Perspective: COPA dangerously strengthening ties btwn nonprofits/local gov't
David Eisbach points out the consequences of COPA's underlying idea: that unhoused people must rely on larger entities to advance in life. Putting nonprofit orgs in a tremendous position of power over lower-income SJ residents and gov't officials, says Eisbach, will only compound current conflict-of-interest problems.
Two things are abundantly clear: First, supporters of COPA believe that the low-income, in today’s society, are completely incapable of thinking, working, and imagining a life changing path by their own devices. Second, the non-profits have convinced governing forces that their aims are the only course of action, that
promises that change. The COPA program does not create one new rental unit. The QNP’s growth will create difficulties regarding oversight and enforcement. Already the power and unity of the non-profit numbers are strong. There will come a time, when they will be dictating terms to the city. Ask San Francisco’s Mayor London Breed. The HCDC/COPA meeting March.16.2023 presented Rachel Vanderveen’s Memorandum dated March 9, 2023, submitted Attachment A, B and C Additional Background on COPA. Attachment figure 6 Affordable Housing Production during 2010-2022 averaged 94 units per year. Looking at it differently from 2019-2022, the average would be 236 per year. Again, lacking are those properties permitted and due to come on line this year and within the near future. These supporting charts and projections show a plethora of difficulties with income deficiencies and painted a dark and foreboding future for everyone, but there was not one word about the rising costs to the very people who are targeted as the bad guys, the rental owners. Housing cares not for the imbalance of advantage of Qualified Non-Profits, QNP, over the owner, who will be hard pressed to keep a buyer in contract during 167 days of waiting. It makes a difference to a private buyer in a period, as in the last six months, of rising interest rates on a loan; the QNP doesn’t mind because any imbalance will be picked up by the city.
The City’s policy of relying on non-profits to distribute grant funds for homeless, affordable housing, low-income legal affairs, health and education has built a comradery between city and non-profit. The non-profit has used these funds for lobbying for programs that are self-benefiting. The latest example is COPA. One example is Destination: Home, which pays its CEO over $1,000,000, it donated a one-year expert on COPA to the San Jose Housing Department. Jennifer Loving, the CEO has met three times with Mayor Mahan, who along with other council members have had meetings with other non-profits. Destination Homes has a number of city contracts valued at over $13 million. Non-profits are not required to register as lobbyists, there isn’t the will on the council. Covered in the Same Attachment A are the results of the Anti-Displacement Policy Network, ADPN, highlighting San Jose’s efforts in a national study group to stop tenant displacement in November 2018. The results are carried to the present. Notably, the membership of the study group: Councilmember Magdalena Carrasco, (a noted champion of low-income housing issues), Housing Director Jacky Morales-Ferrand, (behind the expansion of Housing to 105 full-time employees and supportive of COPA), Planning Building and Code Enforcement Director Rosalynn Hughey, Working Partnerships (a non-profit arm of the South Bay Labor group, (staunch supporters of rent-control and COPA), Jeffery Buchanan and Asn Ndiave; Law Foundation, (which was, reluctantly, the last place where owners would seek legal help.) Planning Commission/Executive Director of Silicon Valley Bike Coalition, Shiloh Ballard. (Just a guess, Frosting). In January 2020 the San Jose ADPN team expanding their program with input from outreach partners SOMOS Mayfair and AV Consulting. Although, this study was not official policy, because, city staff was involved and thought the recommendations were valid, they are included in this Memorandum. The City Housing Department sees no budgetary restraint in paying for outside guns for hire as with the current $100,000 RSG report in April on the state of the health of ARO, TPO and Ellis Act. Although outreach had its usual two-hour session devouring the first hour thus limiting the last. Only those who contact the city to get on a list are invited.
Consequences of COPA, the long-form above lays part of the answer. Here’s what I see:
1. The City will contract by contract and subsidy after subsidy, will find with slow or non-payment of its down-payment, renovation loans or increasing subsidy demands, be strapped for funds.
2. The non-profits will continue to influence spending decisions by the city, only this time with units filled with needy persons. Their positions and power will be greatly enhanced.
