Making sense of the story

*     A short sale – a transaction in which the homeowner sells the property for less than is owed on the mortgage – must be approved by the lien holder or lien holders, if there is more than one.

*     Under previous law (SB 931 of 2010), a first mortgage holder could accept an agreed-upon short-sale payment as full payment for the outstanding balance of the loan, but the rule did not apply to junior lien holders. SB 458 extends the protections of SB 931 to junior liens.

*     The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) sponsored the bill and urged lawmakers to pass this much-needed legislation.

*     “The signing of this bill is a victory for California homeowners who have been forced to short sell their home, only to find that the lender will pursue them after the short sale closes and demand an additional payment to subsidize the difference,” said C.A.R. President Beth L. Peerce.  “SB 458 brings closure and certainty to the short-sale process and ensures that once a lender has agreed to accept a short-sale payment on a property, all lienholders – those in first position and in junior positions – will consider the outstanding balance as paid in full, and the homeowner will not be held responsible for any additional payments on the property.”

Read the full story <http://www2.realtoractioncenter.com/site/R?i=Y7pJy-rwyTJMoTmgvOXhDA..>

This $2 Billion program, announced a few months ago to great fanfare but little result, has determined it’s time to expand the programs due to it’s thus far limited reach. The program is designed for low and moderate income borrowers who refinanced their home, took out a home equity line of credit (HELOC), or are underwater on their loans and now find themselves in trouble (duh). The program features four separate sections to help these borrowers including one to get caught up on their loan, another to reduce their principle, one to provide relocation and transition assistance and one to subsidize payments to unemployed homeowners.

Administered from a federal grant by the California Housing Finance Agency, the programs director says they started slow by design. Before jumping in with both feet they wanted to guage the response, see what kind of people were applying and why they were not qualifying. The director expects the program ultimately to help 100,000 Californians.

Of course as I noted in an earlier post when the program was announced, the program is voluntary for lenders. Yeah, you read that right. Lenders will voluntarily agree to accept partial back payments or reduced principle for borrowers who took cash out of their homes during the boom times. Low to moderate income buyers, who are in financial trouble. Yeah, the banks haven’t demonstrated much pro-activity in helping anybody at all, let alone low to moderate income folks. I’m sure this will all work out fine. Even the director admits that ‘only some lenders are participating’. Go figure.

Oh well, I guess if we can keep 100,000 low to moderate income people in their homes here while other demographic groups are ignored by HAMP and HAFA and other bail-outs, that’s a good thing, eh?

But that’s all about to change. Californians voted last fall to form a commission to draw the new districts – unlike the last time they were drawn when we let the politicians draw their own. The Commissions report is due out by August and our area will be in for some changes because our region has grown faster than most regions of the state. Our County Supervisor boundaries will be redrawn to reflect the growth in Southwest County and, with the potential election of current Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries to a supervisorial seat, our region could see 2 Supervisors representing Southwest County for the first time EVER. That’s good.

At the state level we probably won’t see much change but the district  boundaries will definitely be redrawn to make some sense by keeping contiguous city interests in one sphere. Right now Jeffries has a district that runs in skinny strips hither and yon, crossing over Nestande’s district in places, running into San Diego County – makes no sense. Our Senatorial District may also see some shifts as Emmerson keeps a more contiguous area of Riverside County while Anderson gives up some of the northern portion of his San Diego District that starts in Chula Vista.

Our regions also stands to pick up an additional federal representative as more of the population has shifted inland from coastal areas. With out region currently split between Calvert, Bono-Mack and Issa, we’ll have to see what that means.

Further complicating the political landscape is the new open primary rule, again resulting from the last election. There will no longer be Republican and Democratic primaries, just one big free-fer-all. The top two candidates will run against each other in the fall. The theory is that this will draw more candidates from the middle of the road rather than the ideological edges of party politics. One thing it will do for sure is cost way more money. The rest we’ll just have to see about.

Nationally known prognosticator Charlie Cook has recently published his first blush on what that all means to us. His exhaustive report covers the entire country as well as every district within the state. I’ve included an excerpt here dealing only with our immediate area. Stay tuned. This is going to be an interesting season leading up to next years election.

The Charlie Cool Political Report

California
Redistricting Authority: Commission
Ideal New District Population: 702,905
Current Partisan Breakdown: 34 D, 19 R
2012 Cook Redistricting Forecast: 35 D, 18 R

San Bernardino and Riverside

San Bernardino County has almost enough people for three districts, and commissioners will almost certainly need to draw a Hispanic majority seat anchored by the cities of San Bernardino, Fontana, and Rialto. The question is whether commissioners will try to split Democratic Rep. Joe Baca’s current 43rd CD into two parts, paring his district down to his home base in those three cities, and putting Ontario in a separate Hispanic majority district. There will almost certainly need to be a Republican-leaning district anchored by the fast-growing Victor Valley area to the north, and the fate of Chino to the south is anyone’s guess.

Riverside County grew 42 percent in the last decade and surpassed San Bernardino, adding enough people for slightly over three whole districts. There is very big redistricting upside for Democrats here: Riverside gave President Obama a majority of its vote in 2008, yet all four of its districts are represented by Republicans. The most talked-about scenario calls for commissioners to create a new Hispanic majority district taking in Corona/Norco, Riverside and Moreno Valley. This seat would have a significant Democratic edge and could include the Corona home of GOP Rep. Ken Calvert, whose 44th CD is already 43 percent Hispanic.

