Seven Reasons To Reject The "Affordable Housing" Bond
By Walter Moore - July 31, 2006The proposed "affordable housing" bond would increase your property taxes for 20 years in order to repay, with interest, a $1 billion bond. You should vote against it, and tell your friends to do the same, for seven reasons:
1. It's Robin Hood In Reverse
Should you be taxed to help someone who earns more money than you buy a home? If this bond passes, your money could be given to people with six-figure incomes to help them buy homes! Do you make a six-figure income?
Most government housing assistance programs are supposed to help the poor. Section 8 housing subsidies, for example, are given only to those families that make less than $34,500 per year.
The so-called "affordable housing" bond, by contrast, includes $250 million in subsidies for people who earn up to 150% of the AMI (i.e., the "area median income"). That means your money will go to a family of four that earns $103,968 per year!
Or how about this one: a young lawyer, who makes $46,189 a year working as a clerk for a federal judge, and her husband, while still in law school, could get your money to help pay for a new condo. Two years later, the two of them could be raking in $200,000 a year in private practice. Would it give you a warm, tingly feeling -- knowing that you've helped make "affordable housing" a reality for these needy kids? Let's hope so, because you'll be paying for this bond for 20 years.
2. No Bond Is Needed Since Revenues Are Up $700 Million Per Year
Let's put aside for a moment the question of whether we should use your money to help other people buy or rent housing here. Assuming we should, do we need a new bond to pay for it? The answer is "no."
The City's revenues are way up. The City is taking in $700 million more this year than it did last year. In other words, if you left all spending at the same levels as last year, you would have a $700 million surplus.
The "affordable housing" program to be funded by the proposed bond, however, will cost an additional $100 million per year, for 20 years -- the first 10 years is for the program itself, and the second 10 years is for the interest on the bond.
Hence, we took in enough extra revenues this year alone to pay for the first seven years of the proposed "affordable housing" program. So why not, say, just use $100 million of the extra $700 million this year, and avoid incurring any debt or paying any interest? After all, a $1 billion bond is really a $2 billion because you, the taxpayer, repay the principal plus the interest.
Put another way: since we just got a $700 million per year raise, we don't need to take out the City Hall credit card to pay for a $100 million per year purchase.
3. Eleven Fingers Is One Too Many
Another reason to vote against this bond is that we already have scores of federal, state, county and city programs to help people rent or buy housing. A partial list includes, for example, the following:
California Housing and Community Development (HCD)
California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
California Debt Allocation Committee (CDLAC)
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)
Federal Housing Programs
HUD Programs
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Consolidated Plans
HOME Investment Partnerships Program
Homeless Assistance
HUD Subsidized Multifamily Programs
Public Housing | Conventional Housing
Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plans
Section 8 Programs
Shelter Plus Care
Rural Housing Services (FmHA)
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Los Angeles County's Community Development Commission has a Home Ownership Program ("HOP") that "provides loans up to $60,000 or 25% of the purchase price in designated target areas, or $50,000 or 20% of the purchase price in non-target areas, which ever is the least." And get this: "HOP loans are 0% interest loans. No repayment is required until home is sold, transferred, or refinanced." You can get such a loan, moreover, even if your income is $73,200 per year!
The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles (HACLA), moreover, has more than 8,000 apartments in over 60 locations including large public housing projects and apartment buildings scattered throughout the City.
The City also has a program, called the "Mod 120 Homebuyer" program, to "loan" up to $105,000 to people making up to $109,000 per year -- and it's no interest, no payments until you sell or refinance.
And federal spending on housing assistance is up, up, up. In 2001, the federal government spent over $30 billion on housing assistance, and by 2005, that figure climbed to nearly $38 billion per year, according to a report released by the Heritage Foundation in February 2006.
So why should add yet another program, instead of "beefing up" one already in existence?
4. The Elevator Is Full
Nearly 4 million people already live in the City of Los Angeles: 3,819,951 as of 2003. Exactly how many more people do the proponents of this bond measure want to cram into the city?
City planners are aiming for a 30% population increase by the year 2030 -- which would be another 1,145,985 -- for a total of 4,965,936. Is that what we want for our city's future? More traffic, more demand for power, more demand for water?
