☆ Measure A Mythbuster—How many units did Measure A itself actually build? (1/7)

Depicted: Loki the trickster god

It's an election year, and many local and regional municipalities are busy creating a new ballot measure to tax us more so we can “End Homelessness.” Santa Clara County’s 2016 Measure A tax, a $950 million initiative that promised to build 4,800 housing units for vulnerable populations and people who are chronically homeless, is currently being marketed as a successful model for future bonds and taxes. But did Measure A really do what it was supposed to do—substantially reduce homelessness—or is that a myth? Former SJ CM and small business owner Johnny Khamis kicks off Opp Now's exclusive Measure A Mythbusters series by revealing how there's a whole lotta exaggeration goin' on regarding what Measure A literally achieved.

Let's start with the statements that the Measure A tax would build 4800 housing units over 10 years. Here's the ballot language:

"To provide affordable local housing for vulnerable populations including veterans, seniors, the disabled, low and moderate income individuals or families, foster youth, victims of abuse, the homeless and individuals suffering from mental health or substance abuse illnesses, which housing may include supportive mental health and substance abuse services, shall the County of Santa Clara issue up to $950 million in general obligation bonds to acquire or improve real property subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?"

The average voter could have made two assumptions from the ballot statement:

1.  The county itself would build these units.

2.  The average cost to build these units would be $198k each because $950 million divided by 4,800 units equals $197,917.

But is this a myth?

According to the county’s most recent report (Public Comment No. 2), almost all of the developments cited were being developed by other entities (not on county-owned land), and the investment the county made to each development was a fraction of the total cost to develop. In fact, the average cost of the units that have already been developed was closer to $850,000 per unit, not the $198,000 a voter could have assumed at the ballot box.

While Measure A supporters may make the argument that we leveraged the funds to build the housing, it would be more honest, then, to let the voters know that the money “helped fund” or “partnered with other entities” to build the housing. That is more accurate than saying that the county would, as the ballot statement actually stated, "acquire or improve" the housing.

Just be honest with the voters when asking us to pay even more taxes than we already pay.

Related:

• Perspectives (part 3): Why AGs/city councils disguise undesirable ballot measures with enticing language

• Khamis: Why won't cities solve housing crises by buying on the cheap (instead of building extravagantly)?

• The self-licking ice cream cone

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Sign up to receive updates on Opp Now articles

Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.