In fact, surging Hispanic population and political participation in Riverside County explains why Calvert, who routinely had cruised to reelection since 1992, was nearly caught napping in 2008 when underfunded Democratic teachers’ union organizer Bill Hedrick took 49 percent of the vote. Calvert’s 44th CD needs to lose 141,851 residents, so it’s possible a new GOP-leaning district in southwestern Riverside County will complement a Hispanic majority district to the north. Calvert could run here, but he would almost certainly have to overcome primary competition in a vastly new district; Calvert took only 66 percent in his 2010 primary against a challenger who spent just $17,000.

The fastest growing district in the state was GOP Rep. Mary Bono Mack’s 45th CD based in explosive Palm Springs and Hemet in eastern Riverside County. The 45th needs to shed 211,304 residents. There are rumors Bono Mack may be considering an early exit from Congress to help her husband, Florida GOP Rep. Connie Mack IV, with his prospective Senate bid. If that happens, this district could be highly competitive. But Republicans would be somewhat relieved if the eastern reaches of the 45th CD, such as Moreno Valley, were lopped off into a new Hispanic majority seat, boosting the 45th CD’s GOP performance.

There’s virtually no way commissioners will draw new districts that endanger GOP Reps. Darrell Issa (CA-49) and Duncan Hunter (CA-52) in anything other than primaries, unless they draw much of the deeply conservative territory in northern San Diego County into districts with more urban areas, which would be a stretch. A continued 3-2 GOP edge in this southernmost region of the state still seems like the most likely outcome.

As if boundary fortune telling isn’t already hazardous enough, the state’s new “top two” ballot law has added a whole new layer of complication. In June 2010, voters passed Proposition 14, setting up jungle primaries for all federal and state elections in which the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, will advance to the November general election. Candidates aren’t even required to list their party on the ballot anymore. The first indication of the law’s impact could come in a July 12th special election to replace resigned Democrat Jane Harman in the Torrance-based 36th CD.

In the new “top two” era, two candidates from the same party can and will compete against each other on the general election ballot in some districts. This is highly unlikely to happen in swing seats, with the possible exception of unusual cases like open seat races where a plethora of candidates from each party would divide up the primary ballot. The more likely impact of this law will be to shut third party and independent candidates out of November elections.

Over the last few years, relatively unpopular incumbents have eked out November races with less than 50 percent of the vote thanks to minor candidates siphoning opposition votes. Unpopular incumbents won’t be able to depend on this crutch anymore.

California’s brave new world of districts and election laws could seriously endanger 15 or more incumbents. If the commission were to draw districts remotely resembling normal shapes, the incumbents at the most risk in primaries or generals would be those currently sitting in the most gerrymandered districts. Republicans with the most cause for concern are Reps. Dan Lungren (CA-03), Elton Gallegly (CA-24), David Dreier (CA-26), Gary Miller (CA-42), and Ken Calvert (CA-44). The Democrats: Reps. Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Sam Farr (CA-17), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Jim Costa (CA-20), Brad Sherman (CA-27), Howard Berman (CA-28), Laura Richardson (CA-37), Grace Napolitano (CA-38), Bob Filner (CA-51), and whoever wins the CA-36 special election in June.

Bottom line: Redistricting may endanger more Democrats in primaries and more Republicans in general elections. Overall, a true incumbent-blind redistricting plan may bequeath Democrats an additional seat or two, given that Republicans currently represent more marginal districts. Eight GOP members sit in districts that voted for President Obama in 2008, while no Democrats sit in districts that voted for GOP presidential nominee John McCain. And if commissioners or judges place an emphasis on maximizing Hispanic voting strength, Hispanic candidates could have new opportunities in as many as five additional districts.

“Government is like a baby,” Ronald Reagan was fond of saying. “An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”  If the former California governor were observing Sacramento today, he would probably add that our state government functions more like “triplets,” and has been doing so for more than ten years.

Back at the beginning of the millennium, the California treasury was overflowing due to capital gains tax receipts from what has become known as the “dot.com bubble.”  Almost everyone in the state understood that these tax producing profits were the result of a short-term business cycle, and the excessive flow of tax revenue would not be a permanent condition.  Unfortunately, there were a small group of Californians who did not understand these basic economic principles, including the majority in the state Legislature and Governor Gray Davis.

These officials responded to the increased revenue by spending it all and committing Californians to pay for expensive long-term programs, like radically increased pensions for government workers, that now have state and local governments facing nearly a half-trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

This profligate approach to governing was a contributing factor to the successful recall of Davis.  However, governor Schwarzenegger, and the party-hearty lawmakers that continued to dominate the Legislature carried on like there was never a problem.  When the state came up short, they used accounting gimmicks that allowed them to carry on spending as if there were no tomorrow.

Between 2003 and 2007, spending increased by one-third.  Then the housing bubble burst, and these same suspects imposed the largest tax increase in the history of all 50 states.  They had learned their lesson, they said, and pledged to taxpayers they would use the two years of massively higher taxes to buy time to reorganize and reform their spending ways.  Two years later, and in spite of California families having paid about two-thousand dollars in extra taxes, the state is now facing a $26 billion shortfall.  The “spendaholics” have fallen off the wagon, again.

All of this could have been avoided if the malefactors, who clearly lack self-control, had been compelled to work under a hard spending cap.