3. Housing will continue to keep owners in the dark as to what is happening, by saying they meet the Federal Guidelines in outreach requirements.
4. The city will have to increase property taxes like the Measure E 7.5% transfer tax on $2 million dollar properties.
5. As the Housing Department grows, the burden on income property owners will increase to feed Director Morales-Ferrand’s plans, now at 105 full-time employees.
6. The Sales Pitch of COPA is the promise of ownership and empowerment. Expecting a low rent property and fed with the thought of growing equity only to discover that years of low-rents have given nothing, but offering them the right to purchase, which they cannot afford unless the city provides the funds necessary.
7. COPA will emphasize small properties because of the so-called less than the $1 million per door. If the city bought a duplex for $1.400,000, renovated it, charged $800 per side, without property tax and self-insuring, they might approach a zero cash flow. That would be two doors at maybe $800,000. But never with a Qualified Non-Profit.
8. The Housing Department will continue with its Theater Outreach. It will run its recommendations to the Housing and Community Development Commission, HCDC, which will pass it, because it is a program, by design, that is made up of Councilmember-selected and required to be or represent the low-income interests. The 14 member Commission has one apartment and one Mobile Home Park owner/manager. That’s accounts for the vote of 11 to 3 in favor of COPA on March 16, 2023.
9. Although, the HCDC is an advisory commission, it carries much weight with its enforcement of Housing’s proposal when presented to the Council. In addition to that it is charged to be the oversight of four areas of city spending, the Measure E monies for one, so Housing wins again.
10. COPA time extension will eventually kill private bidding, which will eventually result in the lowering of value.
11. COPA’s treatment of a person of means in a lower rent property, will not evict that tenant, but it will raise them to market level within three years, even if it is higher than the ARO, TPO cap of 5%. COPA will eventually decide what fair market is!
12. COPA will drain the city of its funds for security, maintenance and livability.
David Eisbach can be contacted here: deisbach1848@currently.com
This article is part of an exclusive Opp Now series on hazy, shady, and all-out criminal relationships between local nonprofits/gov't:
Jonathan Fleming, founder and director of SVPAF, speaks to what's going on with SJ's nonprofit community.
Joel Kotin at Philanthropy Daily analyzes the worrisome dynamic of local left-wing nonprofits advocating for extremist policies while at the same time benefiting from taxpayer and ultra-rich funder largesse.
Nonprofit attorney Scott Hartley of Hartley Law clarifies the parameters that apply to nonprofits when it comes to political activity.
SFStandard.com reports on how nonprofits in San Francisco can leverage huge sums of taxpayer dollars for political activity while neglecting their core mission.
Planning Commissioner chair Pierluigi Oliverio offers a compromise in the ongoing dispute over whether local progressive nonprofits break regulations with their aggressive lobbying of City staff /politicians: treat all advocacy activity the same.
Josh Koehn explains in the SF Standard that many residents are urging for transparency in how NP partners address objectives and use taxpayer funds. However, local nonprofit lobbyists strongly request no additional stipulations be enforced—lest the paperwork adds up.
The HJTA's Susan Shelley untangles LA's recently-passed Measure ULA. Residents making high-value real estate transactions must fork over some big coin, but none of it will go to emergency shelters or transitional housing—just unaccountable nonprofits peddling the discredited Housing First mantra.
David Eisbach points out the consequences of COPA's underlying idea: that unhoused people must rely on larger entities to advance in life. Putting nonprofit orgs in a tremendous position of power over lower-income SJ residents/officials will compound conflict-of-interest problems.
Gov't misconduct expert Josh Koehn reports on a new lawsuit against SF nonprofit org the United Council of Human Services, which alleges that CEO Gwendolyn Westbrook has inappropriately used funds for personal benefit.
Local nonprofits act just like lobbyists (but retain their tax exempt status) and brazenly invite conflict of interest concerns. Joel Kotkin provides the backstory in Philanthropy Daily.
Local neighborhood coalition Families & Homes SJ wonders how it's okay that the city's Housing Director can sit on the board of a local housing nonprofit.
SF org Clean City Coalition is alleged to have engaged in highly illegal, dangerous money laundering behaviors.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Wikimedia Commons