Truckee Navigation Center Unveils Facility Ahead of Feb. 25 Opening
February 24, 2026
Sierra Sun, February 15, 2026 by Petra Molina
TRUCKEE, Calif. – On Friday, the Tahoe Truckee Homeless Action Coalition marked a milestone with a ribbon-cutting and open house for its one-year Navigation Center pilot in Truckee, a new resource designed to support residents experiencing homelessness with shelter, day services and case management.
The coalition announced the center’s target opening date as Feb. 25.
“Today, we should be proud of where we are, what we’ve accomplished and what this community made possible,” said Cindy Basso, founder of Fellowship of Compassion and TTHAC co-chair.
Tahoe Truckee Homeless Action Coalition announced the center’s target opening date as Feb. 25.
The center will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week by Volunteers of America. It will offer six interim housing beds and 10 year-round shelter beds. The 10-person staff includes team members from Reno and the Truckee-Tahoe area. At least two staff members will be on site at all times.
“The weather forecast for the next week reminds me of the importance we have to safeguard our homeless from extreme weather,” said Jan Zabriskie , Town of Truckee Council Member and TTAHC co-chair. “That’s why we have a shelter here. It will assures stability and security for our homeless.”
The Navigation Center’s common area.
During the open house, Shelter Manager Justin Jones walked attendees through the facility. He pointed out the front check-in station, where each person entering the building will be screened with metal detectors to prevent weapons, drugs, alcohol or other prohibited items from being brought inside.
Jones said the building’s layout was designed with safety in mind. Open space beneath bathroom stall doors allows staff to identify potential medical emergencies, such as someone fainting inside.
The main common area includes lockers adjacent to the kitchen, tables and shared amenities. Each resident will be assigned one locker and two tote boxes for personal belongings. Meals will be provided on site, with coordination through Meals on Wheels supplying a portion of lunches and dinners.
The Navigation Center will provide six interim housing beds and 10 year-round shelter beds.
Coalition leaders said the Feb. 25 opening represents a community-driven effort to address homelessness in Truckee through safety, dignity and comprehensive support services.
“My friend Ryan always says the human condition is non linear. It goes up, it goes down, it goes on a journey like all of us. This is a spot where people can find their next step in life,” said Hardy Bullock, District 5 Supervisor and TTHAC co-chair. “This is a place for food, for shelter, for justice support, wrap around services, substance use disorder counseling, therapy, all the things we all need every day in our lives but some people don’t have access to.”
Each bed at the Navigation Center had a handwritten note.
We are thrilled to launch Voices for Housing, a new campaign dedicated to sharing Tahoe Truckee housing stories from our community. Over the next several months, we will introduce you to local residents from diverse personal and professional backgrounds who all have a unique housing story to share.
We start with Mary, a local artist and retiree who explains her deep connection to Kings Beach. Her story is a perfect example of why housing for all matters for the creative heart of our community.
The Voices for Housing campaign is made possible thanks to a generous grant from the North Tahoe Community Alliance’s TOT-TBID Dollars at Work Program.
After a surprising year of housing policy bipartisanship, lawmakers in Washington, DC are poised to continue pushing for housing supply and affordability solutions in 2026. At the same time, ongoing actions by the administration will continue to pose challenges to housing providers, developers, and the most housing insecure, while new and potentially forthcoming orders demonstrate a willingness to use executive power to address affordability concerns. As we head into an election year, there are several developments worth following in federal housing policy. This commentary previews the year ahead in Washington, DC.
Housing packages are poised to move forward in 2026.
By the end of 2025, both the House and Senate had advanced their own bipartisan bills to increase housing supply and promote affordability. And while the two packages (The ROAD to Housing Act in the Senate, and the Housing for the 21st Century Act in the House) have several unique and novel components, they also feature many overlapping and/or complementary features. Both packages have an opportunity to progress in the first half of this year before lawmakers turn their attention to the November election.
The ROAD to Housing Act, which passed out of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee unanimously and was nearly passed into law as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),[1] contains several provisions that would have a positive impact on housing supply. These provisions include an expansion of the Rental Assistance Demonstration program (RAD) to preserve existing public housing,[2] reforms to existing federal loan products to support Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) financing,[3] and new programs leveraging existing federal dollars to promote more homebuilding in supply-constrained markets. As noted in a Terner Center commentary, the negotiation and advancement of ROAD to Housing represent a shift in how policymakers are approaching federal engagement on housing supply issues.