Because the politicians that control the Legislature and our current governor – the Department of Finance shows that Governor Brown’s budget will grow 31% by 2015 – are still in a state of denial regarding spending, there is an urgent need to take measures to restore a strict spending limit on state government.

This is why Senator Tony Strickland has introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 10, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, that would impose a firm spending cap on lawmakers.  The expenditure limit includes General Fund and special funds, and contains no exemptions for education or local government funding.  It creates a reserve of up to 10% of spending; this reserve can only be tapped to backfill revenue shortfalls in the current budget year and to fund non-fiscally related emergencies.  Funds could only be used by a Declaration of the Governor and two-thirds vote of the Legislature.  Half of the excess revenues beyond the 10% cap would be used to pay off existing debt.

Back when Bill Clinton was running for president, a big sign that read, “It’s the economy, stupid” was placed on his campaign office wall.  In an ideal world every member of the Legislature would be required to post a sign on their office wall that said, “It’s the spending, stupid.”  Sen. Strickland’s SCA 10 is the taxpayers’ way of sending this message.

C.A.R. has not taken a position in support of tax extensions, but is only in support of putting the tax extensions on the June ballot to let California voters decide.

For more information, contact Christopher Carlisle, C.A.R.’s legislative advocate at (916) 492-5200.

I don’t know if I agree with today’s move by CAR – but they didn’t ask me. However, it appears to be in line with recent polls showing the majority of Californians appear to prefer having a voice in this latest budget skirmish. 61% believe the issue of  Gov. Browns tax & cut budget should be decided by a vote of the people. Even 56% of Republicans believe this should be the case although 61% of Republicans also say they would vote
against the tax measure. A majority of voters also indicate they would not vote for any new or increased taxes – but the survey didn’t drill right down to whether the majority would vote to extend the currently increased taxes for another 5 years.

While I am not in favor of the tax increase that was foisted on us two years ago and is now scheduled to expire, if the few Republicans who have not backed themselves into a corner with the No New Tax pledge can negotiate some meaningful cuts – not just the lame-ass cuts proposed by the Governor, it’s worth bringing to a vote of the people. Without the current taxes being extended, there will be foul nastiness ahead for our state. The few real cuts that have been proposed as well as any future cuts, would be to programs that probably should not be cut. The retirement boondoggle, entitlements and growing employment at the state level will not be impacted. Education, police and parks will be.

Whats worse, if the current tax structure is not extended for another 5 years, in addition to the worthless and superficial cuts that may occur, we would likely face a slew of new taxes disguised as fees, levies and outright thievery from our cities and counties. Many of those taxes would also be aimed at independent contractors, small business owners and other housing related areas. I mean, face it folks, our state is broke and should be declared bankrupt if such a thing were allowed and if we had any politicians with enough balls to do it. Unfortunately it’s not and we don’t.

Further, if the tax extension is placed on a special ballot I believe it would pass. It would be supported by massive spending by the  public employee unions, teachers, nurses, etc, as well as the vast entitlement population who live on the public dole. California has reached a tipping point where we have more takers than  givers, people who rely on the system for their income whether it’s direct payroll, retirement or welfare. When that dynamic exists in a state without the political will to address it, the result will inevitably result in those voters making sure their nest continues to be lined as long as the rest of us can pay for it.

Of even greater concern, and something I believe is another inevitability, taxes will get placed on the ballot with the promise of real and substantial cuts to programs and entitlements. The taxes will get passed but the cuts will not occur. We already saw what happened a few years ago when Arnold worked up the machismo to try to tackle a few state employment issues. He was sued under the table  and no jobs were lost. Even the few cost reductions that might have been realized by the imposition of a few months of furlough days was largely negated by the lawsuits necessary to defend the governors right to impose them.

So we’ll get our existing higher taxes extended another five years, the $12 Billion in cuts will not materialize, there will be a call for more ‘fees’ on services and any other way to wring the last few bucks out of the business class and the paying populace and next year we’ll be right back here trying to figure out why we’re another $25 Billion in the crapper.

Ahhh California.

On the upside, it is almost 80 today and the sun is shining beautifully. Had a great lunch with my Congressional Rep on an outdoor patio and it’s almost time to pour a cold one. What? Me worry?

Mar 16, 2011
Tensions in the Capitol increased dramatically as the first floor votes loomed on a budget crafted by Gov. Jerry Brown and majority Democrats. But as the negotiations intensified, the voice of the people — a cliche, but a nice cliche — was heard: Most Californians want a chance to vote on the budget, a new poll shows.

“Environmentalists expressed outrage at the Republicans’ bid. Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California, said that what the legislators want amounts to a “wholesale gutting” of the law.”

An article appeared in today’s Californian that adds the housing element to the mix. Redevlopment has provided over 91,000 affordable housing units since 1995. For every 100 units created, 125 local jobs are created and 32 permanent jobs. Some in Sacramento just don’t get it – they are actively trying to kill what’s left of the housing industry not understanding that housing speeds an economic recovery, housing is a jobs engine which our state desperately needs.

Click here to view the forum post: Wrong places to cut.

