- “We cannot solve either the homelessness or housing affordability crisis without creating new housing. Today’s announcement will create thousands of new homes for California families, helping hundreds of thousands of people access housing.” – Governor Gavin Newsom
By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO — Thousands of new homes are coming to cities across California as part of Governor Gavin Newsom’s strategy to boost affordability and tackle homelessness. The California Department of Housing and Community Development announced the award of more than $414 million through a streamlined finance program, supporting the development of 2,099 homes, with 2,068 reserved for low- to extremely low-income Californians.
“We cannot solve either the homelessness or housing affordability crisis without creating new housing. Today’s announcement will create thousands of new homes for California families, helping hundreds of thousands of people access housing,” Governor Newsom said.
The awards mark a continuation of the governor’s approach since 2019, when he became the first California governor to make housing and homelessness a top statewide priority. Newsom has pushed reforms to increase housing inventory and affordability while streamlining a system long criticized for delays and high costs.
Tomiquia Moss, Secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, said the investment would accelerate solutions. “Over $400 million committed to communities across the state will expedite and expand opportunities to build affordable housing and make much-needed infrastructure improvements,” Moss said. “These awards will galvanize the collective public-private response to serve low-income households, including seniors, veterans, large families and residents with special needs, and accelerate climate and health outcomes in neighborhoods across California.”
Gustavo Velasquez, Director of HCD, said the governor’s reforms have already transformed the state’s housing finance system. “Governor Newsom’s creation of the Multifamily Finance Super NOFA was a major step in streamlining a complex housing finance system to reduce costs and allow more affordable homes to be built,” Velasquez said. “His creation of the California Housing and Homelessness Agency will give us the tools to build on this and other Department successes in addressing housing availability and affordability at scale—tackling a crisis decades in the making and strengthening communities throughout California.”
The $414.2 million announced this week includes $244.1 million in MultiFamily Housing program funds to support 10 projects with 769 units; $128.9 million in Farmworker Housing Grant program funds for 10 projects with 345 units; $28.5 million in Infill Infrastructure Grant Program awards for 553 units, including homes for seniors, large families, and residents with special needs; and $12.7 million in Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program funds to create 87 homes for veterans.
The projects are spread across 16 counties and include homes reserved at various affordability levels. Of the 2,099 homes, 794 are for extremely low-income Californians, 866 for those earning 31–50 percent of area median income, and 408 for households at 51–80 percent.
The announcement follows the Newsom administration’s recent awards of $106.2 million from Proposition 1 funding for supportive Homekey+ housing units serving veterans and Californians with behavioral health challenges. The state is also reviewing $1.03 billion in additional Homekey+ applications for veterans and $1.11 billion for other Californians at risk of homelessness with behavioral health needs.
Since the launch of the Multifamily Finance Super NOFA (Notice of Funding Available) in 2020, California has awarded $1.62 billion to support the development of 12,676 affordable homes, projected to serve nearly 250,000 people. The program consolidates four separate funding streams into a single application process to cut costs and reduce delays.
The Newsom administration has also pursued broader reforms, including CEQA streamlining, conservatorship law updates, and new CARE courts to address untreated mental illness. In 2024, voters approved Proposition 1, a $6.4 billion behavioral health bond to expand treatment centers and housing with services.
California has reported stronger results compared to national trends. Between 2014 and 2019, unsheltered homelessness grew by about 37,000 people statewide. Since then, growth has slowed considerably. In 2024, while homelessness increased nationally by more than 18 percent, California limited its overall increase to 3 percent, with a 0.45 percent rise in unsheltered homelessness compared to nearly 7 percent nationally. The state also recorded the nation’s largest reduction in veteran homelessness and made progress in reducing youth homelessness.
The governor’s office emphasized that these new awards will continue building momentum in reversing decades of inaction on housing and homelessness, and state officials said the impact will be felt in communities across California for years to come.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Massive subsidy into developer pockets and no local control. What could go wrong?
Local control has failed to provide the housing that California needs. The State is taking control in many different ways and rightly so. Especially in places like Davis.
I hope Davis is trying to get some of that money.
Every single dollar that is pursued by one city is one less dollar available to any other city.
Not seeing where this fixed amount is derived from in the first place. But it’s not going to go very far if they use it to build $9 million dollar houses in Marin county, for example (in reference to the governor’s new residence). Not to mention the multi-acre compound he’s hanging onto in Sacramento.
It might buy more than a few dinners at The French Laundry with a lobbyist friend, however (assuming that any particular patron has to personally pay for it).
Nonsense.
Which part? All of my statements above are factually true. They don’t even fall into the realm of “opinion”.
As a side note, he also doesn’t send his kids to public schools. Looks like a “posh” private school in Marin was part of his motivation to move there.
https://nypost.com/2024/06/26/real-estate/gavin-newsom-moves-family-from-sacramento-to-ritzy-marin-county-for-60k-per-year-private-school/
The second paragraph is not factually true because you can’t use affordable housing money to build a $9 million home
And the third paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. So based on that only the first paragraph is accurate and kind of a duh statement.
Did I say that these funds ARE going to be used for $9 million dollar homes (or even the $4.5 million dollar compound he has in Sacramento)?
I only attended public institutions, but I do know how to spell “elite”, $60K/year private schools, and dinner with lobbyists at The French Laundry. (And no doubt, that’s only a very “partial” list.)
While essentially calling those of lesser means (and resulting inability to have input regarding surroundings) “NIMBYs” whose concerns are “not legitimate” and who must be punished via the full force of the state.
Hitler also had a pretty nice compound up in the mountains. :-)
You said: “ But it’s not going to go very far if they use it to build $9 million dollar houses in Marin county, for example”
And did you think that’s what they would do?
Put your thinking cap on regarding the reason I put forth that comment. (You seem to have trouble with this, as you did with Beth Bourne’s reason for stripping down to her bathing suit.)
In any case, $1 million “tops” per unit, I would think – depending on location. (Probably somewhere between $500K – $1 million – which also isn’t going to go very far.)
But they sure aren’t going to be next door to Newsom’s place – even at that relatively-expensive price for “affordable” units.
Where, exactly, is this money coming from?
As I said initially…. Ron Glick said your post was nonsense and by definition at least 70 percent was.
You still seem to be missing the point. For your sake, I actually hope it’s a “purposeful” misunderstanding (as it otherwise wouldn’t reflect well on your comprehension).
But if you’re truly misunderstanding this, perhaps it would have helped if you were also able to attend a $60K per year private school, when you were younger.