The Housing for the 21st Century Act advanced from the House Financial Services Committee on a vote of 50-to-1 just before the end of 2025. The Act includes provisions that are similar or identical to ROAD to Housing—for example, the Housing Supply Frameworks Act, reforms to the National Environmental Protection Act, and increases to Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance for residential multifamily construction. However, the proposed House legislation also includes a number of unique ideas that would support increases in housing supply and affordability. These include changes to the application of Build America, Buy America requirements for new homes using HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding,[4] requirements that cities report on their progress toward reducing barriers to housing production as part of federal funding reporting, and an examination of how building code reforms could reduce the cost and complexity of homebuilding.
Lawmakers have limited time to move each package forward before members turn their attention to their respective 2026 election campaigns. In the Senate, ROAD to Housing must now be brought back to a vote of the full chamber. The next step for the Housing for the 21st Century Act will be a vote on the floor of the full House. Both could be advanced in the earlier part of the year, setting up a conference committee between the two chambers to send legislation to the president’s desk for signature into law.
The budget deal is poised to maintain funding for critical housing programs.
Senate and House members released their FY 2026 budget agreement on Tuesday, which generally maintains and even increases some funding for affordable housing and infrastructure programs, while increasing resources to vulnerable residents—despite earlier indications that those programs would face steep reductions. For example, lawmakers have proposed that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME both maintain the same funding levels as FY2025 after earlier facing nearly $1 billion less in last year’s budget proposal. In addition, $50 million is included for another round of the CDBG PRO HOME program, which provides support for localities pursuing land use and zoning reforms. Legislators have also proposed a funding increase over FY2025 levels for Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), Project Based Rental Assistance, and Homeless Assistance Grants. Congress, which has been operating on a continuing resolution since November of last year, has until January 30 to vote on the full budget.
The budget deal also appears to include a solution for the Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program, which provides rental assistance to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. EHV program funding was set to run out before the end of 2026. In the budget, $600 million is allocated to Tenant Protection Vouchers, which can be used to support current EHV holders. This is significant as our recent analysis notes that over 50,000 households nationwide are served through the program and would be at risk of losing that assistance.
The funding bill also includes language that would amend the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) newly proposed guidelines for its largest homelessness program, the Continuum of Care (CoC) Program, which are currently suspended by a court order. HUD’s proposed funding criteria would have changed the CoC Program in many ways that would shift funding away from current permanent housing programs, potentially jeopardizing housing for 32,000 people in California. The bill would limit the extent to which HUD can make these shifts. It would also ensure funding continuity for current program awards that are scheduled to end prior to the next funding application process.
Executive Actions will continue to impact housing markets.
In addition to Congressional activity, the administration has signaled for several months that it has been working on Executive Actions to address housing supply and affordability, with President Trump saying in December that actions will include “some of the most aggressive housing reform plans in American history.”[5]
Statements from other administration officials signal that such actions could include the creation of new mortgage products and rule changes to allow for potential homebuyers to tap their 401(k) for down payments, as well as conditioning federal funds for states and cities on the adoption of policies to make it easier to build new homes. On January 20, President Trump also signed an Executive Order, which he alluded to in his remarks at the World Economic Summit, directing agencies to pursue initiatives aimed at curbing large institutional investor activity in the single-family home market. The Order would have the attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission review large acquisitions for anti-competitive practices and order other departments to promote sales to owner-occupants.
In addition, continued action on tariffs and immigration are likely to have a substantial impact on new supply. For example, multiple analyses by researchers and industry groups note that tariffs imposed or proposed in 2025 have the potential to increase the cost and uncertainty of new homebuilding. Increased deportation activity has also put a chill on residential construction labor supply, where immigrants comprise roughly a quarter of the labor force.[6] In California, more than two-thirds of California contractors cite skilled worker shortages as their top concern, and the state has faced a net loss of construction workers just in the last year.[7]
This year is likely to be consequential for housing affordability.
Polling going into this election year suggests that housing affordability will continue to be a consequential issue, and during campaign season, members of both parties are likely to want to showcase their efforts to advance meaningful legislation. Moreover, success on housing this year could set the table for even greater reforms in the next Congress and beyond. But for this momentum to continue into the next Congress, maintaining bipartisan support for housing solutions during what is likely to be a highly polarizing campaign will be critical.
Endnotes
[1] Lawmakers in Congress will often leverage “must-pass” bills to advance other priorities that are not relevant to the “must-pass” legislative vehicle. The NDAA is considered a “must-pass” bill to ensure funding for national defense.
[2] The RAD program allows public housing providers to rehabilitate existing units by leveraging private debt. We explored the potential of this program in a 2023 paper.
[3] A 2022 Terner Center paper explored the creation of loan products through existing federal programs specifically to provide homeowners with a broader selection of financing options.
[4] The Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) requires that all iron and steel, construction materials, and manufactured products used in federally funded infrastructure projects are produced in the United States. Affordable housing organizations have raised concerns that requiring affordable housing projects to adhere to BABA raises the cost of development.