AB 32, the state’s landmark 2006 climate change statute, required CARB to develop a regulatory program to reduce state-wide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  In response to this mandate, the Board of CARB already approved a first set of comprehensive regulations in December 2010; the regulations were based on an earlier “Scoping Plan” developed by the CARB staff.   The Tentative Decision partially grants a petition for a writ of mandate brought by a coalition of environmental justice organizations (Petitioners) that alleged that CARB’s Scoping Plan violated both AB 32 and CEQA. “Environmental Justice” is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Although the Superior Court denied all claims related to AB 32, the court found that CARB: 1) failed to adequately discuss and analyze the impacts of alternatives in its proposed Scoping Plan as required by its CEQA implementing regulations; and 2) improperly approved the Scoping Plan prior to completing the environmental review required by CEQA.  In upholding the Petitioners’ challenge on these two CEQA issues, the Superior Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate and enjoined CARB from further implementation of the Scoping Plan until it complies with all CEQA requirements. Parties to the case have 15 days from the issuance of the Tentative Decision to file objections before the Superior Court issues a final decision in the case.

While this is good news for some, the order to stop the implementation of AB 32 has little effect on the housing sector and will not affect other Green House Gas reducing mandates already in place such as SB 375: the anti-sprawl law which requires regional governments to reduce Green House Gas emissions via land use and transportation planning, and AB 758: which will require energy efficient retrofits in California’s existing homes and commercial properties. The stay will, however, affect the development of regulations concerning Cap-and-Trade, Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Renewable Energy, Landfills, Vehicles, Industrial Emissions, etc.

C.A.R. took a neutral position on AB 32 when it passed through the legislature in 2006.  At the time, C.A.R. did not find tailpipe emissions reductions and cap-and-trade policies to be of direct and immediate concern to REALTORS®.  Subsequent to the passage of AB 32, C.A.R. has monitored AB 32 implementation planning and policy development meetings. C.A.R. remains neutral on the goal of GHG reduction yet continues to urge CARB and other state agencies to consider the real cost of doing business and to take a realistic approach to the implementation of their rules and policies.

Okay… That’s enough good time.  Let’s talk Christmas turkey.

We have a new Governor who is going to be sworn into office in early January. Okay, he’s not really new.  Really, in California, he would be more properly titled as “recycled”.  So in the holiday spirit – let’s wish him well.  Let’s cheer him on when he holds our feet to the fire and says that we have to cut up the credit cards and live within our means.  Let’s raise a toast to him when he says that California needs to be a place where businesses can flourish, be profitable and hire more employees. Let’s say “Thank You Governor” when he tells regulators and bureaucrats that they work for the people of this state – not the other way around. Those are nothing but a Christmas Wish you say?  You bet. A wish, a prayer, a goal, and a hope.  All of the above, because I’m not giving up during my last two years.

I briefly met with our new Governor last week. He was candid, unscripted and had no staff in the room to whisper in his ear.  He was direct and listened to our concerns and our hopes.  In short, we are in for some really tough times with regards to our state finances. While I did not support him at the ballot box, I am, in fact, hopeful that he will turn out to be the right man at the right time. California needs a very strong-willed and focused Chief Executive Officer to help us climb out of our financial abyss. Anything less will be a disservice to every Californian who wants a state they can be proud of.

And speaking of proud, please remember that we have thousands of Californians in uniform serving in hostile foreign environments.  These men and women will not be home for the holidays. They will not be home for a big family dinner, nor to open any gifts with family. Let’s keep them in our prayers and thoughts.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

Respectfully,

Kevin Jeffries

Under this new program, the AQMD will issue no-burn advisories through the end of February for specific areas where ‘fine particulates are forecast to reach unhealthy levels’. For 2011 the no-burn prohibition is voluntary but starting in 2012 there will be a series of escalating fines from $50 to $500 or more if you light up during one of their advisory periods. They expect to see about 15 of these periods from November through February.

The AQMD claims that Southern California is home to about 1.4 million fireplaces or wood burning stoves. They claim that these spew 6 tons of soot into the air every day – 4 times the amount emitted by all the power plants in the southland. Really? But their spokes hole says people can avoid the problem just by switching to natural gas fireplaces.

But how about if you live in an area not served by natural gas? Say you live in the Temecula Valley Wine Country or up in the De Luz avocado groves, or the Meadowview area of Temecula? These areas are not all served by natural gas. Many rely on wood burning appliances to not just take the edge off a nippy winter eve, but to stay warm affordably. Electric heat isn’t cheap and many older residents or those on a fixed income will have to make tough choices.

Some of these homes have installed propane (bottled) gas to power certain appliances. But according to one resident I spoke to, their heating bill if they rely on propane alone can run to over $500/month during the winter. Simply burning a half cord of wood for $225 during the winter keeps the chill away and keeps their propane bill to under $200/month.

The AQMD knows this is a problem and have issued exemptions for areas over 3,000 feet elevation because they ‘recognize some mountain residents heat their homes that way’. How about recognizing that some residents below 3,000 do the same?

Is this a life changing event? Not for me. I’ve got four fireplaces in my house and they all burn gas. Goody goody for me. Will it severely impact a lot of people throughout our rural areas that can ill afford it? Probably not significantly if the no-burn events are held to no more than 15 random nights during the 4 month period. Maybe cost folks a few hundred extra bucks for heat, or a few hundred more for fines. Too bad for them.

But here’s my forecast – and I’ve been through this before so I’m not just whistling Dixie out my kazoo. Within 5 years, all wood burning devices will be banned. (When fireplaces are outlawed, only outlaws will have fireplaces).

Year one (2011) will be voluntary compliance with the no-burn. Year two (2012) the ban is no longer voluntary.

