Residents of this California city are outraged by a new 38-home development approved by state law. Here's why
In an effort to alleviate this ongoing housing crisis, the state recently passed new laws designed to encourage building more homes at a faster pace. However, not everyone likes the new rules, including the residents of Corona, California.
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10)
Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how
Some are furious about the impending development of 38 housing units by Tricon Residential, according to KCAL News.
Prior to the new state laws, Corona City Council approved the company building 19 units in the housing development. But, the recent laws that went into effect allowed Tricon Residential to double the number of accessory-dwelling-units (ADUs) built within the same lot.
At this point, the City Council can't do much. Essentially, the state law allows for this change to the proposed development with little recourse for the locals.
'I don't want a cracker box across the street,' local resident Paulette Perry said in an interview with KCAL News. 'I want something that looks like our neighborhood.'
The location of the proposed two-story housing development is nestled into a neighborhood filled with single-family homes. Most of which were built in the 1960s and 1970s, which gives the neighborhood a classic look.
'They're overpopulating our little area here,' Perry told KCAL News. 'You're not building to our neighborhood, you're building way too high."
Perry's petition to stop the development from moving forward amassed 172 signatures. But even with this upswell of community support against the additional housing units, there's little the City Council can do.
Tom Richins, a Corona City Council member, claims the new state laws keep the city's hands tied.
"You either vote their way, or the city faces lawsuits," he told KCAL. 'It's just turned into: We need more houses, however you can jam pack 'em in, the state would like you to do that."
Read more: The US stock market's 'fear gauge' has exploded — but this 1 'shockproof' asset is up 14% and helping American retirees stay calm. Here's how to own it ASAP
Because of the state laws recently introduced, it's likely the housing project will keep moving forward with 38 total units.
Richins told KCAL News that developers can now rake in extra cash under the guise of creating affordable housing.
These new housing units won't be available for sale. Instead, new residents of this built-to-rent community have the opportunity to rent out the units for a monthly rate similar to a mortgage payment.
With Tricon properties rented out in the mid-to-high $3,000 per month range, these rent-ready houses aren't necessarily an affordable option for everyone. Especially when compared to the median gross rent of housing in the area at $2,136.
Since the number of units doubled, it seems likely that Tricon Residential will stand to earn significantly more in rental income by creating additional units.
Tricon Residential's Corona project is being developed in partnership with Foremost Pacific Group and Woodbridge Pacific Group.
The intent of this built-to-rent community is to increase access to single-family living accommodations for families who can't afford to buy a place but can afford to rent a space.
'We are proud to partner with Tricon on this much-needed community, which will expand rental housing opportunities for families in Corona,' said Andrew Murphy, Chief Investment Officer at Foremost Pacific Group in an interview with Yield Pro. 'Tricon Corona is thoughtfully designed to provide residents with high-quality homes in a great neighborhood, with the convenience of professional management and access to great local amenities.'
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, more than 50% of all adults say housing costs are a financial strain. With average home prices in Corona sitting at $772,888 and median household incomes sitting at $106,438, it could take a significant boost to housing supply to bring prices down to a level that residents can afford.
Generally, experts recommend not spending more than 28% to 30% of your gross income on housing. For a household with a take-home income of $106,000, that means they can spend roughly $2,473 per month on housing costs, like a mortgage, to stay within this guideline. That's significantly lower than the potential monthly rental costs of this new housing development.
Unfortunately for the concerned Corona citizens, the project seems unlikely to stall. But it's unclear if built-to-rent communities will solve the housing crisis in California.
Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you?