[5] Samuels, B., & Manchester, J. (17 December, 2025). “Trump touts ‘warrior dividend’ checks, housing reform in address to nation.” The Hill. Retrieved from: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5654365-trump-primetime-address-housing-checks/
[6] National Association of Homebuilders. Concentration of Immigration in Construction Trades. Retrieved from: https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/industry-issues/labor-and-employment/immigration-reform-is-key-to-building-a-skilled-workforce/concentration-of-immigration-in-construction-trades
Article: Why State Housing Reform is Failing (and What We Can Do About It)
January 26, 2026
In this article by Edward Erfurt, published in Strong Towns on December 2, 2025, the author breaks down the reasons why building infill housing like ADUs is so difficult. The complexities and risk profiles for individual homeowners building an ADU are vastly different than they are for large developers. This article provides a great explanation of why.
Across the country, state legislatures are taking bold steps to make more housing possible. Parking mandates are being rolled back. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are being legalized. Entire housing types that were prohibited for decades are now being allowed by right.
For many communities, these changes feel like long-overdue progress. Yet even in the most supportive communities, almost nothing is getting built.
After all the effort, all the hearings, all the debate and negotiation, the number of new units emerging from these reforms is at best a trickle. As I travel across the country talking to communities, these local governments are asking the same question: Why?
The answer reveals something deeper than zoning.
The Paradox of Legalizing Something You Can’t Actually Do
Legalization is the first step, but it is not the ecosystem. I was in Flagstaff, Arizona when the local city council had declared a housing emergency. City staff shared how they wanted to see ADUs built as an option to address the housing crisis. The community was on board politically, because they expanded the applicability of ADU to cover the entire city. But “allowed by right” didn’t translate into “possible in practice.” Builders still couldn’t make the projects work. They could not make these work not because the idea was wrong, but because there’s no broader system to support small-scale development in place.
Our approach to zoning and adoption of codes have left communities with an inability to take action. Over the years, permitting processes grew more complicated, layers of review multiplied, and neighbor veto points cemented themselves into procedure. On top of it all, the procedures in place aren’t proportional to the project. The smallest of projects must navigate systems designed for the largest of developments. A 600-square-foot backyard cottage must comply with the same development standards, permitting submission requirements, and timelines as a 2,500-square-foot house on a one-acre lot.
This tangle of requirements occurs all before we reach the financing system, where nearly every available tool is designed for one thing: standardized, federally backed, single-family houses on large lots. These are the mortgages that banks can bundle and sell on secondary markets, at very low risk. Builders must stack more complicated, and expensive financing that is not readily accessible to all.
State law can declare that small backyard cottages are legal. But unless cities can review them, permit them, and builders can finance them, legalization will remain largely symbolic.
When State Reform Crashes Into Local Capacity
This gap between the state’s mandate and the city’s ability to carry it out is where the real struggle begins. Cities often default to their only familiar process, so what we’ve seen is that they’ll apply the same permit process for a small ADU as they would a multifamily building. Cities use the permits and processes they know because they have no other smaller template, or worse, they create an even more complicated process. What should be the lowest risk investment, quickly becomes overly complicated and far more risky. That shift in risk matters. Small builders or homeowners are working in the thinnest of margins and uncertainty and risk increases costs.
What looks like a simple option for affordable housing on paper quickly becomes quite unintentionally the most expensive housing to deliver in the city.
Imagine a homeowner walks in, hoping to build a cottage no larger than a shed in their backyard, or convert their garage into an apartment. They’re handed the thick binder of requirements to address all of the unknowns that could occur. The natural reaction of municipal staff when they face uncertainty is to demand more. So an exhaustive and detailed process is initiated to root out and eliminate every possible failure or conflict. The result is a tangle of forms and submittals that imply that perhaps the applicant shouldn’t attempt this after all.
A builder deciding between a modest cottage in an established neighborhood and a large single-family home on the edge of town will likely choose the easier path. When both projects offer the same financial return, people understandably choose the one with fewer headaches. Cities unintentionally push small-scale builders away, not through policy, but through friction.
A Case Study in What Works: Tallahassee’s Breakthrough
We’ve seen the opposite, too. Tallahassee, Florida, had very few ADU permits. Only a handful of persistent builders attempted them. Rather than defending their process, city staff sat down with those builders and listened to learn where there were tangles and friction. They asked where the bottlenecks were. They investigated every confusion point, every unnecessary submittal, every erroneous requirement, and sought out conflicting requirements. Then they made small adjustments: clarifying intent, adjusting standards to align with existing zoning, and making procedures proportional to the scale of the application.
The result? An exponential increase in permits.
This wasn’t a statewide mandate. It wasn’t a massive rewrite. It was staff learning the scale of the work and responding proportionally. They built the local ecosystem necessary for incremental housing to succeed.
