In a move that once again attempts to address California’s homeownership crisis and racial disparities in wealth, Assemblymember Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) has introduced AB 595, the “Building Homeownership for All Act.”
The legislation, co-sponsored by California YIMBY, California Community Builders, and UnidosUS, proposes the creation of a new state tax credit for homebuilders that would incentivize the construction of income-restricted, for-sale homes affordable to moderate-income Californians.
AB 595 represents a shift in the state’s housing strategy by focusing on the supply side of affordable homeownership—an area historically overlooked by state policy. Instead of relying solely on down payment assistance to help prospective buyers access the market, AB 595 seeks to make it financially viable for developers to build homes that working families can actually afford to purchase.
“For far too many Californians, the dream of homeownership remains just that — a dream,” said Assemblymember Carrillo. “AB 595 is a bold step toward changing that reality by making it financially feasible to build the affordable for-sale homes our working families need. Homeownership is more than just a milestone; it’s a foundation for economic security and generational wealth.”
California has long faced one of the nation’s worst housing affordability crises, but the ownership side of the market is increasingly out of reach for working families. As of Q3 2023, only 15% of Californians could afford the median-priced home, according to data from the California Association of Realtors. The statewide homeownership rate sits below 55%, and California now ranks second to last among U.S. states in homeownership rates.
These figures reflect not just an affordability problem, but also a structural failure in housing policy. While the state has invested heavily in rental housing and has robust programs to assist first-time homebuyers with down payments and mortgage financing, it has not provided comparable support to homebuilders who face steep land, labor, and materials costs.
“Too many of California’s families are being denied the benefits of homeownership as a result of the state’s inability to build enough homes to make homeownership affordable,” said Konstantin Hatcher, Senior Director of Community Impact at California YIMBY. “It makes sense to couple our successful down payment programs with similar construction incentives—and give more hard-working Californians, many of whom have been historically denied this opportunity, a shot at achieving the California dream.”
The legislation also seeks to correct long-standing racial disparities in homeownership and wealth. Due to decades of redlining, exclusionary zoning, and other discriminatory housing practices, Black and Latino Californians continue to be locked out of ownership opportunities. According to the AB 595 factsheet, African American homeownership rates are 26% lower and Latino homeownership rates are 19% lower than those of white Californians. Meanwhile, Black and Latino families in California hold just $0.23 in wealth for every $1 of wealth held by white families.
“This bill is an important step toward making the dream of homeownership a reality for those too often left behind, including the 1.9 million mortgage-ready Latinos in California between ages 18 and 45,” said Esmeralda López, California State Director at UnidosUS. “Last November, Latino voters made it clear that they want their government and elected officials to tackle the rising cost of living, which includes the need for affordable housing. We commend Assemblymember Carrillo for introducing this bill and look forward to working through the approval process.”
While several state and local initiatives have sought to promote homeownership equity through buyer-side assistance, AB 595 addresses a missing link—supply-side economics that encourage developers to build homes priced for the communities that need them most.
AB 595 authorizes the California State Treasurer’s Office to design a pilot tax credit program that would incentivize developers to construct for-sale homes affordable to moderate-income households. Specifically, the legislation directs the Treasurer to:
- Design tax credits to reduce the cost of constructing income-restricted, for-sale homes;
- Ensure homes built under the program are consistent with income and price restrictions similar to existing first-time homebuyer programs;
- Allow tax credits to be syndicated or transferred to encourage broader investor participation;
- Create administrative procedures for transparent, efficient allocation and monitoring;
- Coordinate with existing programs to avoid displacing rental housing incentives.
The homes would be available to moderate-income buyers, broadly defined as those earning between 80% and 120% of area median income (AMI)—a group often too “rich” for low-income subsidies but too “poor” to afford market-rate homes. By focusing on this underserved middle band, the program could help unlock ownership for teachers, nurses, retail workers, and other essential workers priced out of the current market.
“This is a common-sense solution to a persistent problem,” said Adam Briones, CEO of California Community Builders. “Californians are tired of hearing how much our state government values homeownership while at the same time seeing that dream slip further out of their reach. AB 595 is an opportunity for our state to make affordable homeownership a reality. This is the year we do something about it.”
Part of the urgency behind AB 595 stems from the decline of existing homeownership support programs. The CalHOME program, one of California’s only state-funded tools for building affordable ownership housing, was allocated $152 million in the 2024–25 budget, but that amount was cut to zero in the May Revise, putting future construction at risk. In the absence of replacement tools, AB 595 offers a potential path forward for developers who want to serve middle-income buyers but can’t make the math work under current market conditions.
