Bay Area board scraps affordable-housing bond measure

A $20 billion affordable-housing bond that would have directed $699 million to Marin County and its 11 cities and towns — including Tiburon and Belvedere — has been yanked from the November ballot.

Read complete local election coverage at thearknewspaper.com/election2024

Citing growing concerns about timing, a pending lawsuit and the success of a partner initiative, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority called a special meeting Aug. 14 and voted to remove the nine-county Regional Measure 4, which aimed to build and preserve some 72,000 rent-restricted units for lower- and moderate-income households. The agency intends to try again later, potentially in 2026.

“Just because (the bond) was pulled from the November 2024 ballot, the housing crisis in the greater Bay Area and in Marin did not go away,” said finance authority board member Stephanie Moulton-Peters, a Marin supervisor whose District 3 covers Southern Marin, told The Ark. “Leaders will need to roll up their sleeves and figure out what to do next. The crisis is only worsening: Every day that people are unable to find housing impacts our region’s economy, climate, homelessness and equity.”

In an unsigned Aug. 15 press release from the county, officials said the Marin Board of Supervisors “has committed $25 million over the next five years to help with housing affordability” and that ongoing projects will not be impacted by the decision. But Moulton-Peters added that the bond could have been used to close funding gaps to allow construction to start on other projects, such as the 250-unit Oak Hill apartments in Corte Madera.

In the meantime, the county canceled the remaining online and in-person workshops that began Aug. 5, including an in-person session for Southern Marin residents later this month, to gather feedback from residents on how the local officials should spend the funds over the first five years.

“We are grateful for the time and input that we received to date,” said Leelee Thomas, deputy director for the county’s housing and federal grants program. “We hope to use this information to inform future affordable housing efforts.”

California regulators have tasked Bay Area governments with planning for 253,000 new homes affordable to lower- and moderate-income households through 2031. The finance authority says current funding would allow it to build and preserve 71,000 units and that the bond would more than double that to 143,000 units. More than five years in the making, it was placed on the ballot on June 26.

“The recent legal challenges to the ballot language and the political opposition it represented, as well as the most recent polling results and the multitude of local financing ballot issues on the November ballot, made the passage of the bond issue uncertain without the passage of Proposition 5,” Moulton-Peters said. “It made sense to focus our energy on Proposition 5 and then follow up with the housing bond.”

Proposition 5, which remains on the statewide ballot, would lower the supermajority threshold for infrastructure and affordable-housing bonds from two-thirds to 55%, the same requirement as for public schools. Recent polls show the bond measure has approval sitting around 55%, so if Proposition 5 fails, the housing bond likely would too — which in turn could sour voters on a second attempt later.

In addition, some 13 Bay Area residents, including local anti-development activist Susan Kirsch of Mill Valley, filed a lawsuit in Santa Clara on Aug. 7 alleging that the ballot language and official name, “Bay Area Affordable Plan,” are deceptive. Among other things, it argued that the word “homes” should be replaced with “housing units” because “homes” evokes a “cozy abode”; that “converting vacant lots/blighted properties” sounds prejudicial; and that phrases including “reduce homelessness” and references to transit and jobs are undefined.

The day after the lawsuit was filed, the finance authority addressed one of the claims, calling it a “mathematical error” that the measure would cost property owners $670 million annually when the financial modeling shows the cost is nearly $911 million a year. That didn’t affect the bottom line, however, as the total estimated cost to repay the bond, with interest, remained at $48.3 billion over 53 years.

The general practice is to issue bonds for no more than 30 years, but the authority sought the longer term to keep the annual property tax below $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. As proposed, it was $19, or $190 annually on a $1 million home.

“The legal and campaign challenges from extremist anti-housing and anti-government activists have led to our recommendation today,” Amie Fishman, executive director of the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, said during public comment in recommending the measure be removed from the ballot.

“We’ve had to think about the long run, and it’s going to now need to be, we think, an even longer run in order to preserve our collective ability to really fight and win,” said Heather Hood of housing nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners, a member of the bond coalition.

Others supported the decision, including former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis, who is part of the lawsuit challenging the ballot language.

“I don’t think that the voters are ready to pass another very large tax measure that’s going to make it very hard to keep their homes,” he said. “We have enough people living on the streets now, and I don’t think a very large new tax is going to help.”

Punting to 2026 would put the bond measure on a collision course with another Metropolitan Transportation Commission-backed initiative by state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Aisha Wahab of Fremont that would raise at least $750 million a year to integrate public transit services and improve infrastructure, including road repairs and access for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users.

Moulton-Peters, however, said there could be some strategic benefits, such as the ability to strengthen the measure to address voter concerns and legal challenges.

“Financing is a critical component of housing development, preservation of existing units, and protection for current tenants,” she said. “Marin will continue to explore how to support funding mechanisms for affordable housing.”

Note: This story was updated with comments from Supervisor Stephanie Moulton-Peters, a member of the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority board.

Reach Executive Editor Kevin Hessel at 415-435-2652. Support local journalism by SUBSCRIBING NOW for home delivery and access to the digital replica.

Comment on this article on Nextdoor.