What State Mandates Can’t Do
A mandate can change the zoning, but it cannot:
Teach staff how to right-size their review.
Build trust between cities and local builders.
Reform decades of overengineered building codes designed for the biggest projects.
Create financing tools that fit the scale of a backyard cottage rather than a cookie cutter suburban home.
Form local partnerships between small banks and small developers.
Reduce the cultural fear of neighborhoods evolving again.
These changes must be made locally. They are the “ecosystem” of incremental developers, contractors, plan reviewers, lenders, and neighbors. This is why state reforms so often underdeliver: the structure changed, the permissions changed, but the systems never adapted.
What Cities Can Do Right Now
Cities have more control in this process than they think. And small steps matter because ADUs are the lowest-risk housing type a city can allow. They can start by asking three questions:
1. How can we reduce risk for the smallest projects?
Lowering risk lowers cost. That may mean creating a simplified permit, a predictable review timeline, or a small-housing checklist.
2. Are our fees and standards proportionate to the scale of the work?
Many cities charge permit fees for new construction. Waivers or scaled fees can make incremental housing feasible.
3. What local financing tools already exist—and who can we partner with?
Small banks understand local risk better than national lenders. Cities can convene them, share case studies like California’s ADU financing programs, and begin adapting those models.
This is how we localize financing: not through subsidies, but through relationships.
A Call for a More Human Approach
We also need to demystify these units for our communities. At Strong Towns, we’ve learned that people respond far more to stories than policy.
When we talk about who actually lives in back yard cottages we share stories of grandparents staying close, adult children returning home, caregivers helping a senior in place. We also do not use planning acronyms because ADU sounds more like a disease than a home. These are familiar stories that are relatable. Incremental housing is not a radical transformation. It’s a return to the adaptable neighborhoods we built for generations.
But helping people rediscover that truth starts with listening, and this conversation starts best at the most local level at city hall.
In this article by Andrew Burleson for Strong Towns published on January 20, 2026, the author argues the case for incremental infill housing. Large housing projects get a lot of time, attention and investment, but infill housing plays a critical role in housing supply. The full article is copied below.
I don’t live in San Francisco anymore, and I’m not writing to opine on the particular project. Rather, I want to share a few thoughts on this kind of project. Specifically, I think that large projects with shiny renderings tend to draw a disproportionate amount of pro-housing advocates attention. While projects like this will be part of the housing solution, I don’t think they’re the answer to our housing problems, and I don’t think we should overly focus on them.
Why do I say that?
First, large redevelopment projects will always be relatively few in number.
These projects require enormous skill and capital to execute. There aren’t that many developers with the access to capital or the skill to deploy many projects like this. I’m skeptical that there are even 100 development companies that could execute this kind of project.
Even if I’m wrong about how many developers are capable of delivering projects on this scale, there’s a finite number of sites that are viable for this kind of project. The Safeway in the Marina is uniquely under-developed relative to its location near the heart of America’s second most important city center, already surrounded by dense, mixed-use development. There’s no shortage of under-developed land, but most of it could not redevelop anywhere at anywhere near the level of the Marina site.
Opportunity sites tend to be clustered, and, ironically, when one site experiences a massive leap in development intensity it can stall the local market, and make the nearby opportunity sites harder to redevelop rather than easier.
Second, large redevelopment projects like this are uniquely political.
Because they are large, they’re extremely visible, and because they will always be relatively few in number, it’s easy for opponents to organize against them.
It’s also much easier to make people upset about something concrete — “this tower will block your view of the bay!” — than it is to rally against something abstract like single-stair reform.
Third, I’m skeptical that large projects like this could actually scale to meet the housing need in supply-constrained cities, even if they were politically easy to get approved and built.
No single project (of any scale) provides enough units to matter. Let’s assume, optimistically, the Marina project will make it through from concept to completion in 5 years. That means its delivering 158 units per year, which is great! But it’s nowhere near enough to meet San Francisco’s housing needs on its own.
As mentioned previously, there are a limited number of redevelopment sites that can even support large-scale projects like this.
Even we assume there were 100 capable firms executing these projects in parallel, and that they’d never run out of viable sites, that would net 15,800 units per year. That would be great! But, for context, it’s still less than the 20k + ADUs California has been adding annually.
Now, I’m not trying to argue that projects like this are good or bad, or that we should or should not do them. In the context of San Francisco, the Marina project makes sense to me, I think it should go forward. But I often run into pro-housing advocates who, I think, are overly focused on bulldozing the political obstacles in front of large-scale projects because they think that large-scale projects are the answer, singular. And I think that misunderstands the reality on the ground.
