☆ Tom Rubin: Beware the Son-of-RM4, another plea for MTC to spoil its constituents (2/2)
Image generated using Dall-E
Transit consultant Tom Rubin warns that MTC’s BAHFA could give birth to another ill-conceived prodigality in the billions of dollars. On the 2026 ballot, they may also ask Bay Area voters for a transit tax. Statewide, the legislature could try to amend the constitution just to thwart taxpayer protections, while Sac targets cities who don’t want to stack ‘n pack themselves into dissipation. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: So now that Prop 5 has lost, and RM4 was pulled off the ballot, what does the future look like for regional bond measures in the Bay Area?
Tom Rubin: I think it's almost a given that we will have another Son-of-RM4, as I've been calling it. The progressives are absolutely dedicated to their constituency in low-income, or affordable, housing. They’re out way in front of most, or a lot of the voters, but they are going to continue to push it.
ON: And the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) is going to impose hardships on lots of Bay Area cities, too?
TR: RHNA has a very flawed methodology that nobody can understand, and they refuse to make any changes to it. Even though we’re losing population here in California.
The Attorney General is absolutely deaf to communities that want a more reasonable approach. He is taking everybody to court. He set up his special hit squad of attorneys to go after people who don't see things the way that he does.
We’ll see if there's enough pressure that there will finally be some type of re-do.
ON: What would that look like?
TR: There's been a movement for years for a constitutional amendment to get the state out of making local decisions, particularly on land use and related subjects. It would have to be a ballot initiative, and it's exceedingly expensive in California to even qualify a ballot measure.
ON: I imagine the state would push back against that.
TR: Well, progressives passed the constitutional amendment ACA 10 last year, but then took it out after the Taxpayer Protection Act was taken off the ballot by the Supreme Court.
But if a new version of the TPA qualifies for the ballot, we’ll see the legislature again pushing through a new constitutional amendment to require the TPA to pass with two-thirds statewide.
ON: Really? So let me see if I have this right. The next TPA would likely close the Upland loophole that lets citizens’ initiatives pass local tax increases with 50%, and return the requirement to the constitutional two-thirds of voters.
But as a counterattack, the state legislature would then push a new version of ACA 10, to say that the TPA would have to get two-thirds of the vote statewide, to match the local two-thirds requirement that it would be re-establishing.
It’s almost like they’d be punishing the TPA just for trying to uphold a constitutional norm?
TR: Yes. And this is totally inconsistent with Prop 5, which was lowering the local threshold for raising bonds from two-thirds to 55%; but it didn't require that it be passed statewide by 55%, let alone two-thirds.
ON: Right, Prop 5 only needed a bare majority over 50% to pass.
TR: You see, there’s a very big logical inconsistency there. But unfortunately, this is law. So we are not talking logic.
ON: And Prop 5, when it was still in the legislature, was going to be even more radical?
TR: Yeah, and it was polling so poorly that they softened it and tried to make it more acceptable. It still failed; but I really expect to see a new version of Prop 5 back on the ballot, even if it doesn't poll well, because the Democrats and progressives will see it as absolutely necessary to protect their constituents.
ON: What else will BAHFA do to push through another massive housing bond?
TR: Well, they are going to poll, and poll, and poll, and poll. They are going to test the ballot language like crazy, do focus groups, and see what they might be able to come up with.
They want to raise a huge amount of money that they can use for all different purposes.
Besides housing, MTC has a huge problem with being able to operate the Bay Area transit agencies, They’re looking at somewhere between half a billion to $1.2 billion in new taxes. Not bonds, but annual taxes, to continue to operate without huge cutbacks in transit services. They are very reluctant to even discuss cutbacks and cost reductions, like payroll, because that is one of their core constituencies they do not want to offend.
ON: So MTC is going to push a housing bond and additional transit taxes on the same ballot?
TR: It is going to be some sight to see.
ON: Would you say it’s audacious?
TR: They understand why they were placed on this Earth, which is transit/transportation; it’s to pass these types of ballot measures. So, they will keep trying to find a way to make that happen.
In the meantime, they are going for significant new bridge tolls to finance bridge renewal, rather than shifting RM2/RM3 funds from various transit projects, like BART to San Jose and Valley Link, that are unneeded and not going anywhere for years, if not decades.
ON: One argument in favor of keeping the two-thirds requirement for local bonds is that Californians are generous. If there’s a bond that’s reasonable, people will vote for it.
Is there a compromise BAHFA could make, more than just polling and tweaking the message, that would show they’re responsive to the electorate, especially after the results this year?
TR: I think that MTC and BAHFA are very good at reading the political winds. However, from my experience with them, that doesn't necessarily mean they will make a change. They will go so far, but only so far in compromise.
ON: What could BAHFA do that you would support?
TR: I have a hard time seeing how there will be a housing bond I will ever support. The entire government infrastructure is set up to waste any and all money that can be raised, and it has totally failed to show that it can do much of any good. It's just throwing money at a problem with both hands, and it doesn't do much for solving the problem.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Related:
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.