AgdaPkt 2002-02-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LEGISLATURE PROPOSES HOUSING BOND FOR NOVEMBER 2002 BALLOT The Legislature is on the verge of passing a $2.1 Final amendments to the legislation will prob- billion general obligation housing bond (SB 1227 - ably incorporate most of the provisions of AB 1008 Burton), for placement on the November ballot. (Lowenthal), which provides additional direction in Although the final amendments to this measure are allocating some of the above bond funds. (For the not yet in print, legislative staff indicate that the time being AB 1008 will remain in the Senate Appro- bond funds would be distributed for the following priations Committee.) If the bond measure is purposes: approved by the voters, the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) would · $895 million - [vlultifamily Housing Program administer the funds, with various proposed housing · $200 million - Farm worker Housing Grant Fund projects competing for funding in the above catego- · $195 million - Emergency Housing and Assistance ries. Program · $195 million - Supportive Housing The allocation of the $100 million listed above · $195 million - CalHome for,jobs/housing balance incentives for local gov- · $290 million - California Homebuyer Down pay- ernment will also likely be determined by a yet-to- ment Assistance Program be-identified trailer bill authored by Senator · $30 million - Local code enforcement and compli- Torlakson. A portion of these funds will be allocated ance programs to_jurisdictions that are eligible for award funds for · $100 million in Jobs/Housing Balance incentives achieving established housing permit issuance for'local governments, performance targets during calendar year 2001. (The Legislature initially appropriated $100 million AB 680 from page 1 .....-...... for this program, but has since eliminated all ofthe In the,judgment of the Legislative Counsel, the funding due to budget deficits). courts could interpret the bill to be an unconstitu- tional gift of public funds, because it would give one The state voters have not approved a housing city's locally levied sales tax to another city pursuant bond since 1990; the voters rejected the most recent to the regional distribution scheme. The constitution housing bond proposal during the state recession in would allow a statute to reallocate revenue from one 1993. The proceeds from this bond will help com- _jurisdiction to another, only if the reallocation servedpensate for the lack of significant subsidies for lower a specific public purpose of the city or county within income housing from either the state or federal which the revenue was collected, and if it was ap~ level; but funding will still fall far short of the proved by the voters in the city or county that statewide housing subsidy needs. Ongoing state generated the revenue. (A copy of the opinion is investments at the levels proposed by this bond are available on the League's Web site at www.cacities.org/AB6801egcounsel.) needed to achieve significant progress in meeting California's affordable housing crisis. What's Next for AB 680? The bill's author disagrees with the legal opinion and is expected to continue his efforts to move the bill. Although no formal decision has yet been made by the Senate Rules Committee, the bill is likely to be referred to the Senate Local Government Committee. For more information on this and other The Senate members of that Committee are: Torlakson (Chair), Margett (Vice Chair), Ackerman, Machado, important topics for California cities, visit the Perata, and Soto. League's Web site, www.cacities.org Visit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3