As a case in point, I’ve heard housing advocates characterize California’s ADU program as a modest “take what you can get” reform, even though ADUs are probably already adding more units per year than we could achieve via large-scale apartment projects. That’s an error in thinking.
Housing markets are not made of a few local projects, they’re made of regional aggregates. Even in smaller cities there are tens of thousands of lots, the biggest cities contain millions of parcels. Reforms that apply to millions of parcels are going to unlock more housing than reforms that only apply to hundreds of parcels.
Consider this napkin sketch to illustrate the point:
If we take the zip code 94116 as representative of the Outer Sunset, it contains 16,139 housing units in 2.53 square miles, or 6,379 units per square mile. The Outer Sunset is often criticized as an area that has resisted new housing units and needs to develop further—I agree with that. But there are several hundred zip codes in the Bay Area, and very few of them are near this level of development.
To take one example, let’s look at 94061, in Redwood City. The zip code is currently 54% as dense as the Outer Sunset; 14,006 housing units over 3.86 square miles, or 3,628 units per square mile. The area has some sites that could redevelop into apartment buildings, but the majority of lots are single family homes. The biggest opportunity is to open up new housing options for all those existing homeowners. That means allowing a family to build a backyard cottage for their aging parents to move into, a retiree to convert their basement into an accessory apartment for some extra cash flow, or a local builder to convert a run down house into a duplex or triplex.
If those options were allowed by right, this part of Redwood City could mature to the level of the Outer Sunset; still predominately single family residential, but up from 14,006 homes to 24,623, an increase of 10,617 homes.
There are 323 zip codes in the broader Bay Area, although some of these are quite far from the city, and some contain mostly mountainous terrain. If we passed reform that that permitted ten thousand new homes in half of these, it would unlock 1.6 million new homes.
TAHOE CITY, Calif. — Placer County is preparing to open the next notice of funding availability for its eastern Placer County Launchpad workforce housing program, with applications expected to open Feb. 25.
On Dec. 3, 2025, the North Tahoe Community Alliance board recommended $3 million in funding for the Launchpad program from the TOT-TBID Dollars at Work program. That recommendation is scheduled to be considered by the Placer County Board of Supervisors for approval at the Tahoe board meeting Feb. 3, 2026. If approved, county staff anticipate opening the window for program funding from Feb. 25 through March 18.
The upcoming NOFA is expected to make a total of $3,275,000 available for workforce housing projects. This total includes the $3 million of TOT-TBID Dollars at Work funding, as well as $275,000 in carryover funding that remained unreserved from the program’s initial NOFA in 2025. By long-standing county policy, all TOT revenue collected in eastern Placer County is reinvested to benefit eastern Placer County.
“The Launchpad program is an important tool for addressing the region’s workforce housing shortage by helping close the financial gap that often prevents projects from moving forward,” said Tahoe housing specialist Tim Cussen. “By partnering with local property owners and developers, we’re able to support housing solutions that serve the community long-term and ensure homes remain available for local workers.”
The Launchpad program is designed to improve the financial feasibility of workforce housing projects for developers, residents and Placer County landowners, while creating long-term housing stability for the local workforce in the North Lake Tahoe region. It was originally approved by the board in April 2025 with $1 million in initial funding. In exchange for receiving program funding, each unit is deed-restricted for local workers for a period of 55 years, with the restriction automatically renewing upon each transfer of the property.
During the program’s first funding round in 2025, a total of $725,000 was reserved for two local workforce housing projects in Kings Beach. These included $125,000 toward the construction of a wheelchair-accessible accessory dwelling unit and $600,000 to support a three-unit tiny home project.
Applications will be accepted beginning Feb. 25 and must be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 18. The most current information on program guidelines and the NOFA will be posted on the Launchpad program website athttp://www.placer.ca.gov/Launchpad.
TRUCKEE, Calif. – You don’t need to follow the news or attend public meetings to feel the undercurrent of anxiety and frustration related to housing in the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region. Renters are barely hanging on, long-time local families are moving out of the area and employers are struggling to find and retain workers. The housing crisis isn’t new, and while progress has been made in advancing housing solutions, the need continues to outstrip what our current tools can deliver.
Over the last several years, Placer County and other local jurisdictions have taken important steps—dedicating staff capacity, advancing policy tools, investing in programs, and partnering regionally to increase housing options. That leadership matters. And at the same time, residents and employers are still asking the question that continues to surface across the region: What more can we do, and how do we move faster?
A little over a year ago, the Tahoe Housing Hub put out a call to the local community. They launched the ADU Accelerator Pilot program and invited homeowners to be part of the solution. The community stepped up in a big way. Staff from the Tahoe Housing Hub met with homeowners, walked their property, brought in engineers and planners, and tried to make the numbers pencil.