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
15 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's EPA puts California in its crosshairs with its proposed car rules
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recent proposal to repeal its own 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health marks a major U-turn for the nation's climate progress. While it's impact will be felt nationwide, the plan takes direct aim at California. In supporting documents released in the wake of Tuesday's proposal, the nation's top environmental agency outlined the justifications for its plan to rescind the so-called endangerment finding and roll back its longstanding regulations for planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from all motor vehicles, including cars and trucks. 'As a result of these proposed changes, engine and vehicle manufacturers would no longer have any future obligations for the measurement, control, and reporting of [greenhouse gas] emissions for any highway engine and vehicle,' the agency wrote in its rule summary. But the documents, including an 80-page notice of proposed rulemaking and 60-page draft regulatory impact analysis, also contain several nods to California policies, referencing the state by name 27 times — by far more than any other state. That's largely because for more than 50 years, California has been granted unique authority from the EPA to set stricter tailpipe emissions than those mandated by the federal government. This authority, obtained through waivers issued by the EPA, has been critical to the state's efforts to address its notorious smog and air quality issues, which are driven partly by transportation emissions and by California's unique topography that traps pollutants in its interior basins. The waivers were also the basis for California's nation-leading plan to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035 and transition to electric vehicles. The EPA's documents repeatedly state that California's waivers have officially been repealed. As of publication, however, the Trump administration's unprecedented effort to do so in June is still winding its way through the court system following a lawsuit from the state. Notably, the EPA's own analysis of the possible outcomes of its proposal indicate that without California's leadership — and without the tax credits created under President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act — national adoption of electric vehicles will decline. At the same time, gasoline prices will increase because of the higher demand from more gas-powered vehicles on the road. 'They don't seem to have put together that strong of a case,' said Chris Busch, director of transportation and a senior economist with Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank, who reviewed the analysis. 'What this shows is that the net impact is less favorable when you reduce the California [Advanced Clean Trucks rule], when you take away the California waivers and remove the IRA credits.' In a statement this week, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said repealing the endangerment finding would have economic benefits for the American people. 'If finalized, rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations would end $1 trillion or more in hidden taxes on American businesses and families,' Zeldin said. According to the EPA, that $1-trillion savings would come from rescinding vehicle regulations built upon the endangerment finding. That includes the Biden administration's electric vehicles sales target, which the agency refers to as an 'EV mandate.' The EPA also said removing the endangerment finding would save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards. Busch said he could not readily see how the agency arrived at that figure based on the analysis provided. With California's rules repealed, 'you end up with fewer EVs, more gasoline cars, more demand for gas and higher gas prices,' he said. The EPA also argues that electric vehicles are sucking up energy that could be better used elsewhere — 'from factories to data-center servers to air-conditioning.' It uses California as an example of this perceived misappropriation of electricity, pointing to a 2022 memo from the California Independent System operator that urged people to reduce energy use, including EV charging, during a record-breaking heat wave. The EPA's announcement stunned many members of the environmental community who condemned it as a dangerous abdication of the agency's mission to protect human health and the environment. Among the agency's many claims are that no technology currently exists to reduce greenhouse gases enough to measurably affect global climate change concerns without risking greater harm to public health and welfare, such as increased vehicle prices. But major U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford have already committed to an electric future — as have international competitors such as China, which is investing heavily in electric vehicles. According to the California Energy Commission, about 22% of new vehicles sales in the state in the second quarter of this year were zero-emission vehicles. 'Despite Trump's full-on attack, Californians are choosing the clean simplicity of ZEVs,' read a statement from CEC Commissioner Nancy Skinner. 'Make no mistake: California is not backing down from its ZEV goals. We will continue to heavily invest in accessible and reliable ZEV infrastructure, making the ZEV driving experience better each day.' Busch said California has several tools at its disposal to defend itself and preserve its clean vehicle progress. In the heavy-duty space, the California Air Resources Board already has the Clean Truck Partnership — an agreement with nearly all truck manufacturers in the state to meet advanced emissions reduction targets. The state's heavy vehicle incentive program also provides funding opportunities for fleet owners to replace older heavy-duty diesel vehicles with zero-emission ones. There are also legislative possibilities, such as Assembly Bill 914, which would give CARB more authority to regulate indirect sources of pollution such as warehouses. One way those warehouses could meet those rules would be by increasing their electric truck fleets, Busch said. CARB also employs a clean-mile standard for transportation companies such as Uber and Lyft, which will see them gradually increase their zero-emission miles, and a similar tactic could be employed for the freight sector, he said. 'States have a lot of options still,' Busch said. 'There is a lot of momentum.' In a statement this week, CARB chair Liane Randolph described the EPA's proposals as 'the latest moves from this feckless federal government that choose polluter fantasyland over proven science.' 'Meanwhile, back on Earth, the planet continues to suffer from the consequences of unchecked carbon pollution as heatwaves, floods and wildfires threaten increasingly uninsurable communities everywhere,' Randolph said. 'Unlike this negligent administration, California won't turn our backs on what is happening right before our eyes. We choose reality, science and innovation — and we know we are not the only ones.'
