Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Homeownership topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Diego County directs 90‑day feasibility study for a county-run first‑time homebuyer program
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted to have county staff study a county-funded first‑time homebuyer program, including interest‑rate buy‑down options and a 90‑day report-back; the board added direction to oppose federal policies it said raise construction costs. Supervisor Jim Desmond introduced the item but later voted against the amended motion.
Supervisor Jim Desmond introduced a board letter asking county staff to study the feasibility of a county‑funded first‑time homebuyer program designed to complement existing state and federal down‑payment assistance.
"Only 13% of San Diego households can afford to purchase a median priced home," Desmond said in opening remarks, arguing that the county should explore ways to increase utilization of existing programs and consider interest‑rate buy‑downs to lower monthly payments.
The motion as finally approved directs the chief administrative officer to return to the board with a feasibility report in 90 days and added a second recommendation directing the county’s legislative program to oppose federal policies the board identified as increasing construction costs, including tariffs on construction materials and certain U.S. actions that disrupt energy markets. The chair read the amendment into the record, asking staff to include opposition to "federal tariffs on construction materials, as well as opposition to US military or economic actions that disrupt energy markets and construction material supply chains, such as US actions targeting Iran and Venezuela." (language as recorded in the transcript)
During debate members questioned program administration, funding, and scale. David Strayer (staff) told the board the San Diego Housing Commission currently administers the county’s two existing first‑time buyer programs; staff said one program is fully expended and the other has some funds available. Board members discussed whether the county should use general purpose revenue (GPR) and whether a county program would duplicate or complement existing programs.
Public commenters urged a range of responses: some asked the board to restore units they said had been removed under past redevelopment actions; others recommended building lower‑cost housing types or deeper structural reforms to reduce costs.
Supervisor Desmond introduced the item and moved approval but declined to accept one of the friendly amendments (which added the county‑legislative opposition language and shortened the report timeline). He later said he would vote against his own item because he considered the added amendment a "poison pill" that mixed local program design with a broader political agenda. The final motion, offered by the chair with the two amendments (90‑day timeline and the legislative opposition language), was seconded and passed with a 4–1 tally; Desmond was recorded as voting no.
What happens next: staff will prepare a feasibility analysis that, according to the board direction, should consider program options including an interest‑rate buy‑down layered on existing assistance, utilization of current funds, potential fiscal impacts, and the requested analysis of how tariffs and energy‑supply disruptions affect construction costs. The county will receive the report back in 90 days for further board consideration.
Votes and procedural note: The transcript records the final vote as passing with the supervisor who introduced the item (Desmond) recorded as voting no and the other supervisors present voting aye.
