That’s true, but my point was that a “deed restriction” is a form of a “resale restriction.” Since deed restrictions limit the seller too. This language could be interpreted to allow a program to be designed either way. I think that’s the point.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
12335 (c) (5) "Resale restrictions consistent with the California Housing Finance Agency’s first-time home buyer programs such as the California Dream for All Program, without jeopardizing any of the previously stated goals." That's not deed restrictions. I can't make sense of it in this context.
I was also imagining a silly program, not necessarily like dream for all, where the first resident/owner has a sale price restriction, but the second buyer does not. An equity sharing arrangement to pay back the construction loan makes more sense for financing reasons.
What would that program be, for example? I cannot make sense of a demand-side solution to a supply-side tax credit. How do you allocate the equity? It could well be that the house sold at what would be the market rate, and there's no way to get back the tax credits.
Dreams for All is demand side. The buyer gets a loan. This program is supply-side; the builder gets tax credits to build something at a price that wouldn't otherwise be feasible. Which equity are you sharing here?
Maybe it’s a combination: tax credits for the builder and the state shares in equity for the homes with a loan program to purchase the homes built with those tax credits. Maybe the equity sharing can help subsidize the tax credit program long term.
It doesn’t make sense to subsidize demand or deed restrict them because the state would just be throwing money away, but if this program created new homes that were at least temporarily affordable for moderate income, and shared equity when they were sold at market rate, that seems fine to me.
The absurd program would be where, for some reason, the govt limited the first resale price (and its own potential return as an equity holder) but there was no deed restriction: the 2nd owner would benefit more than the first. It’s just a dumb thought I had that’s “consistent” with CalHFA programs
Comments