Year 3 (2013) will be more of the same – probably with a few more no-burn advisory days thrown in for good measure, or the particulate standards will be reduced to comply with some arbitrary ruling by the geniuses at the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

By year 4 (2014), based on the same specious studies that give us 6 tons of soot a day from fireplaces (did I mention that’s 4 times more than ALL the power plants in Southern California?), they will declare the project a resounding success but predicated on Californians need to be the leader in greenwashing reality, they will see the need to implement an outright ban on all woodburning devices. This will be voluntary in 2014 and there will be a call for increased state spending both to appoint a ‘smoke czar patrol’ to monitor the the state’s chimneys as well as to pay for people to switch to some alternate form of heat technology. By 2015 you’ll be subject to criminal prosecution if your chimney so much as farts during the winter.

Don’t believe me? I could direct you to several cities around the state and the country where that exact scenario has come to pass already. Meanwhile China continues to open a new coal-fired power plant every day. Arizona coal-fired plants will continue to provide electricity to Southern California. Our air will not be appreciably cleaner. But another of your simple pleasures, what you used to consider a right, will have been erased.

Aw, who cares? I’m heading for my little cabin in the woods. There’s plenty of down timber to cut up and not a neighbor around for miles to tattle if I stoke my fireplace. You can come drive by sometime if you get nostalgic for a whiff of pine smoke on a crisp winter morning.

Meanwhile if you want to learn if there’s a ‘no-burn’ advisory out tonight, here’s all you have to do:

• Check AQMD’s Check Before You Burn map at www.aqmd.gov to see if a voluntary no-burn advisory has been issued for their area. Residents may also zoom into a particular neighborhood on the map by entering an address or zip code;
• Sign up to receive electronic e-mail notices when a no-burn advisory is issued for their area. Visit www.airalerts.org to sign up; or
• Call AQMD’s 24-hour Check Before You Burn toll-free information line at (866) 966-3293.

From CAR Government Affairs

The recent end of the 2009-10 legislative session has brought the end of short sale deficiency judgments for first loans, and other new laws affecting REALTORS® and their clients.  To view the full text of the following bills, go to www.leginfo.ca.gov.

No Short Sale Deficiencies: Starting January 1, 2011, a seller’s first trust deed lender cannot obtain a deficiency judgment against the seller after a short sale.  Providing written consent to a short sale shall obligate the first trust deed lender to accept the sales proceeds as full payment and discharge of the remaining amount owed on the loan.  This law applies to first trust deeds secured by one-to-four residential units, but does not limit the lender from seeking damages for fraud or waste by the borrower.  Senate Bill 931.  Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed Senate Bill 1178, our sponsored bill, which would have extended California’s anti-deficiency protection to refinance loans.

Energy Audit in Home Inspection Report: Beginning January 1, 2011, a home inspection and inspection report may, upon a client’s request, include an audit of the energy efficiency of a home, according to the standards of the Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS).  REALTORS® are also strongly encouraged to give the newly released HERS booklet to residential buyers, because doing so provides a valuable shield from liability.  Delivery of the booklet will be deemed to be adequate to inform the buyer about the statewide HERS program.  Assembly Bill 1809 and California Civil Code section 2079.10.

Restriction on Adverse Possession Claim: Effective January 1, 2011, a claim for adverse possession requires, among other things, certified records of the county tax collector showing that all state, county, or municipal taxes have been timely paid for the five-year period the property has been occupied and claimed.  Existing law merely requires proof that taxes have been paid for the five-year period, not certified proof of timely payments.  Assembly Bill 1684.

Enforcement of MLO Requirements: Effective January 1, 2011, anyone acting as a mortgage loan originator (MLO) without an MLO license endorsement will be guilty of a crime punishable by six months imprisonment, plus a $20,000 fine.  Furthermore, a broker cannot employ or compensate a real estate licensee for MLO activities unless that licensee has a license endorsement.  This law has also given the Department of Real Estate (DRE) the authority to deny or revoke a MLO license endorsement or take other action.  This law also amends the MLO requirements for finance lenders and residential mortgage lenders under the Department of Corporation.  Senate Bill 1137.

Post-Foreclosure Protection for Tenants: Commencing January 1, 2011, a notice to terminate a residential tenant who remains after a foreclosure sale must generally include a statutory notice of the tenant’s rights.  This requirement, which sunsets on January 1, 2013, applies to an immediate successor-in-interest for one year after a foreclosure sale.  The tenant’s rights must be on a separate cover sheet or, for a 90-day termination, incorporated into the notice to terminate.  Another provision of this bill protects a residential tenant’s credit by generally prohibiting the court clerk from revealing unlawful detainer court records unless the plaintiff prevails at trial.  Senate Bill 1149.

Tenant Protection for Domestic Violence Victims: Starting January 1, 2011, a residential landlord cannot terminate or fail to renew a tenancy based on domestic violence against the tenant or tenant’s household members as specified.  This law applies if the person restrained from contact with the tenant by court order or named in a police report is not also a tenant of the same dwelling unit.  If the protected tenant subsequently allows the person restrained to visit the property, or the landlord reasonably believes the person restrained poses a physical threat to others or to quiet possession by other tenants, the landlord may serve a three-day notice to correct or quit.  To further ensure safe housing for domestic violence victims, this law also requires that, for leases entered into after January 1, 2011, a landlord changes the exterior locks of a protected tenant’s dwelling unit within 24 hours after the tenant provides a written request and supporting court or police documentation as specified.  Senate Bill 782.

