BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A regional agency today (Aug. 14) removed a $20 billion housing bond measure from the November ballot after a group of taxpayer advocates sued saying the ballot language was misleading.
“This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing,” opponent Gus Mattammal said a statement today. “To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The opposition group, called 20 Billion Reasons, said the housing shortage has been created by the Legislature and “the corporate interests to which they are beholden.” The group said it is easier to raise taxes than it is to address the reasons why housing is in short supply.
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority board, made up of elected officials throughout the nine Bay Area counties, voted to drop Regional Measure 4 this morning — the last day it could have been pulled from the ballot.
Proponents of the measure were hoping that in the same election, voters would pass Prop. 5, which would lower the threshold for the approval of new taxes from two-thirds to 55%. That would have made it easier for the housing bond measure to pass.
Polling data from March showed that the housing bond’s yes vote, including “lean yes,” was around 50%, housing authority Executive Director Andrew Fremier said in a report to the board.
“Given voter attitudes, it has been clear for several years that the Bay Area affordable housing bond’s viability is inextricably linked to passage of an amendment to the state’s constitution to adjust the vote threshold,” Fremier said in his report.
A group of nonprofits supporting the measure put out a statement yesterday (Aug. 13) saying they “sadly recommend” that the housing bond is removed.
“The combination of tightening polls, funding amassing against our effort and complications on ballot language, it has become very clear we must focus on State Proposition 5 which is critical for our success, and fight for the Regional Measure on a later ballot,” said the statement signed by four nonprofits: All Home, Enterprise Community Partners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and the San Francisco Foundation.
Both Prop. 5 and the regional housing bond have faced lawsuits from taxpayer groups alleging that the ballot questions are misleading.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association successfully challenged the language of Prop. 5 in Sacramento Superior Court last week, Fremier said in his report.
But the Court of Appeals on Monday reversed that judgment and will allow Prop. 5 to stand, association president Jon Coupal said on social media yesterday.
The housing bond issue’s attorney, Jason Bezis, scored a victory last week when he told the housing authority board that the agency understated how much tax money would be collected each year by 36%.
In response, the executive board of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority voted last week to change the number from $670 million to $911 million.
But the error would have given opponents a talking point before the November election if they were to argue that the housing authority wouldn’t be careful spending money from the bond measure.
The housing authority was created by the state Legislature in 2019 to put the bond measure on the ballot and manage the potential funds.
The board consists of 21 locally elected officials and is one and the same as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which is considering a transportation measure in 2026.
The nine-county election would have cost $3.2 million.
San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa and Mountain View Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga were among the unanimous “yes” votes on June 26 to place the bond on the ballot.
The bond would increase property taxes by an estimated $19 per $100,000 of assessed value, or around $760 a year for a home with an assessed value of $4 million.
While the bond was advertised as a $20 billion measure, with interest it would have cost $48 billion for taxpayers to repay over it’s 54-year lifetime, according to the tax rate statement in the voter guide.
Prop 5, lowering the threshold for the approval of tax increases to 55%, is almost worse than this $20 billion housing bond issue. If Prop 5 passes, you can expect many more taxes in what is already a high-tax state. Maybe the plan is to run the taxpayers out of California and leave the state to welfare recipients? But those of us who pay taxes can’t afford it now. Prop 5 will make living here impossible for many of us.
If you look at the propositions on the 2024 ballot, only proposition 36, which tries to undo the lawlessness caused by proposition 47, is worth passing.. All the rest should get a no vote.
All efforts should be focused now on defeating Prop 5. We don’t need to make it easier for government to raise our taxes. And if anyone is thinking we need Prop 5 so school can get more bond money, think again. School bonds already pass over 80% statewide because they already have lower approval threshold of 55%. Prop 5 is seeking to make ALL infrastructure bonds the same 55% threshold. And, as I suspect most voters don’t realize, a bond is a tax on all real property. Everyone pays. Even renters pay in the form of rent increases, as landlords pass along higher taxes in the form of rent increases.
Truth is we need government to spend more money wisely.
RM4 would have funded projects serving people with incomes up to 150% of local average median income (AMI). In Santa Clara County, 150% AMI for a family of four is over $270,000 per year.
Since every resident would pay the tax – homeowners directly, and renters indirectly through their landlords – you had the prospect of people in the bottom half of the income distribution subsidizing housing for people in the top half of the income distribution. The irony of this, apparently lost on MTC and BAHFA.
Never heard of Gus Mattamal but he makes a lot more sense than Margaret Abe Koga. Surprising that her board abandoned her idea completely. If it was unanimous she was forced to vote against her own idea. Even Chavez said it was a bad idea two weeks ago at Supes.
The ‘funding amasssed’ against RM4 started with $2,500 contributed by 5 concerned citizens. In recent days 2 “non-profits” like MidPen Housing put up $500,000.
The “affordable housing” industrial complex clearly shows who’s making money, and THAT is part of what needs to be looked into. There’s more to this story than just wasting $28.3B in interest….
Finally soime sanity. Maybe instead of banning ANY reconsideration of hosing targets for years ti reflect the new realities — a state surplus turning into a deficit, tech crashes, no money for pubic transit — CA can FINALLY accept reality and stop forcing cities to shove in more housing and even more offices.
Don’t vote for the pro-density candidates mindlessly spouting HOUSING FOR EVERYONE that produces too few units of TRULY affordable housing units for families — not market rate housing for selfish well-paid techies — when the’re funded by developers and outside interests.
No one is addressing the 800 pound gorilla in the room. If we flood San Mateo county with “affordable” housing what does that do to the investment of all of the families that bought and paid for their homes all these years? Those values will plummet, and we will turn into a slum. But with lots of affordable housing.