Why BAHFA bailed on RM4
Even though County Supe Susan Ellenberg is peddling wild conspiracy theories to explain the demise of the ill-conceived regional housing bond, RM4, the reasons for why it was pulled from the ballot are pretty straightforward: Bay Area voters are already taxed to the breaking point. The bond wouldn't make much of a dent in local affordable housing. And most of the huge monies requested wouldn't even go to building new housing. Thomas Buckley explores in California Globe.
BAHFA was created in 2019 after state law allowed such new spending districts be created and it appears it was created by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC and ASSBAG) specifically to make this bond measure possible.
BAHFA’s own polling showed the bond was getting about 54%, not enough to pass, especially if a parallel proposition – Proposition 5 – fails to pass.
That prop – which drops the threshold to pass a local housing and/or infrastructure bond from two-thirds to, surprise surprise, 55% – is on the ropes itself.
Opponents of the bond – which would have added at least $300 per year per median-priced home to the tax bill – were thrilled with the decision. Said Gus Mattammal, the president of the anti-RM4 group, “This decision is a win for Bay Area taxpayers, and a win for affordable housing. To address housing affordability in a meaningful way, we have to address root causes, not soak taxpayers for billions of dollars at a time using bonds that would waste two thirds of the revenue on interest and overhead while barely making a dent in the issue.”
The bond – and its potential for passage – was brought into serious disrepute by that same group, which noted the annual payback would be over $910 million dollars, as opposed to the measure’s promised $670 million each year.
Local word is that BAHFA has only about $8 million to spend to pass bonds, not enough the pollsters told them to overcome the current deficit. Spend it on something that has a chance, is the common wisdom.
While it is legal for public agencies to spend taxpayer money polling and focus grouping and such for bond measure that will cost the taxpayer money, from an ethical standpoint it fails the smell test. At least this time the smell was so bad it was dropped.
Read the whole thing here.
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.