Protections Against Real Estate Fraud: Effective January 1, 2011, new laws protecting consumers from real estate fraud include, without limitation, the following: (1) Expanding the foreclosure consultant law to include someone who performs a forensic audit of a residential mortgage loan (Assembly Bill 2325); (2) Requiring any mailed solicitation that offers to provide a copy of an owner’s grant deed or other title records for a fee to include a prominent statutory disclosure that the copy service is not associated with any governmental agency and that the homeowner can obtain such records from the county recorder (Assembly Bill 1373); and (3) Increasing the criminal punishment for renting out a residential dwelling without the owner’s consent from six months imprisonment plus a $1,000 fine, to one year imprisonment, plus a $2,500 fine (Assembly Bill 1800).

Other Laws: Some of the other laws that may interest REALTORS® include, but are not limited to, revisions to the mechanics’ lien law (Senate Bill 189); clarification that the prohibition against discrimination of tenants based on source of income pertains to lawful and verifiable income (Senate Bill 1252); extension of the CalVet Home Loan program to include 2-to-4 residential units (Assembly Bill 2087); and lien enforcement by a municipal utility district for a tenant’s delinquent charges (Senate Bill 1035).

You all may recall that a little over a week ago word had spread that finally a State Budget Deal had been reached by the “Big 5″ in Sacramento. 100 days overdue but the baby was finally arriving!

The Speakers Office issued the official Email summoning all Assembly members to report to the State Capitol for Floor Session on Thursday October 7th.  This was good news.  The sticking points had apparently been ironed out. We could meet with our budget team, walk through the agreed upon details in all 28 ( /-) of the budget bills and get this budget done! (and then immediately start worrying about the next budget).

However, a funny thing happened on the way to the Capitol.  Seemed that not all of the details had been thoroughly worked out by the time we arrived to start discussing the details in advance of our floor debate and votes. In fact well over half of the 20 budget bills had not even been printed yet for review by our budget team – much less all of the Legislators who were now expected to vote on them.

When I walked out to my desk on the Assembly floor, I honestly had no idea just how bad the day was going to be with regards to respecting and advancing Good Government practices.  It was truly a (Not-So) Good-Government disaster in the making.

Within short order we were being asked to vote on budget bills that were now either piling up on our desk – or did not exist as yet.  I wasted little time in expressing my frustration when the floor discussions began.

Several websites reported selections from my floor speech:

“I can’t tell you what’s in this budget,” said Assemblymember Kevin Jeffries, who said he has had very little opportunity to review the budget bill which spans three volumes.  “This is not an example of open and transparent government,“ reported the Public Policy research firm Kersten Communications.

The Orange County Register also qouted a portion of my comments: “We talk about open and transparent government, and yet we haven’t had 30 minutes, an hour, to digest all of this – a multi-billion (dollar) decision.”

As the evening progressed, we (Republicans, Democrats and one Independent) actually found ourselves being asked to vote on some bills that were not in print, had not been seen by the public or media, and were only hastily posted on our computer screens as “mock-ups” (drafts) to read and vote at the same time. Many of the votes were occurring between midnight and the sun rising the next morning – conveniently when the taxpaying public was asleep and most of the media had gone home.  Just imagine the public and media outcry if your local city council or county supervisors conducted their budget meeting and votes in this manner!  Several times I was ready to walk off the floor and return to my office to question my sanity.  I guess that’s why we were literally “locked” in the Assembly Chamber and could not leave.

This kind of behavior is why I introduced ACA 8 and ACA 31 this past session, and will reintroduce the reforms again on the first day we are back in session in December.  ACA 8 would have required that all legislation be in print at least 24 hours before a vote could be taken on the bill, and ACA 31 would have prohibited midnight sessions, requiring that all votes occur between 9am and 9pm when the public and their watchdogs can actually see what is happening.  Neither bill even got a hearing in Sacramento, but I will not stop fighting this battle.

I know that I’m sent to Sacramento to make the best decisions I can on your behalf. I take that responsibility very seriously. However the lack of timely details, the rush of last minute amendments, the reports of new deals being cut (including removing one of the state’s largest government employee unions from his pension reforms that were still going to impact public safety personnel), and on occasion the complete failure to provide us with any written details of some bills did cause me to either Oppose or Abstain on numerous budget bills (my wife says that I get a little stubborn on occasion – I of course disagree). To be sure, I did support about a dozen bills that I felt would either help fix some of our on-going budget problems or help in some small way with our economy.

With millions of Californians still out of work, and hundreds of small and large businesses still leaving the State at a record pace – I remain unwavering in my opinion that not enough is being done to turn our state around and get our state government and its crushing regulatory bureaucracy under control.

A dysfunctional Legislature that is NOT united in stopping the flight of good paying private sector jobs to other states, and seems unwilling to take on the powerful bureaucracy – will simply continue to chase its own tail with half-baked budget solutions and ineffective reforms.

We need to stop the midnight votes. We need to drill down into every state agency and every state program and question the effectiveness and purpose of every hard-earned taxpayer dollar that is spent. We need to start listening to the suggestions of successful business owners about what it will take to keep and create jobs in California. We need to put a leash on our bureaucrats and our regulators. We need our teachers to be free of Sacramento mandates and union directives. We need to move more government services out of Sacramento and back to local government. In short – what we really need is for our government to be truly accountable to the people and to put some good ol’ fashioned common sense back in our State Capitol.

Am I asking for too much?