“Homeownership is one of the most powerful drivers of generational wealth,” said Hatcher of California YIMBY. “It’s unacceptable that we continue to deny that opportunity to millions of Californians—especially communities of color—because we haven’t built the right policy tools. AB 595 can help change that.”
The bill has just been introduced and will be referred to committees in the coming weeks. Advocates expect strong debate but hope the proposal’s unique mix of economic pragmatism and equity-driven reform will attract bipartisan support.
“California needs to do more than talk about closing the racial wealth gap—we need to act,” said Carrillo. “With AB 595, we are putting forward a real solution that addresses both the supply and affordability challenges in one of the most urgent sectors of our housing market.”
If passed, AB 595 would be the first state program of its kind—a targeted, scalable tax credit specifically aimed at creating new for-sale homes for California’s working families.
AB 595 represents a shift in the state’s housing strategy by focusing on the supply side of affordable homeownership—an area historically overlooked by state policy.
(Are you kidding me? The ONLY thing that the state has focused on is “supply”. They NEVER look at the creators of “demand” and the reduced demand which has already occurred.)
“Instead of relying solely on down payment assistance to help prospective buyers access the market, . . . ”
“The legislation, co-sponsored by California YIMBY, California Community Builders, and Unidos US, proposes the creation of a new state tax credit for homebuilders that would incentivize the construction of income-restricted, for-sale homes affordable to moderate-income Californians.”
(So, would they be PERMANENTLY income-restricted upon subsequent sale?) And assuming that there’s no current tax credit for homebuilders (not sure that’s even true), where would the state then “make up for” the money that they’re giving developers?)
“Homeownership is one of the most powerful drivers of generational wealth,” said Hatcher of California YIMBY. “It’s unacceptable that we continue to deny that opportunity to millions of Californians—especially communities of color—because we haven’t built the right policy tools. AB 595 can help change that.”
(I guess California YIMBY and the sponsor of this bill thinks that pulling out the race card will help them. What a vile group that is. But I understood that California YIMBY is “against” building of wealth via property ownership. Did I get that wrong? Also, if these properties are PERMANENTLY income-restricted, that would impact wealth-building by the owners. (But again, there’s no indication that they’d be permanently income-restricted in the first place.)
(Allow me to finish that sentence: ” . . . they will now give that money to developers, instead”.
Look at who YIMBY is partnering with on this one…
Seems to already be listed in the article. Should I be impressed?
In any case, one of my quotes got messed-up:
“Instead of relying solely on down payment assistance to help prospective buyers access the market, . . . ”
(Allow me to finish that sentence: “. . . they will now give that money to developers, instead”.)
But I think the most-important question is whether or not the houses would be permanently income-restricted. And if so, how that would be monitored/ensured in the future.
I don’t expect you to be impressed – ever – the point is that the background of those groups explains the focus of the legislation. That’s all.
There’s reasons I’m not impressed, some of which I’ve already gone over.
Have you ever considered changing your approach to our interactions, I was simply trying to provide you with background to help you understand the focus of the legislation, not argue with you. Everything doesn’t have to be a debate with us.
Perhaps if you explained the reasons why you put forth comments like that, I’d have a different response. But I suspect you’re not going to like THAT response, either. (See my subsequent comment below regarding vile race-baiting – especially from organizations which have entirely different motives than what they claim, which I believe is what you’re likely referring to.)
I take it the answer is that you do not wish to have a less combative interchange.
It’s not what I wish for. What I actually wish for is for the Vanguard to cease operating as a non-profit mouthpiece for development interests.
And to actually do some real investigative journalism (“behind the scenes”) regarding all issues, not just this one. Instead of just printing press release-type articles.
But one other issue I’d bring up (not just in regard to this article) is that I’m less-inclined these days to assume that a given group is sticking to its original mission.
I’ve noticed some significant changes in regard to the ACLU, various environmental groups, etc.
Ultimately, it seems like one of the best pieces of “analytic advice” is to follow the money. (That’s where investigative journalism has a role to play.)
But if we really want to dive into the race thing:
“Last November, Latino voters made it clear that they want their government and elected officials to tackle the rising cost of living . . .”
That’s why there was a significant shift in that population’s support for Donald Trump. Just sayin’, cause it’s true.
By the way, why aren’t Asians ever mentioned in race-baiting articles?