling into neighboring areas. And I assume you’d object to increased law enforcement presence in these poor communities with some false “compassion” rationale. These neighborhoods continue to deteriorate until the poor are removed by corporate style gentrification. But you want to spread the disease and spend more funds on more cheap subsidized housing. People like you would rather tax normal working families to fund your fantasies and perpetuate the doom cycle. Stability comes from family and real community, not any government or corporation. Only hard feelings and tough love will fix this crisis. Better to spend the money on jails and bring back the psych wards. Hold judges accountable to tough sentencing and deport criminal aliens like we used to.
I sometimes wonder what your day job is, “D’Tucker Jebs”. And what neighborhood you live in. Your rosy shades suggest you live in an alternate reality than most of the county. And I must say… if you were here for discussion and not provocation you might feel comfortable using the name your mother gave you?
You assume an awful lot about me.
I absolutely think there should be increased police presence in high crime areas.
I think that people who commit crimes should undergo compulsory rehabilitation.
Non citizens who commit crimes should be deported.
People who use hard drugs should be locked in in-patient treatment centers.
The severely mentally ill should be housed in humane care centers.
And I absolutely do not support tax increases on the working class.
I’m not really sure why you would make any of the assumptions about me that you did.
As for why I don’t use my real name:
as your comment demonstrates, there is a lot of prejudice nd bitterness out there and I prefer to keep a firewall between the ugliness that I see in the online comment section and the beauty I try and surround myself with in real life.
Spoken like a true politician. You sure have your buzzwords and vague language in order, but you’ve only validated my assumptions. Maybe you’re proud of your comment section activism, or maybe you’re just a cheap troll. Guess I’ll just have to assume.
Like I said, if you were interested in any real discourse you’d use the name your mother gave you.
It’s so simple, just in the practice of landlording single-family homes.
With this one action housing inventory will absolutely skyrocket overnight, and housing costs will plummet .
Houses should be homes not financial instruments.
In August 2020, California Supreme Court addressed the circumstances under which a public agency may characterize the issuance of construction permits as “ministerial,” and hence not subject to California Environmental Quality Act, versus “discretionary,” in which case California Environmental Act applies.
“Arcata will use its awarded $1 million in PRO Housing grant funding to develop streamlined, ministerial permitting processes that will reduce costs for builders. The City will also develop an ordinance supporting the development of Accessory Dwelling Units and create a marketing campaign to encourage property owners to take advantage of the City’s loan program.”
Seriously ?? Each one of these can be done easily without that million bucks. City employees, get off your azzez and get it done !!
Meanwhile… (per SF Gate)
Costco’s bold new plan for the California housing crisis
Costco, the international bulk grocery chain known for its warehouse looks and difficult-to-beat deals, is hard at work on what could be considered its biggest new product launch in years: affordable housing.
An approved upcoming Costco location in South Los Angeles (the Baldwin Village/Crenshaw area specifically) is slated to open in the coming years, and it combines the company’s more-is-more brand with a novel new approach to residential construction.
The project, to be built by developer Thrive Living and architects AO, was first announced early last year in a press release that revealed renderings of a mixed-use model with multiple floors, open courtyard spaces and other amenities.
All told, the build would encompass not only the Costco store (and necessary parking) but a whopping 800 residential units, including 184 set aside specifically for low-income tenants.