Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on Wednesday announced $118.9 million in new federal funding aimed at expanding affordable housing and supportive services in 29 rural and tribal communities across the state.
The funding, drawn from three federally backed programs, will support the development of 487 affordable rental homes, emergency shelters, rapid rehousing initiatives, and outreach services designed to help low-income and unhoused Californians achieve housing stability.
“Our nation’s housing crisis doesn’t end at city limits, and we must ensure housing and services are available to all members of our communities,” said Governor Newsom in a statement. “We are grateful for this additional federal funding to ensure that our rural and tribal communities receive the housing support they need and deserve.”
The awards include $89 million in HOME-ARP Rental Housing grants to ten projects, including $18.7 million directed to the Yurok Indian Housing Authority and the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians to build 31 affordable units.
“These awards help address our homelessness crisis and meet the critical needs of these residents,” said HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez. “Federal support ensures the state continues its stride toward providing housing stability and affordability for all.”
The funding stems from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, which allocated $5 billion nationwide to reduce homelessness. California received $512 million directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), while another $155 million was administered by HCD for use in rural and non-entitlement jurisdictions.
In addition to the rental housing grants, six projects were awarded a total of $26.4 million through HCD’s Housing Plus Support Program, designed to assist households currently experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Tomiquia Moss, Secretary of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, emphasized the importance of extending housing investment beyond major metropolitan areas. “The state works diligently to provide and channel funding to all counties… This funding does just that and I pledge our continued support for local governments in their work to lessen and eliminate homelessness and create more affordable housing,” Moss said.
The projects span a wide array of counties, including Del Norte, El Dorado, Kings, Lake, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, and Placer, and are aimed at serving qualifying populations such as people experiencing homelessness, survivors of domestic violence or trafficking, and others at high risk of housing instability.
Massive amounts of land are first being given to tribes (to which they had no legal claim). State agencies and environmental groups are behind this.
Tribes already have more than 56 million acres across the country, an entire Federal agency dedicated to their well-being, exclusive government benefits, a casino monopoly in California, etc.
And now, the governor wants to fund their housing (on land he just gave to them), as well. Again, this is happening in California.
The land surrounding the Klamath River is just one example. The governor gave it to them for housing. (And yet, the media went-along with the line that the tribe was simply interested in “restoring the river”.) Turns out (“surprise, surprise”) that this was nothing but b.s.
There are many, many examples of this “land back” movement, including 10,000 acres of land “purchased” by the Hoopa tribe for logging, which now has 102,000 acres . (But look who “funded” that purchase.)
“The purchase came from both private funds and public grants, and was organized by the tribe and the nonprofit Conservation Fund, after the Australian landowners put the plot up for sale in 2022, the tribe said. The California State Coastal Conservancy also provided financial support.”
Another example includes what appears to be a private compound on the Marin coast GIFTED to the politically-connected, casino-owning Graton tribe. (The same tribe that is actively opposing efforts by a different tribe to establish their own casino.) I believe this 500 acre ranch on the Marin coast includes a ranch house.
The leader of the Graton tribe was appointed to the UC Board of Regents by Newsom.
https://norcalpublicmedia.org/2024090996246/news-feed/graton-tribe-gifted-nearly-500-acre-west-marin-property
I can post many, many other examples of what’s occurring “under the radar” in conjunction with environmental groups and state agencies.
What we have here is a “de-facto” unending, undefined, and unapproved (by voters) continuing reparation based upon having the right skin color at birth.
Meanwhile, black people received a big fat “nothing” from the state.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-land-bought-by-tribe-18568505.php
Correction: It is difficult (or perhaps impossible) to determine exactly what the Hoopa tribe plans to do with the additional 10,000 acres that was purchased using external grants. They are a tribe engaged in logging (and have other massive holdings), but I’m reading that this site might also be used for “carbon sequestration” – which I assume could mean that they’ll get paid for “not” logging it (or not logging portions of it). (Carbon offsets – paid by companies so that they can continue creating greenhouse gasses elsewhere?)
But I have another question regarding the “land back” movement, when it involves government funds. Often times, I see just about every site referred to as “sacred” (other than where they park their casinos, I guess). But my question is this: Isn’t our government supposed to avoid blending-together religion and state interests, in regard to “religious / sacred” sites? Especially when it involves the use of public funds?
” I see just about every site referred to as “sacred” ”
While visiting protest lands against the coal mine near Big Mountain, AZ, a Dineh told me, “That’s what they (white people) don’t get: it’s all sacred.”
Well, except for the sites that they park their casinos on (as noted). Or where they engage in logging, park their cars, etc.
I call “b.s.” on the claim that the reason they need more land privatized on their behalf is so that they can engage in “native” private practices. Not when they’re driving around in cars, living in modern houses with electricity, operating casinos, speaking English, etc. Hell, there’s “white” people who live closer to the way that native people once did. (All you have to do is visit Slab City or any number of the other “off-the-grid” living situations.)
But my point is that the U.S. government is “reportedly” not supposed to be spending public funds on religion. So if a site is privatized for a tribe because it is “sacred” to them (using public funds), that would seem questionable. And yet, that’s a lot of the justification I’m seeing used, at times.
These are generally lands that would end up in public hands, were it not for the privatization effort on behalf of tribes. (Which is a relatively new phenomenon.)