Citrus Valley AOR joined 2,500 REALTORS® who descended on Sacramento on Legislative Day to stump for homeownership and property rights. You too can have a say, go to to find out more!

car header

*AB 71 (Chiu) – Mortgage Interest Deduction for 2nd Homes – OPPOSE

*C.A.R. Opposing Bill that Would Eliminate Mortgage
Interest Deduction on Second Homes


C.A.R. is OPPOSING UNLESS AMENDED AB 71 (Chiu) a bill that would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for second homes to fund an increase in low-income housing tax credits. While C.A.R. supports increasing the amount of tax credits available for low-income housing, the association is opposed to doing so at the expense of the mortgage interest deduction for second homes. AB 71 will be voted on by the entire Assembly as soon as TOMORROW – Wednesday, May 31st.

Action Item

Urge your Assembly Member to Vote NO on AB 71

Call 1-800-798-6593

Enter your NRDS ID (or the Red Alert PIN number in the chart below)

followed by the # sign to be connected to your legislator’s office.

When staff answers the phone, you can use the following script:  

“Hi, this is (insert your name). I’m a constituent and a REALTOR®. Please ask the Assembly Member to Vote No on AB 71.”

Also, if you use Twitter™, please Tweet the following:

Govt shouldn’t change the rules. , please protect the MID.  #NoAB71


Assembly Member PIN Number Twitter™ Handle
Chris Holden 3446 @ChrisHoldenNews
Blanca Rubio 5455 @Blanca_E_Rubio
Freddie Rodriguez 8335 @AsmRodriguez52
Ian Calderon 4670 @IanAD57


*Background and Talking Points

While C.A.R. supports increasing the amount of tax credits available for low-income housing, we are opposed to doing so at the expense of the mortgage interest deduction for second homes.

AB 71 (Chiu) would eliminate the mortgage interest deduction (MID) for second homes to fund an increase in low-income housing tax credits. If the MID were eliminated for second homes, 2,152 home sales would be lost in the first year after implementation. The potential impact of the MID elimination is an economic loss of $180.2 million to the state of California in the year following the implementation.

C.A.R. opposes changing the mortgage interest deduction because:

The state shouldn’t change the rules after the fact. People made significant financial decisions, trusting that the mortgage interest deduction would be there to make the property affordable.

The MID is already capped. The amount of the mortgage interest deduction is already capped regardless of whether the taxpayer has one home or two homes.  It’s not right for government to dictate to homeowners how they can allocate their housing dollars!

Second homes are not necessarily “vacation homes.”  Someone faced with a one-way commute of an hour or more may choose to purchase a small condo near where they work in which to live during the workweek.

Local economies and communities will suffer. The economic health of the recreational areas of the state will be harmed by elimination of the mortgage interest deduction on second homes. Homeowners in those areas of the state are going to be hard pressed tofind a buyer if the mortgage interest deduction on second homes is eliminated.

Using the MID as a piggybank sets a dangerous precedent. 

Another C.A.R. Win!

C.A.R. Amendment Included in AB 1381

C.A.R. successfully pressed amendments to AB 1381 (Weber) only minutes before the bill’s scheduled hearing in the Senate.

C.A.R. opposed the bill because it contained surprise amendments added during the last allowable day in the Senate, its second house. Those amendments would have created a new exemption to the real estate license and would have permitted unlicensed agents to broker leases, sales and easements for the placement of outdoor advertising.

After considerable lobbying by both sides, which involved administration officials and the entire Senate, the bill was called back to the Business and Professions Committee. C.A.R.’s member mobilization effort forced the proponents to accept the limiting amendments. The amendments ultimately agreed to make the advertising agents’ rule essentially the same as the existing “principals’ exemption” – that is, a corporation can use its own employees to work on its own transactions without having to have them licensed. Any agency or brokerage on behalf of another or a third party still requires a licensee.

Thank you to all the REALTORS® who contacted their state senators to voice their concerns about AB 1381. Your calls made the difference!

New Regulations Protect Widowed Homeowners

New Regulations Protect Widowed Homeowners

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued new rules aimed at protecting widowed homeowners from a red-tape nightmare that has caused them to lose their homes to foreclosure.

The regulations, announced Aug. 4, 2016, generally give surviving spouses who are not on a mortgage note the same protections that borrowers have. Those include a ban on so-called dual tracking, in which mortgage servicers negotiate with clients to modify a mortgage while simultaneously pursuing foreclosure.

The rules, which expand and clarify existing guidance from the agency, were long awaited by consumer groups that are pushing similar regulations in a pending California Senate bill 1150.

Advocates say survivors — who already owned their homes or inherit them after a death — face considerable resistance from servicers when they seek loan modifications after losing their spouse’s income.