“It was incredible to see how many local people wanted to step up and be a part of the housing solution,” said Erin Casey, CEO of the Tahoe Housing Hub and Housing Tahoe. “They were willing to share their personal space with other members of the community so that local workers and families could also have a place to call home in Tahoe.”
What the pilot program made clear is that willingness is not the limiting factor—today’s costs and financing realities are. Programs like Placer County’s Launchpad incentives represent leadership and a commitment to housing. Yet even with those tools, many homeowners still face structural barriers: construction costs, financing constraints, insurance and utility realities, and the long-term requirements that often come with deed-restricted housing. In short: people want to help—and even with meaningful progress from local partners, many good-faith efforts still stall before they can become homes.
For years the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee community has been grappling with the same questions – what more can we do and how do we move faster to reach our housing goals? From the early efforts of Mountain Housing Council to programs like the ADU Accelerator and Launchpad, many ideas have been tried, each moving the conversation forward. The reality is that building in mountain communities is complex and expensive—and those pressures have intensified in recent years. At the same time, existing housing continues to sell at prices unattainable for many local workers and families.
That’s where Housing Trust Tahoe comes in – a new mechanism to immediately preserve existing housing and add units on a small scale, while working alongside local jurisdictions and regional partners. As a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, Housing Trust Tahoe is poised to acquire and preserve existing homes, accept donations of land or property, and leverage private dollars from employers, philanthropy, and individual donors alongside public investment. That means a homeowner or business who wants to help has more than one path: they can build, they can sell or donate a home or a lot, or they can contribute financially to keep naturally affordable housing in local hands.
Housing Trust Tahoe isn’t just “another nonprofit.” It is the culmination of years of community energy, leadership and urgency focused on providing homes for our neighbors – the people who teach our children, serve our food, plow our roads, and care for our elders. On December 9, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved $500,000 to support the formation of Housing Trust Tahoe which will develop processes and feasibility assessment tools for property acquisition and launch land/housing donation campaign.
Housing Trust Tahoe now has a new call to action for the local community. Do you have a home or an empty lot that you’d like to donate in exchange for a tax deduction? Do you have resources—financial or otherwise—that you want to put to work locally? Housing Trust Tahoe is ready to partner with the community to purchase units and turn donations into homes for local workers and families.
“We are already in the process of accepting our first donation which will directly translate into homes for local workers. Housing Trust Tahoe is a culmination of all those years of energy, frustration and urgency that we’ve felt for so long. We finally have a mechanism to do more and do it quickly,” says Casey.
Housing affordability continues to strain workers and families in the North Lake Tahoe–Truckee region, where rising costs are pushing longtime residents out of the area.
Earlier this month, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved $500,000 to support the formation of Housing Trust Tahoe, a nonprofit that will work alongside the Tahoe Housing Hub to preserve and expand workforce housing. The funding will be used to support staffing, legal setup, property evaluation, and outreach efforts related to housing and land donations.
“The $500,000 isn’t to make any particular purchases,” said Tim Cussen, a Tahoe housing specialist with Placer County. “It goes toward diligence for future property acquisitions or donations. We’re looking at preserving workforce housing, and maybe even adding units when possible.”
Housing Trust Tahoe builds on years of local housing efforts, including the Tahoe Housing Hub’s ADU Accelerator Pilot Program.
“It was incredible to see how many local people wanted to step up and be a part of the housing solution,” said Erin Casey, CEO of the Tahoe Housing Hub and Housing Trust Tahoe. “We finally have a mechanism to do more, and do it quickly.”
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, Housing Trust Tahoe can acquire and preserve existing homes, accept donations of land or property, and combine private and public funding to help keep housing affordable for local workers.
Leaders say the organization is already in the process of accepting its first property donation.
Building Trust: A faster way to preserve and create housing in the Tahoe Truckee region
December 17, 2025
You don’t need to follow the news or attend public meetings to feel the undercurrent of anxiety and frustration related to housing in the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee region. Renters are barely hanging on, long-time local families are moving out of the area, and employers are struggling to find and retain workers. The housing crisis isn’t new, and while progress has been made in advancing housing solutions, the need continues to outstrip what our current tools can deliver.
Over the last several years, Placer County and other local jurisdictions have taken important steps—dedicating staff capacity, advancing policy tools, investing in programs, and partnering regionally to increase housing options. That leadership matters. And at the same time, residents and employers are still asking the question that continues to surface across the region: What more can we do, and how do we move faster?
A little over a year ago, the Tahoe Housing Hub put out a call to the local community. We launched the ADU Accelerator Pilot program and invited homeowners to be part of the solution. The community stepped up in a big way. We met with homeowners, walked their property, brought in engineers and planners, and tried to make the numbers pencil. It was incredible to see how many local people wanted to step up and be a part of the housing solution. They were willing to share their personal space with other members of the community so that local workers and families could also have a place to call home in Tahoe.