Respectfully,

Kevin Jeffries

Existing law prohibits a deficiency judgment by the holder of a first trust deed on a property that has sold through foreclosure. SB931 extends that protection to short-sellers of a property as well. If the holder of a first trust deed or mortgage gives written consent to a short sale, that lender is obligated to accept the sale proceeds and discharge the remaining amount owed (the deficiency). Prior to this law, lenders could pursue a homeowner even after approving a short sale for the balance of the deficiency. It still allows the holder to pursue the seller in the event they determine there was fraud or waste by the borrower and it does not apply to holders of second or subsequent notes.

The California Association of Realtors was optimistic that the Gov. would also sign our sponsored bill SB1178 that would have extended anti-deficiency protection to owners who had refi-ed their homes only to the extent that the subsequent loan was used to pay debt or costs incurred in the purchase of the home. In other words, if you refi-ed only to get a better interest rate but took no  money out, your original anti-deficiency protections would still accrue.

We all know that during the boom years, banks were quick to offer refi-s but slow to disclose that you were giving up a valuable protection by taking them up on the offer. You sacrificed your anti-deficiency protection when you refi-ed. Arnie sided with the banking lobby and declared that SB1178 would interfere with the contract between the bank and the borrower. No matter that there was no disclosure or explanation of the ramifications. CAR will be looking to again sponsor this bill in the upcoming legislative session in hopes that a new Governor will have a better grasp of the issues.

Governor Schwarzenegger holds the distinction of vetoing more real estate friendly and CA sponsored bills than any previous governor of our state. But he talked such a good line when he came to talk with us – we thought he really meant all his accolades about real estate making him the man he is today. Oh well, he turned out to be much less of a man than we all hoped. Some people light up a room when they enter, others when they leave. Don’t let the door hit ya in the bum on the way out.

By Jon Coupal

Rosy Projections is a powerful player in state government, but when I asked around the Capitol for directions to her office, no one could help me. And I couldn’t find a listing for Ms. Projections in any of the political directories in Sacramento, either.

Still we know Rosy exists, because her fingerprints are all over the state budget.

Let’s see, the budget agreement includes the expectation that the federal government — out of the goodness of its heart — will chip in $5.3 billion dollars to shore up Californians’ profligate spending. Certainly that is proof of Rosy’s influence. And then there are the estimates of future revenue that would only be believed by someone who had just put their life savings into Florida swampland. Surely Rosy had a hand in this, too.

Another player in the budget process is the famous — but never photographed — S. Pecial Deals. Mr. Deals, like his cousin Rosy, always seems to surface at budget time. His “tour de farce” was, of course, the arrangement in 2009 whereby Abel Maldonado demanded that an “open primary” system be placed on the ballot in exchange for his vote on the budget. This payment had nothing to do with the budget and everything to do with advancing his own political career. Mr. Deals is still smiling over that one.

This year, Mr. Deals wasn’t quite so prominent, but he was still around. On display were special carve-outs for a couple of redevelopment agencies — one so it could help finance a major league sports arena — and an ethanol firm (which simply can’t seem to make a profit without government help). But, quite frankly, everyone was so relieved to finally get a budget that these relatively minor instances of soft corruption could be ignored.

Despite the influence of Rosy Projections and S. Pecial Deals, for taxpayers, this was a better budget than we’ve seen in the past. It is certainly better than the budget deal of 2009 which gave us a $12 billion tax increase and would have given us another $16 billion in higher taxes but for the rejection of Prop 1A in May of 2009.

The contention that there are no tax increases in this budget is, at best, a half truth. There is, in fact, a delay in a tax break for certain businesses having to do with “net operating losses.” Technically, this is a tax increase for purposes of Prop 13 and thus requires a two-thirds vote. However, from the perspective of ordinary Californians (the people usually ignored in Sacramento) there were no broad-based tax increases.

For that, we are thankful to both the fiscal conservatives in the Legislature who refused to budge and to a re-energized player on the California political scene, I.M. Angry Taxpayer. Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer were very prominent 30 years ago when, bypassing the Legislature and the budget process altogether, they passed Proposition 13. The political establishment had assumed that Mr. & Mrs. Angry Taxpayer had retired. But, as noted above, they came out of retirement in May of 2009 to send a huge signal to the political elites with the 2 to 1 trashing of Prop 1A.

I.M. Angry Taxpayer is now rejuvenated — having attended several Tea Party events — and learning that there are millions more like him. He and his compatriots are a big reason why the Governor and Legislature knew that tax increases were a non-starter for the budget just enacted.

Make no mistake; this is still a bad, out-of-balance budget full of accounting gimmicks. But, amazingly, fiscal conservatives find themselves in agreement with the Los Angeles Times when it said “the state budget plan is far from perfect, but it’s doubtful that a better deal could have been produced under the circumstances.”

If that’s not damning with faint praise, nothing is.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -– California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

This column can be found on the HJTA website by clicking here.

However, if you are curious, the Southwest California Legislative Council, a business advocacy group composed of business & civic leaders from the Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore & Wildomar Chambers of Commerce (and of which SRCAR is a founding partner), has considered each propositions during the past few months and has published the following positions:

Proposition 19 – Oppose: Legalization & Taxation of Marijuana.

Prop 19 allows people 21 years and older to possess, cultivate or transport marijuana for personal use while permitting local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years and older. Hotly debated, proponents claim this bill would bring billions into our state coffers and eliminate or greatly reduce the hold of organized crime, especially narco-trafficantes, from a legal and regulated market. Opponents simply don’t want it legalized.

