Under different circ*mstances, San Diego would be in line for 7,500 more homes reserved for low- and middle-income residents, with more than a third of the units for formerly homeless people.
Thousands of additional rent-restricted homes also would be targeted for Berkeley, San Jose, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz County.
Since 2018, strong majorities of voters in jurisdictions across the state have backed billions of dollars in bonds to build subsidized units for lower-income residents, which would have been paid off through higher property taxes.
None of them were enacted, even though the support for the measures ranged from just over 55 percent (in Santa Cruz County) to 64 percent (in San Jose).
Those proposals would have passed if the provisions ofProposition 5were the law back then.
Placed on the November ballot by the Legislature, Proposition 5 is a constitutional amendment that would lower the threshold for approving bonds from a two-thirds majority to 55 percent for a wide range – though limited array – of purposes. These include affordable housing, down payment assistance and projects such as hospitals, police stations and parks.
The lower bond threshold can be used to borrow money for all sorts of infrastructure projects. But advocates have emphasized the measure’s potential to address the state’s shortage of housing that people of low and modest incomes can afford.
If it passes, Proposition 5 would apply to bonds on the November ballot as well as those in the future, but it wouldn’t be retroactive.
“Californians agree that affordable housing is an important issue, yet for decades, the state has struggled to deliver on its end of the bargain and provide it,” Jesse Arreguín, Berkeley’s mayor and vice president of the Association of Bay Area Governments, wrote in a commentary published by CalMatters.
“Part of that is due to the procedural barriers that make it more difficult to build affordable housing, especially in affluent areas.”
Supporters say the measure also would provide funds to unlock more state and federal grants.
The lead of the counterargument was succinct and blunt.
“Proposition 5 makes it easier to raise property taxes,” Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, wrote for CalMatters.
The 55 percent approval threshold is familiar to voters because that’s what it takes to pass school bonds across the state. It had been two-thirds as well, but was lowered by voters in 2000.
Between 2001 and 2013, about 80 percent of school bonds were approved, according to an Assembly analysis.
From 2016 to 2018, six local government obligation bond measures across the state for infrastructure and affordable housing received more than 61 percent of the vote, but fell short of the necessary two-thirds, the analysis said.
Getting something like Proposition 5 on the ballot has been a seven-year effort by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters, who authored the legislation approved by lawmakers this year.
Aguiar-Curry proposed a broader measure that would have extended the 55 percent threshold to certain taxes, but eventually it was limited to just bonds.
San Diego City Council President Sean Elo-Rivera cited that change in withdrawing a parcel tax in the city of San Diego to raise millions of dollars for stormwater and flood control improvements he had proposed in the wake of the devastating floods in January.
The revised measure also forbids governments from using Proposition 5 funds to buy existing single-family homes and turning them into rent-restricted units. That change was demanded by the California Association of Realtors, which then shifted its position from oppose to neutral.
Backers of Proposition 5 say the current vote requirement is unfair and undemocratic.
“In California, the will of the majority has historically been vetoed by the will of the minority, especially on issues that impact working-class families and people of color,” wrote Arreguín, the Berkeley mayor.
Opponents contend it’s an unfair burden placed on property owners, who would shoulder the bill for infrastructure improvements that benefit a broader populace.
“When property taxes rise, there’s little consideration of a homeowner’s ability to pay, or any hardship or disability,” wrote Shelley of the Jarvis association. “If people fall behind on their property taxes, their homes can be sold out from under them.”
That may be, but there’s no evidence the approval of school bonds has caused that to happen.
Shelley notes that taxes could be compounded because Proposition 5 doesn’t apply to just cities and counties but to bond proposals by overlapping transit districts, regional transportation commissions, and associations of government.
Critics say the measure further chips away at the taxpayer protections of Proposition 13, the landmark property tax-limiting measure of 1978.
Arreguín contends the measure gives more control to local governments and their constituents. Aguiar-Curry notes that approving bonds would still require a “supermajority,” and thus broad consensus, though less so than now.
Supporters include the California Democratic Party, California State Building and Construction Trades Council, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Housing Partnership, California YIMBY, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
Among the opponents are the California Chamber Of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses and Catalyst for Local Control.
For now, that may suggest the “yes” side is winning the endorsem*nt race. That’s reversed — and then some — when it comes to money: Opponents have raised nearly $30 million to the $5 million by supporters.