What the Pilot made clear is that willingness is not the limiting factor—today’s costs and financing realities are. Programs like Placer County’s Launchpad incentives represent real leadership and a clear commitment to housing. Yet even with those tools, many homeowners still face structural barriers: construction costs, financing constraints, insurance and utility realities, and the long-term requirements that often come with deed-restricted housing. In short: people want to help—and even with meaningful progress from local partners, many good-faith efforts still stall before they can become homes.
For years, the North Lake Tahoe-Truckee community has been grappling with the same questions – what more can we do and how do we move faster to reach our housing goals? From the early efforts of Mountain Housing Council to programs like the ADU Accelerator and Launchpad, many ideas have been tried, each moving the conversation forward. The reality is that building in mountain communities is complex and expensive—and those pressures have intensified in recent years. At the same time, existing housing continues to sell at prices unattainable for many local workers and families.
That’s where Housing Trust Tahoe comes in – a new mechanism to immediately preserve existing housing and add units on a small scale, while working alongside local jurisdictions and regional partners. As a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, Housing Trust Tahoe is poised to acquire and preserve existing homes, accept donations of land or property, and leverage private dollars from employers, philanthropy, and individual donors alongside public investment. That means a homeowner or business who wants to help has more than one path: they can build, they can sell or donate a home or a lot, or they can contribute financially to keep naturally affordable housing in local hands.
Housing Trust Tahoe isn’t just “another nonprofit.” It is the culmination of years of community energy, leadership and urgency focused on providing homes for our neighbors – the people who teach our children, serve our food, plow our roads, and care for our elders. On December 9, 2025, the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved $500,000 to support the formation of Housing Trust Tahoe, our efforts to develop processes for feasibility and property acquisition, and a land/housing donation campaign.
Housing Trust Tahoe now has a new call to action for the local community. Do you have a home or an empty lot that you’d like to donate in exchange for a tax deduction? Do you have resources—financial or otherwise—that you want to put to work locally? Housing Trust Tahoe is ready to partner with the community to purchase units and turn donations into homes for local workers and families.
We are already in the process of accepting our first donation which will directly translate into homes for local workers. Housing Trust Tahoe is a culmination of all those years of energy, frustration and urgency that we’ve felt for so long. We finally have a mechanism to do more and do it quickly.
If you would like to learn more – please reach out to us! info@tahoehousinghub.org.
KINGS BEACH, Calif. – The Placer County Board of Supervisors met at the North Tahoe Event Center on Tuesday, Nov. 18, to hear, discuss and take action on topics related to North Tahoe.
Area plan amendments
The supervisors conducted a public hearing on and unanimously adopted amendments to the Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan.
The amendments seek to address housing affordability and availability by increasing building coverage, height, and density, while lowering parking requirements in areas already zoned for this type of development, such as town centers and areas zoned for multifamily housing.
The Placer County Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing and unanimously adopted amendments to the Placer County Tahoe Basin Area Plan on Tuesday, Nov. 18.
The amendments were sparked by the Tahoe Regional Planing Agency’s own Dec. 13, 2023 and June 26, 2024 amendments to its codes and regional plan. The amendments are required to be subsequently incorporated into each Tahoe jurisdiction’s area plan.
The changes are intended to aid by allowing developments to produce more units with a smaller footprint in order to make them more affordable. The added flexibility these amendments offer is only available to deed restricted achievable housing.
Housing topics: local preference and a housing trust
The supervisors received a presentation regarding a potential priority applicant policy for affordable housing aimed at preventing local resident displacement and offering current residents and workers first priority for affordable units.
Developers, property managers and sales agents would administer the policy, placing qualified preferred applicants at the top of the list for available properties.
The policy would be countywide, but divided into two geographic regions:
Tahoe Truckee Unified School District (TTUSD)
remaining western Placer County
Tahoe applicants would have priority for units in the TTUSD region if one adult 18 years or older within the household is currently employed an average of 30 or more hours per week at a location within the TTUSD geographical boundary, or has primary residency in the TTUSD boundary, or has had residency within the last 10 years.
The drafted policy is planned to undergo a fair housing analysis. Results could lead to modifications to the policy.
After the analysis, the policy is expected to come before the board for potential approval in the spring of 2026.
In another housing item, the board directed staff to draft an agreement for the county to provide start up funds for a housing trust in eastern Placer County.
The housing trust, to be operated through Housing Tahoe, a nonprofit, seeks to leverage private funds through a charitable structure to acquire, preserve, rehabilitate, and construct community-serving housing.
The immediate focus for the nonprofit would be on protecting existing units, which are currently marketed as opportunities to investors.