Anyway, the bond's proponents say their goal is build 20,000 new units. If they put, say 4 people in each unit, that's 80,000 people -- less than 7% of the projected "need." So you can expect, if you approve this bond, to hear more pleas in the future, so that the city can be "affordable" to the remaining 93% of the additional 1.1 million they want to jam into our city.
5. Reality 101: Not Everyone Can Afford To Live Everywhere
The choices we make in life affect our housing options. Generally speaking, the more education you get, the harder you work, and the more carefully you select your parents, the better. Those circumstances influence how much money you'll make, and what housing options you will have.
Not everyone can live everywhere. Even well-educated, hard-working professionals who scrimp and save may never be able to afford to live in Beverly Hills, Malibu, or Palos Verdes. That circumstance, however, does not mean those cities have an "affordable housing" crisis. Rather, it is simply life.
Likewise, as noted above, nearly four million people manage to live here in L.A. But that does not mean everyone else who wants to live here can afford to do so, nor does it mean there's a public interest in trying to help them move here.
Those with more to spend may want to consider the 10 cities and communities with the highest median home prices in California during June 2006: Beverly Hills, $1,877,500; Burlingame, $1,725,000; Manhattan Beach, $1,575,000; Los Altos, $1,543,500; Newport Beach, $1,347,250; Saratoga, $1,309,000; Mill Valley, $1,294,500; Palos Verdes Estates, $1,225,000; Orinda, $1,207,500; La Canada Flintridge, $1,150,000.
Those with less to spend may want to consider the following counties, where the median prices are as indicated: Riverside County, $420,000; San Bernardino County, $365,000; Sacramento County, $370,000; Fresno County, $306,000; Kern County, $283,000; and Tulare County, $262,000.
6. L.A. Prices Are Par For The Course
The proponents of the "affordable housing" bond throw around a variety of numbers intended to show that housing prices in Los Angeles are exceptionally high. However, statistics from comparable cities and, indeed, from California at large, show that prices here are pretty much par for the course.
According to the California Association of Realtors, as of June 2006, the average price house of a house in California was $575,800, while the average price in Los Angeles was $580,140 -- a difference of just $4,430, less than 1%.
As for the percentage of people who rent rather than own their homes, census figures indicate that 61.4% of L.A. residents rent. The figure for New York is 69.8%, and the figure for Chicago is 56.2%
As for the cost of living, in June 2006, Mercer Human Resources Consulting reported the results of its survey, which "covers 144 cities across six continents and measures the comparative cost of over 200 items in each location, including housing, transport, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment."
Moscow was the most expensive big city, with a score of 123.9; New York was No. 10, with a score of 100. L.A., however, was behind Tokyo, London, Paris, Singapore, Hong Kong, Zurich, Milan, Rome, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Helsinki, Vienna, Sidney, Taipei -- you get the idea. Los Angeles was No. 25 on the list, with a score of 86.7.
7. "Nonprofit" My Hind Leg: The Proponents Want Your Money
You will hear at least $1 million worth of advertising, most of it from so-called "non-profit" groups, to convince you to vote for this bond. Indeed, one of the City Council Members supporting the bond says a political committee called "Homes for Los Angeles Families" has already raised over $600,000, and that backers expect to raise $3 million.
Well, people who can't afford an apartment likewise can't afford a $3 million advertising campaign. So don't fall for the old "non-profit" trick. The fact that an organization is "non-profit" does not mean there is any altruism involved. On the contrary, for-profit businesses often set up a "non-profit" organization to urge legislation from which they could profit.
With $2 billion at stake -- $1 billion in principal and another $1 billion in fees -- you can bet local businesses are hoping to profit significantly from the forced redistribution of your money for the next 20 years.
* * *
You're over-taxed as it is, and you're already paying for scores of programs to help your fellow citizens rent apartments and buy homes. This particular proposal, moreover, would tax you to help those who make more money than you do. The City already has $700 million more of our money this year than it did last year. So say "no" to this bond, and don't feel guilty about it for a nanosecond. Pay off your own mortgage, and let others pay off theirs.





