a) "Affordable housing" to include housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that provide workforce housing affordable to households earning up to 150% of countywide median income, and housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that provide housing affordable to lower, low-, or very low income households; and,

b) "Public infrastructure" to include, but not be limited to, projects that provide any of the following:

i) Water or protect water quality;
ii) Sanitary sewer;
iii) Treatment of wastewater or reduction of pollution from stormwater runoff;
iv) Protection of property from impacts of sea level rise;
v) Parks and recreation facilities;
vi) Open space;
vii) Improvements to transit and streets and highways;
viii) Flood control;
ix) Broadband internet access service expansion in underserved areas;
x) Local hospital construction;
xi) Public safety buildings or facilities, equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police or sheriff personnel; and,
xii) Public library facilities.

[Scroll down for further.]

In a May 22 email alert, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association stated:

Lowering the two-thirds vote for bonds and parcel taxes makes it easier to approve debt that is included "below the line" on property tax bills and is not included in Prop 13's one percent cap. This can add hundreds of dollars a year to residential and commercial property tax bills, and last for decades. Parcel taxes are very regressive in that all property owners typically pay the same amount, regardless of the size of the home or business...

Sponsor

Sponsor

ACA 1 requires 2/3 Assembly approval to advance to the state Senate. On the upcoming Assembly vote, Repubs (in the minority) will likely all vote "no," meaning eight incumbent Dem Assemblymembers would have to vote "no" or "abstain" to stop ACA 1. LB's Assemblymembers include Patrick O'Donnell (LB-San Pedro), Mike Gipson (NLB-Carson/Compton, who's an Assembly co-author of ACA 1) plus Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (NLB-Paramount.)

If the Assembly advances ACA 1 to the state Senate, 2/3 of state Senators will vote on whether to advance it further. After June 4, over half of LB will have a new Senator being chosen by voters right now (vote by mail ballots flying with June 4 election day.) It will be either LB Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez (endorsed by LB Mayor Garcia) or Cudahy Councilman/CPA Jack Guerrero (endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.) ACA 1 was introduced in Sac'to at the behest of the CA Labor Federation, CA Professional Firefighters, Housing California, and State Building and Construction Trades Council (groups supportive of or allied with supporters of Gonzalez's state Senate campaign; ACA 1's state Senate co-authors include state Senator Scott Wiener (D, SF), who's endorsed Gonzalez.)

If 2/3 of the state Senate approves ACA 1, it will be placed on the November 2020 (high turnout presidential election) ballot where a simple majority of CA voters will either approve or reject it.

Sponsor

In March 2019, LBREPORT.com was first (again) to report that LB Mayor Garcia had signed a letter to state lawmakers stating the City of Long Beach supports ACA 1 (text below). LB Mayors doesn't have policy-setting authority, which is reserved to the City Council...and LB Councilmembers never publicly discussed or voted on whether to support the major state constitutional change to Prop 13 proposed by ACA 1. The text below is in a March 20, 2019 letter that LBREPORT.com spotted and reported on March 29:

...ACA 1 would provide Long Beach with a more realistic financing option to fund an increase in the supply of affordable housing, and to address the numerous local public infrastructure challenges cities are facing. The City supports policies that promote the development of affordable and accessible housing. Over the last decade, the City has facilitated the construction of 1,694 new affordable units, preserved nearly 2,000 units, rehabilitated 367 units, and passed the voter-supported Measure A to fund infrastructure and public safety improvements. In addition, the City is developing inclusionary zoning and tenant assistance policies and has 800 affordable units in the development pipeline. To achieve the same or greater levels of affordable housing production moving forward, it is critical to provide opportunities for additional funding sources. ACA 1 would help the City achieve this goal.

ACA 1 will create a viable financing tool to help address important community needs for affordable housing and public infrastructure. This proposal also preserves local voters’ control over how their tax dollars are spent, since voters would still need to overwhelmingly support a bond or special tax (with 55 percent) for it to be approved. Rising housing costs are impacting nearly all California communities. ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry) not only allows local officials to have a greater role in funding local housing and infrastructure needs, but it gives Long Beach residents a tool to directly impact their communities.

Given these reasons, the City of Long Beach supports ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry)...

Sponsor

Sponsor

Mayor Garcia didn't completely invent his letter's City-stated stance. The City Council did vote in November 2018 (without dissent) to approve a 2019 "state legislative agenda" listing general policies (not specific bills) that the City of LB favors or opposes in Sacramento. These included

Support policies, legislation and grants that increase funding for affordable housing when equitable to Long Beach...