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Smithsonian explains why a Trump reference was removed from impeachment exhibit
The Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., has removed references to President Donald Trump in a display about impeachments, despite Trump being the first and only president in American history to be impeached twice. But the museum says the move is temporary. The Washington Post first reported the change on Thursday, July 31. On Friday, Aug. 1, the Smithsonian clarified the museum's removal. Here's what we know. Smithsonian: Display restored to 2008 appearance The "impeachment" display is housed within the larger, permanent gallery called "The American Presidency," which opened in 2000, according to an emailed statement from the Smithsonian. It features information and artifacts about Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, according to the display's companion website. Nixon resigned before he could be formally impeached. In September 2021, a "temporary label on content concerning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump" was added, according to the Smithsonian's statement. "It was intended to be a short-term measure to address current events at the time, however, the label remained in place until July 2025." The display has since been returned to how it appeared nearly 20 years ago, according to the Smithsonian statement and the Washington Post's report, which also noted that the exhibit now says, "only three presidents have seriously faced removal," omitting Trump. 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed," the museum's statement said. "Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the 'Impeachment' case back to its 2008 appearance." Website highlights other impeached presidents The companion website for the display does not include a dedicated section for the Trump impeachments but notes in an introductory sentence, "The House of Representatives impeached Andrew Johnson in 1868, William J. Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and again in 2021. In all four cases the Senate voted to acquit." It includes sections about Johnson's impeachment, including tickets and newspaper clips from the time; Nixon's Senate hearing and resignation, including testimony papers and photos from the proceedings; and Clinton's trial, with tickets and Senate question cards. 'All impeachments' coming in the future "A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments," the Smithsonian statement said, noting that updating and renewing permanent galleries"requires a significant amount of time and funding." The Smithsonian declined to answer further questions about the change and the timeline for an updated exhibit. The controversy around the Smithsonian's change to the display comes after the White House in May pushed for the removal of art director Kim Sajet from her role as director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, citing her "strong support" of "DEI." In March, Trump also signed an executive order demanding the removal of "anti-American ideology" from the Smithsonian and other cultural institutions.
Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Fires Labor Statistics Chief After Jobs Report
President Donald Trump directed his Administration on Friday to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after the agency released a report that showed that the U.S. added fewer jobs in July than many economists had expected, indicating that job growth has stalled in the aftermath of Trump enacting a number of controversial economic policies. The President slammed Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the bureau, on Truth Social, saying that the country's jobs report was "being produced by a Biden Appointee." "We need accurate Jobs Numbers," Trump said in his post. "I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes." The report, released earlier in the day, found that the U.S. added 73,000 jobs last month. The unemployment rate increased slightly, from 4.1% in June to 4.2% in July. The data come after economists have expressed concern that the Trump Administration's flip-flopping tariff policies and sweeping layoffs at federal agencies could slow economic growth. Some Democratic lawmakers slammed the Administration upon the release of the Labor Department's report. 'American families deserve an economy that works for them. But under president Trump, job growth is slowing, costs keep rising, and the Big Ugly Law is stripping health care from millions,' Democratic Rep. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, said in a press release. 'While he hands out tax breaks to billionaires and stokes reckless trade wars, middle-class families are left paying the price.' Read More: Why Growing the Economy from the Bottom Up is America's Best Bet Here's what to know about the latest jobs data. The report made significant revisions to data from past months In addition to releasing July employment data, the Labor Department also revised data from May and June based on recalculations and additional information received from businesses and government agencies. The revisions, the report says, 'were larger than normal.' Employment in May and June combined is 258,000 lower than what the department previously reported. Those revisions meant that only 19,000 jobs were added in May (before, the department had reported 144,000) and just 14,000 jobs were added in June (the department had previously reported 147,000). The significant revisions to the data suggests that the labor market may be struggling more than experts previously thought. The federal government sector continued to lose jobs Federal government employment fell again in July, with a loss of 12,000 jobs, according to the report. The sector has lost 84,000 jobs since the start of the year. The report notes that employees who are on paid leave or are receiving ongoing severance pay are considered employed, and so are not included in this tally. The Trump Administration has initiated mass layoffs across a number of federal agencies in recent months, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, among others. Read More: Achieving Sustainable Growth Requires Rethinking the Economy The manufacturing industry lost jobs for the third month in a row The U.S. also lost 11,000 manufacturing jobs last month, marking the third month in a row that employment has declined in that industry. The sector lost 15,000 jobs in June and 11,000 in May. The Trump Administration has said that tariffs would help manufacturers and push Americans to buy products domestically. But reports have indicated that manufacturers have struggled as tariffs have driven up the cost of materials from other countries. Where jobs are still growing Employment continued to increase in two industries: health care and social assistance. The health care industry added 55,000 jobs in July, above the average monthly addition of 42,000 jobs over the prior 12 months. Job gains in that sector last month occurred particularly in ambulatory health care services and hospitals, according to the report. About 18,000 jobs were added in social assistance last month. According to the Wall Street Journal, health care and social assistance are industries that typically thrive regardless of the state of the economy.
