MOLD
According to a study "Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment" from the 6,000-member American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence doesn't support the belief that mold in homes, schools or office environments has harmed human health. This is good news for property owners, seeking some shelter from tenant lawsuits. Hopefully, more studies like this one will bring about a return to mold related loss insurance coverage. The study further stated that only 5% of the American population should show any clinical illness to mold. Furthermore, outdoor molds are generally more abundant and important in airway allergic disease than indoor molds— leaving the latter with an important, but minor overall role in allergic airway disease. Outdoor molds are much more dangerous to people.

GREENSPAN TALKS ABOUT THE REFINANCE OF EXISTING LOANS ISSUES

On February 11, 2003, Greenspan stated in his Congressional testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.that he was not worried about the fact that American households are engaging in cash-out mortgage refinancing in larger and larger amounts. There exists today, the largest rise in homeowner cash-out mortgage refinancing ever in our nations history. What is happening is that home owners are using refinancing of their homes as a cheap source of funds, to obtain money to use for personal elective uses. Rather than rely upon credit cards or savings, home owners are now borrowing against their homes, and using the money for non-home related purposes. Greenspan has no idea when the rise will end, but he is sure that it will quit when interest rates start to rise. Clearly, this refinancing is fueling the consumer spending we are seeing across the country. Greenspan admits that mortgage debt is "high by historical norms" relative to household income. But is not worried about it. He believes that given the low interest rates the home owners have to pay, the interest verses income is still very manageable. Greenspan went on to state that the economy will not get better until capital spending increases, and that will not happen until the war in Iraq is finished. The looming war with Iraq is the number one blockade to economic growth.

IS THERE A HOUSING BUBBLE?

There has been a 9-year increase in housing prices, and it may be time that it comes to an end. Not sudden, but slowly. As the economy gets worse (if it gets worse) and as people lose their jobs, they will stop buying homes. Thus the Bubble is based on unemployment numbers to a large extent and also on interest rates. People who get fired do not buy homes. Recent unemployment figures however, have shown an increase in the number of jobs (which is positive) and whether this trend continues will dictate to some large extent the future prices of real estate. Some parts of our country, especially in the southern states, have shown decrease in single family housing prices. House sales according to the National Association of Realtors, for 2002 were far in excess of 2001. Total sales were 5.5 million units for 2002 and only 5.3 million sales in 2001. The association is forecasting a modest increase in mortgage interest rates, a somewhat slower pace of house sales and a more moderate rate of house price appreciation in 2003.

TRAVIS V. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
Case No. S109597, Supreme Court of California

This case discusses whether there should be a statute of limitations as to unconstitutional laws. Owners filed their opening brief on December 12, 2002 on behalf of Steven Travis. ACTION is going to file an amicus brief soon. ACTION does not believe that there should be a statute of limitations for an unconstitutional law. Such a concept is against an orderly form of government. If cities can argue that no one is allowed to challenge their laws after they have been on the books for more than one year, all types of abuses would occur.

STATUTES INTRODUCED IN 2003
(JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE)

There is a new bill, SB 178 (Senator Cedillo), introduced in February 2003 into the State Senate. It would allow government entities (cities, counties, etc.) to impose strict rent control on any new dwelling unit, specifically, where the rent is "restricted pursuant to a requirement of a public entity that requires developers of new or rehabilitated units to restrict the rents and income of occupants for a portion of the units." This language gives carte-blanche to local governments who want to require strict rent control in exchange for permission to build or refurbish dwelling units. The Costa-Hawkins Actþ gave property owners the right to set rent levels on new units and on all units after a bona fide vacancy occurs, with a few exceptions to allow for such things as density bonus incentives and Section 8 contracts. It excluded from rent control ordinances any new units, so that new construction was not discouraged by strict rent control.

The new bill SB 178 would remove that protection from rent control of new units and of newly rehabilitated units. The new language added to Costa-Hawkins is as follows: "(4) The rent of the dwelling unit is restricted pursuant to a requirement of a public entity that requires developers of new or rehabilitated units to restrict the rents and income of occupants for a portion of the units."