...Support policies, legislation and grants to maximize funding and funding flexibility for the development and enhancement of affordable and/or accessible housing within the City...

The Council also previously approved a number of strategies to promote affordable housing, one of which states:

Track federal and State legislative activities and support legislation that increases funding for affordable housing.

Apart from supporting legislation to exclude stormwater/urban runoff management fees from current constitutional requirements, the Council-adopted "2019 state legislative agenda" never mentions amending the CA constitution to reduce Prop 13's taxpayer protective 2/3 voter requirement for a broad list of potential local spending items, which ACA 1 would do.

On April 5, 2019, LBREPORT.com published a podcast (on-demand audio) of our conversation with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's Legislative Director, David Wolfe, who urged Long Beach City Councilmembers to go on record indicating their position on ACA 1. Mr. Wolfe said his organization has about 30% registered Democrats among its statewide members ("there's nothing partisan about taxes or Prop 13.") For on-demand audio of salient parts of our conversation, click here.

Mr. Wolfe said ACA 1 "undermines and eviscerates the provisions of Proposition 13. It removes the two-thirds vote for all local special taxes including sales and parcel taxes [for]...a wide variety of infrastructure projects including affordable housing. It could hundreds of dollars to property tax bills up and down the state...This could get really expensive for local property owners, residential and businesses I might add real quick." He added that he considers it "counter-intuitive" to claim ACA 1 supports affordable housing when it since "parcel taxes are very regressive; you pay the same amount of money regardless of the size of your home or residence of the amount of income that you make...Why would we add additional property tax burdens in the form of parcel taxes and make it more difficult for people to own homes...and it doesn't fix our affordable housing issues."

Mr. Wolfe noted: "This is the first time in the 40 year history of Proposition 13 that both houses have a 2/3 super-majority in the legislature...We're dealing with unprecedented territory here and obviously Prop 13 has bipartisan support, it has majority voter approval [in polls] in every area of California with the exception of the San Francisco Bay Area..."

Sponsor

Sponsor

The Assembly Legislative Analysis of ACA 1 states in pertinent part:

Arguments in Support:

Supporters argue that when the state seeks voter approval for a statewide measure, it requires a simple majority, but when a city or county seeks voter approval for a similar investment, they face a stringent two-thirds vote threshold. Supporters believe ACA 1 will level the playing field and create parity with school districts, which need 55% approval for school construction, so that cities, counties and special districts have a viable financing tool to help address important community needs for affordable housing, public infrastructure, and permanent supportive housing. Because of the numerous challenges in funding important public infrastructure and housing projects for their communities, supporters argue that this constitutional amendment is necessary to deal with the urgent need for investment in housing, and the chronic underfunding of local infrastructure to improve storm water management, transit development, park facilities, and streets and roads. Supporters also argue that one of the major obstacles to building housing, particularly in infill areas, is the cost of critical infrastructure, which often neither the developer or the city or county has the money to fund.

Arguments in Opposition:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argues that "ACA 1 repeals one of the most important protections in Proposition 13 by lowering the existing two-thirds vote threshold for both local bonds and special taxes to 55% for a myriad of purposes. While revenue raised from ACA 1 may slightly increase the affordable housing stock, it will also have the perversely negative effect of increasing the cost of housing dramatically. Nationwide, according to the National Association of Home Builders, an increase of just $1,000 in the new median home price knocks 120,000 potential buyers out of the market. Making it easier to approve hundreds of dollars a year in new annual bonds and parcel won't make it easier to afford a home, and it won't make it easier for renters, a third of whom spend half their take home pay on rent, to be able to save. With these housing expenses, it's little wonder that California's homeownership rate of 54 percent is well off the national average of 64%, and that the large majority of the 100,000 people who leave California each year make less than $90,000. Proposition 13 is not the cause of California's evaporating middle-class."

Developing. Further to follow on LBREPORT.com.

Support really independent news in Long Beach. No one in LBREPORT.com's ownership, reporting or editorial decision-making has ties to development interests, advocacy groups or other special interests; or is seeking or receiving benefits of City development-related decisions; or holds a City Hall appointive position; or has contributed sums to political campaigns for Long Beach incumbents or challengers. LBREPORT.com isn't part of an out of town corporate cluster and no one its ownership, editorial or publishing decisionmaking has been part of the governing board of any City government body or other entity on whose policies we report. LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. You can help keep really independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.