Proposition 20 – Support: Voters FIRST Act for Congress

Prop 20 extends the responsibilities of the Citizens Redistricting Commission and gives the commission the authority to draw boundaries for the United States Congressional Districts.

Proposition 21 – Oppose: Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Fund State Parks

Prop 21 establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles and requires deposit of surcharge revenue in new trust fund for parks. There is no nexus – we would all pay a vehicle license tax to support parks.

Proposition 22 – Support: Local Taxpayers, Public Safety & Transportation Act

Prop 22 would prohibit the State from taking, borrowing or re-directing local taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety, emergency response or other vital local government services. Further, the act would protect vital, dedicaed transportation and public funds from state raids.

Proposition 23 – Support: Suspension of AB32 the global climate initiative bill

Also known as the California Jobs Initiative, Prop 23 would delay the implementation and operation of AB32 until California unemployment rate returns to the levels that existed when the bill was passed, 5.5% or less, for four consecutive quarters.

Proposition 24 – Oppose: Repeal of Corporate Tax Breaks

Prop 24 would repeal several corporate tax reforms that are slated to go into effect in 2010 and 2012. The corporate tax reforms were approved by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger in February 2009 as part of the budget agreement. Democrats got their tax increases as a result but now want to renege on the corporate reform portion of the deal.

Proposition 25 – Oppose: Legislative Vote Requirement for Passage of State Budget

Prop 25 changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from 2/3 to s simple majority. The only check & balance we have in this state is 2 Republican votes keeping Democrats from simply raising taxes every time they overspend. This bill further states that if the legislature fails to pass a budget by June 15, all members of the legislature would permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses until the budget is passed. Not nearly enough incentive to forgo our slim safeguard of 2/3 requirement.

Proposition 26 – Support: Legislative Vote Requirement for State Levies & Charges

Prop 26 increases legislative vote requirements to 2/3 for state levies and charges with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject only to majority vote.

Proposition 27 – Oppose: Eliminate State Commission on Redistricting

Prop 27 voids Prop 20 by eliminating the 14 member public redistricting commission and it’s authority and places the authority to set boundaries back with elected representatives responsible for setting their own districts. This gerrymandering approach has resulted in the fact that since 2000 just 1 single legislative seat in Sacramento has changed parties and is responsible for much of the gridlock and dysfunction we are experiencing today.

As always, we encourage you to do your own research and draw your own conclusions about what is best for you and our  state. These suggestions are the result of considerable debate by a 15 member board of local business and civic leaders and represent the consensus of that body, not necessarily the individual opinion of each member.

Remember – I’m a Realtor® and I VOTE. Make YOUR voice heard on November 2.

By Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth

As seen in the FlashReport

Sustainability should be the benchmark taxpayers use to measure state budget proposals. It’s obvious that past state budgets have postponed real solutions, proved unsustainable, and led to the current budget mess.

This year legislators face another budget crisis and another round of budget proposals. The difference between the budgets Republicans and Democrats are offering is simple: the Republican budget is sustainable; the Democrat budget is not.

The Democrats’ budget depends on plans to raise taxes by $4.5 billion. That act alone will take money away from consumers, drive more employers out of California — or simply out of business, and continue the fiscal death spiral that grips the state. Democrats want these new taxes to pay for $3 billion in welfare programs that California can no longer afford. There’s a certain consistency in their thinking. Democrats know their policies will result in more Californians losing jobs and turning to government assistance, so they want to “help” the taxpayers they’ve pushed over the edge.

Their tax measures offer more unsustainable ideas. They propose to convert “temporary” taxes to permanent taxes–even though voters rejected those taxes by a two-to-one margin last year. They propose raising income taxes on most people earning $20,000 to $200,000 a year at a time when the middle class is already straining to make ends meet. They propose to raise taxes on employers and delay business incentives, when jobs are already leaving the state.

The incontestable truth is that government cannot spend its way to prosperity. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar that was first taken out of the economy in the form of taxes. Last year, personal income in California dropped by $40 billion. Increasing taxes now will only accelerate that decline. Unemployment has reached heights not seen since the 1940s. With less money to spend, most people are cutting back wherever they can—reducing economic activity and tax revenues yet again.

The Democrats’ tax-hike budget will further corrode California’s economy, and that’s simply not sustainable.

Republicans propose to pare the state budget back to a sustainable level by cutting unaffordable programs while maintaining education funding at last year’s levels. The Republican budget avoids new taxes, leaving those hard-won dollars to be spent by the consumers and businesses that earned them.

Protecting middle-class wage earners, shunning job-killing taxes, and delivering promised incentives to private sector employers are vital steps in a sustainable plan to restore prosperity and encourage job creation. Restraining spending is another, equally important step, needed to break the cycle of tax-and-spend government growth. Republicans aim to bring government spending into line with existing state revenues, just like ordinary Californians must do every month to sustain their household budgets.

Residents of the Golden State are waiting to see whether legislators will choose another tax-and-spend budget that can’t be sustained, or whether they will arrive at a sustainable budget that matches government spending to income and protects hard-working taxpayers. Given the heavily weighted Democrat majority, the Legislature is unlikely to adopt a strong, sustainable budget. Unless Democrats adopt the Republican budget proposal—the only sustainable budget plan—our state will base its economic future once again on Democrat schemes and dreams, not reality.