Out Of Their Minds

Community Comments

Housing for All?

Proposition 1C on the Nov. 7 ballot will authorize the state to issue $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds to fund a variety of housing and development projects, including: down-payment assistance for low-to-moderate income households, grants to organizations that build low-income housing grants, for dense urban development near public transit, parks, homeless shelters and farmworker housing.
    Supporters say there is a desperate need for housing in California, and the measure will benefit the elderly, the homeless, battered women and others who need a roof over their heads. Opponents say the measure will add too much to the state’s debt load and won’t make that much of a dent in the housing problem.
    Ken Cross, CEO of Sacramento Habitat for Humanity, and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) who is leading the No on Proposition 1C effort, discuss the pros and cons with writer Harrison Sheppard.

Ken Cross
CEO, Sacramento Habitat for Humanity

Why do you support this measure?
“Sacramento Habitat for Humanity provides affordable housing for low-income families. I know what our situation is here in Sacramento County: We have more than 32,000 people living in substandard or overcrowded conditions or paying 50 percent or more of their income for housing. So it’s a big issue here. From 1996 to 2005, the median price of a home has more than tripled, from $120,000 to $370,000. The area median income during that time increased by only about 38 percent, from the mid-$40,000s to the mid-$60,000s.”

Who would benefit from this measure?
“Look at the history. Following the passage of Proposition 46 in 2002, 9,351 supportive homes and shelter beds were provided, and 11,081 apartments. We’re building real housing choices for seniors.
    “This is not something for the rich and famous. This is for people who need workplace housing, for people who are homeless on the streets, for seniors, for people with disabilities. Prop. 1C’s authors have created a bond that really crosses the whole spectrum. It’s not just for one class or group of people but addresses the needs of society.”

Why should we also pay for parks in an affordable-housing measure?
“The cost is about $200 million for parks out of $2.85 billion. This is not just about individuals, it’s about creating communities. Parks are part of that network, being able to pull communities together. We’re a pretty disconnected society today. Parks have historically helped pull communities together.”

How much housing can $2.8 billion buy? Opponents say it won’t make that big a dent in California’s housing problem.
“It’s easy to say it doesn’t affect a lot of people, but if you’re the person who gets the home or apartment, if you’re elderly or homeless, it makes all the difference in the world. Are you ever going to solve all of society’s ills? No, you can’t, but you can try to address them one at a time.”

Opponents also argue our state has too much debt already, and this will saddle future generations with payments. Is it worth it to add more debt?
“I look at this money as an investment in our society. There are a lot of places you can put your money, but investing in housing is more than just a roof over somebody’s head. It really is the backbone of giving a family the bootstraps to pull themselves up, whether it’s a first-time homebuyer, or an elderly person who’s worked a whole lifetime and needs a place to live, or a person who by a stroke of bad luck has ended up on the street. It’s easy to judge, but it’s a lot harder to realize, hey, you give everybody an opportunity. I think this is an investment in people and their needs. It’s an investment in the state.”

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
Republican, District 70, Orange County

Why do you oppose this bond measure?
“It adds almost $3 billion of new government debt. And contrary to what the proponents say, it does impact the budget, by taking resources that could go to other programs like education or building roads and puts them into debt retirement and interest-service payments. So, if you look at the economics, for an average family of four, it adds $600 of debt and interest they have to pay off over the lifetime of this bond.”

But doesn’t this bond address a critical need for affordable housing in California?
“I think it’s bogus. You have bureaucrats and government officials selecting a miniscule number of people who can benefit from something the rest of the state has to pay for. You don’t solve the affordable housing problem in California by throwing a small amount of money at it. That’s what it is in relation to the size of the housing market.
    “Out of 100 people who need affordable housing, this bill helps one out of 100. What we need to do is take a look at high taxes, over-regulation, environmental lawsuits, fees and government interference in the free market. These things, taken together, more than double the cost of housing. If we took care of that problem, housing would be affordable in the state of California.
    “This actually serves to make housing less affordable, because it shifts government resources into a government-run program that a small number of lucky people can benefit from. Then it burdens others in the state with $600 in debt and interest. How does that make families more able to afford housing? It doesn’t.”

What do you think the state should be doing instead to address the housing problem?
“What I think we ought to do is take a look at how local zoning and environmental lawsuits and development fees, workers compensation costs for construction, all of these things conspire together to make houses and apartments more costly to build and more scarce than what the market would do it if was left to its own devices. These things should be attacked as a coherent problem.”
    “If there is such a role, there ought not to be so much debt incurred for doing so. The problem with using debt for these social-welfare programs is that when you do, debt repayment comes ahead of everything else in the budget. It comes ahead of education, of building roads.
    “What ends up happening when you have an extra $600 for every family of four that you have to repay is that you’re taking from other programs, and you’re increasing the pressure to raise taxes, because you’re going to cause budgetary shortfalls. The money to repay that principal and interest is going to come out of the general fund.”

• Share
  • Digg This
  • del.icio.us
  • Newsvine
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • Furl It
  • !Y My Web
  • Google
• Email
• Print

Recommend This

Community Comments