However, Housing Tahoe sees an opportunity to step in, acquire and deed restrict the units, preserving them for the community. A charitable structure in this endeavor allows them to unlock private donations and partners to diversify funding streams for housing efforts.
The strategies combat an 8,200 unit shortage in housing within the TTUSD area, as identified in the July 2023 Housing Needs Assessment Update from the Mountain Housing Council.
Housing Tahoe is currently in the process of obtaining federal 501(c)(3) status and until the status is approved, plans on partnering with a non-profit organization who can serve as a fiscal sponsor to legally receive and administer tax-deductible donations on its behalf.
A future decision for the board could be funding Housing Tahoe with around $500,000 to support its establishment and early housing preservation activities in a phased approach, tied to defined milestones.
An funding agreement for this will come before the board at a future unspecified date.
Transportation topics: TART plan update and free to rider extension
The board approved a two year extension of the Tahoe Truckee Area Regional Transit (TART) Free to the Rider Bus Service. The service, which set out to reduce vehicle miles traveled by offering free bus rides, replaced fares collected from passengers and was first implemented in 2019.
A TART plan update came before the Placer County Board of Supervisors on Tues., Nov. 18.
In addition to the annual $275,000 of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) funds from Placer County, local partners also contribute to the free service in lieu of purchasing employee fares and passes. Those local partners include resorts such as Northstar California Resort, Palisades Tahoe, Homewood Mountain Resort and other partners.
The board also approved the TART 2025 Systems Plan Update.
The update, which is a short range transit planning document and replaces the 2016 plan, offers an overview of services, operation plans and provides recommendations for modifications.
Analysis found the fixed route ridership is highest in the winter and spring, and during commute hours. It also found that while TART’s mainline fixed route ridership has decreased in the last five years, TART Connect ridership has increased in the last three with peaks on Fridays and Saturdays.
Identified challenges of fixed routes include finding and retaining drivers, seasonal fluctuations in demand, coordination with other transportation providers, and funding. Between 2023 and 2024, there were 16 driver vacancies. The plan identifies strategies to attract drivers and retain them.
Challenges with TART Connect is the redundancy and competition it creates with fixed routes, its lower productivity, and funding.
Numerous public outreach efforts and surveys informed on the update and recommendations.
Some of the service recommendations from the plan update include:
30 minute frequency on all routes in winter and summer to start, with potential expansion to year-round 30 minute frequency
Maintain the West Shore route as separate and extend it to Tahoe City
Extend all TART fixed routes for an evening service between 6:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m. in the summer and winter months
TART Connect fares when fixed routes are operating
TART Connect expansion to Ponderosa Palisades and Martis Valley
Capital recommendations include replacing buses with electric buses, installing zero-emission bus charging stations, adding stop shelters, creating a park and ride plan, real-time bus information software and real-time bus displays.
The plan also included a scenario for the loss of TOT funds, which are not guaranteed. The loss would likely result in a drastic reduction of fixed routes and discontinuation of TART Connect.
Tourism business improvement district renewal
The board conducted a public meeting to hear comment on the renewal of the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, which is administered through the North Tahoe Community Alliance (NTCA).
Through the business improvement district, tourism related businesses (including lodging, retail, restaurants, activities) self-assess a percentage that is typically passed on to the customer. The collected revenues are then reinvested within the North Tahoe community on programs and projects that directly benefit the businesses that are paying the assessment.
The North Tahoe Community Alliance helped fund the North Shore Trail rehabilitation project.
In its five years, the North Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District has reinvested $34.2 million into the community and leveraged an additional $42 million. The funds have gone to projects improving trails, promoting environmental stewardship, mitigating human impacts, improving transportation and workforce housing.
To be considered before the board, renewal requires petition signatures from a majority of the paying business owners in the proposed district. According to NTCA President and CEO, Tony Karwowski, the district has amassed 67.25 % of weighted revenue signatures so far.
The renewal proposes certain changes to the district’s management plan, including increasing the renewal term to 10 years, rather than five, for efficiency. Another change is the removal of the tier two and tier three businesses, which are not high producing businesses, and often transient for arts and crafts festivals. This has demanded significant staff time and energy to track them down.
The district boundary and assessment percentages are not changing with the renewal.
Public comment was for largely supportive, highlighting the need for the district in the community, while also highlighting the continued desire for the district’s transparency.
The NTCA finances are audited by a third party every other year and a third party reviews the finances in the off years. The finances are publicly available online. The NTCA is also required to give an annual report to the Placer County Board of Supervisors.
The board was also introduced to and waived the first reading of the ordinance renewing the business improvement district. A public hearing and second reading will take place at the board meeting on Dec. 9., where the supervisors may adopt and renew the district.