The office of California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, who sponsored the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, said the passage of SB 1150 would “provide accountability and an enforcement mechanism that ensures California homeowners reap the benefits from these [new federal] rules.”

Often companies won’t allow a modification until the surviving spouse assumes the loan, which can’t happen until the owner is current on the mortgage — something of a Catch-22.

Advocates also say servicers give them inaccurate information or require unnecessary documents to prove ownership of the home when applying for a modification as a foreclosure proceeds.

The new rules, which take effect in about 18 months, seek to address those issues. In addition to banning the dual tracking of survivors, the rules stop servicers from mandating survivors first get current on payments before receiving a loan modification.

Applicants, however, must still show they can afford even a smaller loan payment and servicers are not required to give a modification.

Consumer groups praised the new rules, but expressed concern that they lack a strong enforcement mechanism.

Critics say that servicers have routinely flouted existing requirements for borrowers, but added companies have performed better in California.  Critics attribute the better performance to the California Homeowner Bill of Rights, which gives borrowers the right to sue to stop a foreclosure or for economic damages after one occurs if servicers don’t follow state requirements.

The Homeowner Bill of Rights, however, does not apply to survivors or other so-called “successors in interest” who aren’t on the mortgage note.

A bill that would extend those rights to such individuals passed the state Senate earlier this year. The full Assembly is expected to take up the bill, SB 1150, this month.

While the new federal consumer rules give survivors some rights to sue servicers, the ability to bring lawsuits is far more expansive under the pending state bill.

CAR Request: Help Stop Rent Control Bill

Chris Holden AssemblymanRED ALERT – Call to Action

C.A.R. is OPPOSING AB 2502 (Mullin), a bill that would weaken the rent control limitations contained in the landmark “Costa-Hawkins” law sponsored by C.A.R. in 1995. C.A.R. opposes AB 2502, which undermines existing Costa-Hawkins’ protections by allowing local governments to impose mandatory inclusionary zoning (i.e. rent control) on newly constructed rental housing, without any consideration for the economic viability of the project.

  • You can help by using the information below and calling your representative at:
    (800) 798-6593, and enter the PIN number for your legislator. Representing Citrus Valley are:
    Assemblymember Chris Holden, Pin 5844# (Pictured above)
    Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez, Pin 5270#.

    (Enter your PIN number followed by the # sign) Urge the Assemblymembers to oppose AB 2502AB 2502 effectively repeals part of the C.A.R. sponsored Costa-Hawkins legislation that says new construction in a rent control jurisdiction is exempt, or NOT subject to rent control. It is vitally important that you reach out to your elected representative today!
  • Background: Under existing law (Costa-Hawkins), new construction of rental units is not subject to local rent control ordinances. AB 2502 seeks to use “inclusionary zoning” to undo that provision in Costa-Hawkins. “Inclusionary Zoning” ordinances allow local government to require builders to set aside (include) a percentage of units at below-market rent levels. In the appellate case Palmer v. The City of Los Angeles, the court held that the City of Los Angeles could not use inclusionary zoning to evade Costa-Hawkins. AB 2502 essentially undoes that court decision, and would effectively repeal the new construction exemption of Costa-Hawkins.Talking Points
    • AB 2502 would exacerbate the housing affordability crisis in California. The Governor has proposed a far better solution in the May Revision of the state budget.  C.A.R. supports the Governor’s proposal to streamline the local government approval process for housing developments that have 5 – 20% of the newly constructed units set aside for low or very low-income residents. Unlike AB 2502, this proposal incentivizes developers to build new affordable housing units.
    • AB 2502 discourages the creation of new rental housing. The bill would make it a virtual certainty that local jurisdictions with rent control ordinances would expand their ordinances to include new construction, discouraging the development of rental housing, at a time when it is most needed.
    • AB 2502 dramatically weakens Costa-Hawkins. Costa-Hawkins was passed by the Legislature in 1995, at a time, like today, when new rental housing was desperately needed. The new construction exemption in Costa-Hawkins was specifically designed to encourage the building of new rental units.
    • AB 2502 seeks to disguise the expansion of rent control as “inclusionary zoning.” This bill gives local government the power to adopt a “my-way-or-the-highway” policy for the new rental housing construction. If the builder doesn’t agree to the demands of local government and set aside the required number of units, the builder CANNOT build the housing.
    • Rental housing is desperately needed. At a time when rental housing is scarce, it makes no sense to discourage the building of new rental units!
    • Inclusionary zoning makes every unit in a development much more expensive because the cost of the units must be increased to accommodate the below market rate units.  

For More Information, please contact Rian Barrett at