☆ Opinion: MTC's housing bond a big black hole of missing information

 
 

Chris Robell, retired CFO and advocate for clear and lawful ballot questions (follow his San Mateo County school bond lawsuit here), dissects the pros, cons, and glaring empty spaces of the MTC's $10–20 billion housing bond, to be gleaned via serious property tax hikes. An Opp Now exclusive.

Opportunity Now: What's your take on the MTC's regional “affordable housing” bond? Are residents right to be concerned about what many are calling ambiguous language?

Chris Robell: This proposed bond measure reminds me of ACA 1, which isn't at all specific or clear when using the term “infrastructure.” [Editor's note: ACA 1 is backed by the MTC.] Similarly, right off the bat, “affordable housing” in the MTC bond could mean a lot of things. Not to mention that there's no such thing as “affordable” housing; we can have market-rate housing, and we can have subsidized housing (someone else has to pay for it), but there's nothing different we can develop that's “affordable.” And when MTC's information guide lists the goals of production, preservation, and protection, other than the fact that they all start with “p,” I don't glean anything about this measure. I think voters want to hear more than these meaningless catch-alls.

The bond language, if it stays this vague, could violate Elections Code 13119, which requires writers to specify the nature of a proposed measure, in “a true and impartial synopsis of the [measure's] purpose.” Production, preservation, and protection doesn't make it clear that MTC's asking me if I am okay having my tax rate increased to subsidize other people's housing. That's what the measure language must directly say in order to comply with ELEC § 13119.

It needs to be very clear that they're asking for a lot of money, and where that money is going. Who wants to take out a mortgage right now? That's effectively what we'd be doing with this. So voters must know: with this measure, would we build some number of units and then stop, or would it be an insatiable number? And how much of the money would really go towards housing (as it's way less than 50%, and often approaching 20%, when all is said and done)? Because these are increases in tax rates, not mere dollars. Voters deserve to know if this'll be another High-Speed Rail project, a bridge to nowhere, or if it'll have real-world impact.

ON: We also notice that, performance metrics aside, the MTC measure lacks clear parameters for how it will spend funds. For example, what kind of projects and infrastructure are covered under “protection” of affordable housing?

CR: There seem to be no guardrails in place to ensure the bond money is spent wisely and on the right things. (Similarly, there's no information on how the money would be coordinated and the project centralized. Who'd own this project: the city, county, or state? Overlapping management would create extra bureaucracy, expenses, and hassle. When everyone's accountable, no one's accountable.)

But note that the mere existence of parameters isn't good enough. For instance, recipients of school bonds have to compose a bond project list, which sounds helpful for accountability; but it always turns into a long laundry list of ideas (not all of which can be completed using available funds) and the promise that they'll “only spend money on projects listed here.” Unless rules get tightened up, it'll be the same thing with this MTC bond. Like a blank check.

ON: Is this a common problem these days in California: a measure's put forth and passed because it sounds altruistic, but it lacks specific language about—you know—what it's about, what it'll do, and how taxpayers will be affected?

CR: This is widespread. Too often, people writing ballot measures (MTC in this case) communicate a sales pitch in the 75-word question, altogether ignoring ELEC § 13119's mandate to be impartial and neutral when stating the nature of the measure (which, for bonds, is a tax that must also state the amount raised, the interest rate, and the duration).

A famous Judge Judy wrote a book called “Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining.” I'm not a lawyer, but I understand what's going on with these measures. They know that a lot of people consider a measure for the first time in the voting booth, when they read the question on their ballot. In many cases, that's all they read. So it's crucial that the measure's question is honest and compliant with the law.

That's why we must put pressure on local and State governments to ensure ballot measures follow ELEC § 13119 and the Constitution. We don't need new laws that tell people to avoid misleading language. We need government officials to comply with our existing laws.

And that’s why I’m pursuing an Election Contest in San Mateo County regarding two local school bonds (Redwood City Elementary School District and Sequoia Union High School District). The County Chief Elections Official used public money to print and circulate ballots that violate the law. It’s no coincidence that 95% of ballot measures pass in San Mateo County when the tax proponents are allowed to write a campaign on the ballot.

It is also worth noting that Redwood City Elementary School District plans to use bond proceeds for workforce housing, which clearly violates the California Constitution. The Constitution clearly says Prop 39 bonds are to be used for school facilities and no other purpose. Workforce housing is not a school facility. Of course, there is the practical question as to whether school districts should really get into the business of becoming a landlord. Some might say that is a distraction from their core focus of education.

ON: Are local voters really not clued in to what questions they should be asking with these housing measures?

CR: I think people are easily duped, especially when “dirty words” like tax/interest are avoided in the ballot question. Just go in the middle of a shopping mall and ask your average person, “Hypothetically, if there's a bond for 'affordable housing,' what do you think you're actually voting on?” Many people won't know. Some think a bond is a good thing like a stock. However, you're not getting interest with bonds like the MTC's; you're paying it.

It's not that they're not smart people. They're often busy or just don't pay attention to politics. Yes, the voter guide comes weeks earlier than the ballot, but how many people actually read through it? It's unfortunately quite similar to the terms and conditions on your phone: it's the default response to click “yes” without reading any, or much, of it.

Related:

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

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.

Special Reports, Regional Housing TaxJax OliverComment