As California rents and property values continue to rise, it should come as no surprise that three housing-related measures will face voters on the November ballot, targeting veterans’ home loans, local rent control and housing construction for the homeless. All are a direct result of California’s soaring costs.
Those costs are daunting, according to Apartment List and other cost-tracking firms.
The median monthly rent on a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco is $3,450, and the median cost of a home is $1.3 million, an 11% increase over the past year. In Los Angeles, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $2,000, about 5% greater than last year. Statewide, the average rent on a one-bedroom apartment is about $1,400, and a home costs $440,000 — far more than double the national average of $180,000.
“California is a large and diverse state, but one thing we all share is that we’re living through the worst housing crisis in our state’s history.” — David Chiu
A conventional yardstick known as the 50-30-20 rule — 50% percent for housing and food, 30% for discretionary spending and 20% for savings — means that a single person would need to earn $74,371 annually to live “comfortably” in Los Angeles, according to a 2016 financial analysis.
So here’s a breakdown for Nov. 6.
Affordable housing and housing assistance for veterans
Proposition 1, the Housing Programs and Veterans’ Loans Bond, would authorize $4 billion in bonds to finance existing housing programs and help veterans purchase homes.
One-third of the funds would go toward the CalVet Home Loans program, assisting veterans in purchasing homes, farms and mobile homes. The rest of the funds will be funneled into programs to assist low-income homeowners, housing near transit stations and mortgage assistance.
Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, is in favor of the housing package.
“California is a large and diverse state, but one thing we all share is that we’re living through the worst housing crisis in our state’s history,” Chiu said in a statement. He said with these historic bills, “we begin to take on the affordable housing crisis that threatens our state’s economic prosperity, deepens inequality, and increases homelessness.”
As of June 29, there were no reported committees registered in opposition.
Using mental health dollars for low-income housing
Proposition 2 would allow $2 billion in bonds to pay for housing for persons in need of mental health services, in an attempt to prevent homelessness.
This money was approved years ago as Proposition 63 — the so-called millionaire’s tax — but the cash-strapped state tapped the fund over the years for other purposes as the economic downturn took hold. Proposition 2 requires that the funds be used for low-income housing targeting the mentally ill.
About 30 percent of Los Angeles’ homeless have serious mental illness, a Los Angeles Times report said.
Meanwhile, homelessness rose nearly 14 percent. A court battle stalled spending after Sacramento lawyer Ann Bernard brought suit. She contended the proposal was illegal, saying the state constitution requires voter approval for all general obligation bond measures, and Proposition 63, approved in 2004, did not specifically include housing construction as one of the ways money could be spent.
Ruth Schwartz, executive director of Shelter Partnership, a grouping of agencies in the Los Angeles area that aids people who are homeless in the area, said affordable housing for the homeless, and especially the mentally ill, is necessary.
“It is a necessary part of the recover process,” she said, adding those with mental illnesses require stable environments.
Schwartz said Los Angeles County has a larger population of homeless than most areas in California.
Based on a 2016 U.S. Census Bureau study, more than 176,300 people in the United States were unsheltered on a single night in late January. Although a relatively small portion of the homeless population are considered mentally ill — 13%-15% percent across the nation — about 30 percent of Los Angeles’ homeless have serious mental illness, a Los Angeles Times report said.
Allowing local government to enact rent control
Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative, is one of the most controversial measures on the ballot. It would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and allow local authorities to adopt rules and regulations on how much landlords who rent out houses and apartments can charge their tenants.
Californians for Responsible Housing, which was organized by the California Apartment Association, is leading the campaign opposing the initiative.
Currently, Costa-Hawkins allows landlords the right to increase rent prices to match local market rates when a tenant moves out.
According to a 2017 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, San Francisco residents would have to work 177 hours a week at the minimum wage to afford a one-bedroom rental in the area. In Sacramento and surrounding counties, a person would need to work 61-80 hours per week to afford a one-bedroom rental.
Californians for Responsible Housing, which was organized by the California Apartment Association, is leading the campaign opposing the initiative, stating it would hurt owners of rental housing throughout the state. The group raised about $6.5 million through July 4 to fight the measure, according to state financial disclosure records.
“It would extend rent control laws to single-family homes, institute vacancy control, and cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits,” the association states on its website.
Proposition 5 would amend the landmark tax-cutting initiative, Proposition 13, which voters approved in June 1978.
The California Teachers Association is in support of the initiative, along with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.
“I’ve always believed that those who live closest to a given block or a street know what’s best. Local government should have control over their own city,” Garcetti told NBC in Los Angeles.
The Coalition for Affordable Housing, supporters of Proposition 10, have raised about $2.3 million.
Another measure on the Nov. 6 ballot, Proposition 5, is related to housing because of tax breaks for senior citizens and the disabled, but it does not include funding for new construction.
The measure would amend the landmark tax-cutting initiative, Proposition 13, which voters approved in June 1978.
It would allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to “transfer the tax-assessed value from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home’s market value; (b) the new home’s location in the state; or (c) the number of moves,” according to Ballotpedia.
Currently, homebuyers over 55 years of age are eligible once in their lifetimes to transfer their tax assessments from their prior home to their new home if the new home’s market value is equal to or less than the prior home’s value.