Recommendations on California's Ballot Proposition

By Anthony Manousos

We at MHCH make the following recommendations on ballot propositions that affect housing. We agree with the recommendations of the Friends Committee on Legislation of Californian (the Quaker lobby), which I helped to write since I am a Quaker. I am also providing information about other ballot proposition recommendations by the California Council of Churches and the League of Women Voters.

Proposition 1: Bonds for Affordable Housing. VOTE YES.

Proposition 1 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature. It authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing projects. Of the total, $10 billion would fund low- and moderate-income housing, including multifamily developments, home ownership assistance, farmworker housing, student housing at UC and CSU campuses, tribal housing grants, and local pilot programs to reduce housing costs. These bonds would be repaid from the state’s General Fund over a 25-year period. The remaining $1.25 billion would support the longstanding veterans’ home loan program, which is repaid by veterans through their mortgage payments at no cost to taxpayers.

While bond financing is expensive, it also spreads the cost out over the length of the program much like a home mortgage. Future generations will also benefit from the addition of affordable housing. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), if voters pass all of the bond measures on the November ballot, the increased debt service would amount to only one-half of one percent of the state’s General Fund budget.

In 2018, California voters approved two propositions to provide funding for affordable housing, including the Cal Vet Home Loan Program, which authorized favorable mortgages to veterans, and supportive housing under the No Place Like Home Program. Those funds have been expended. Given the state’s ongoing need for affordable housing and its manageable impact on state finances, FCLCA recommends a YES vote on Proposition 1.

Proposition 37: Loans for Middle-Income Home Buyers. VOTE YES.

Proposition 37 is a major attempt to help middle-income Californians purchase new homes by providing state-backed second mortgages to cover up to 17 percent of the down payment (the borrower would be required to pay at least 3 percent of the down) on a newly constructed home. The loans would be administered by the California Housing Finance Agency and would be funded by the sale of up to $25 billion in revenue bonds, which would be repaid by homeowners at no cost to taxpayers.

FCLCA has some reservations about the proposal. It is limited to the purchase of newly constructed homes and does not help buyers of existing homes, which make up most of California’s housing stock. It could promote urban sprawl, and critics contend it could push home prices upward in certain markets.

While FCLCA generally emphasizes affordable housing for those most in need, this measure addresses another important need by helping the “missing middle:” teachers, nurses, electricians, postal workers and other middle-class families who do not qualify for affordable housing or housing subsidies but who also cannot afford to purchase a home in California. The state is falling far short of new home construction needed for keeping pace with the growing demand for housing. On balance, the positives far outweigh the negatives. FCLCA recommends a YES vote on Proposition 37.

Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. VOTE NO. Proposition 45 would significantly modify the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by speeding up environmental reviews for a broad category of “essential projects,” limiting the analyses of alternatives, and restricting the scope and timing of CEQA-related lawsuits.

Proposition 45 is sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and backed by business and development interests. While CEQA exemptions may be appropriate in limited instances such as affordable housing projects, several opponents of Proposition 45 claim that language in the text of the initiative would dramatically weaken environmental reviews of proposed data centers. Though the YES on 45 campaign maintains that its provisions do not apply to data centers, the campaign has received significant contributions from three companies that are building data centers in California.

Business interests have consistently attacked CEQA in the state Legislature, citing delays and lawsuits which increase the costs of large projects. Mounting concerns over affordability have created a political opportunity for business interests to seize the moment and attempt broad changes to the law.

While Proposition 45 would result in construction cost savings for developers, it will also result in less public input, more environmental degradation, including more air pollution and contaminated water supplies with negative public health consequences and harm to wildlife. Taxpayers inevitably end up bearing the costs of remediation. FCLCA recommends a NO vote on Proposition 45.

To see recommendations on Ballot Propositions by

• Friends Committee on Legislation of California (Quakers), click here.

• League of Women Voters, click here.

• California Council of Churches, click here.

• California Alliance for Fair Living Standards, click here.