Radical Affordable Housing Law working its way through Sacramento will impact EVERY taxpayer in California.
New affordable housing law 1069 working its way through Sacramento requires the public post a BOND for attorneys fees to fight affordable housing. How can this be fair to the taxpayer? We are the ones stuck with the community costs for taxpayer subsidized housing!
The non profits typically will not pay local sales taxes or mitigation fees. WE the neighbors are stuck with the carrying costs of the project. This is just another way to screw us. https://leginfo.legislature.
ca.gov/faces/ billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201520160SB1069
Both of our representatives, Mike McGuire (D) and Marc Levine(D) voted FOR this bill.
From the Bill:
The Legislature finds and declares that it has provided reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives can be found in the following provisions:
(a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3).
(b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the housing element and brought in support of affordable housing (subdivision (d) of Section 65009).
(c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments (Section 65589.5).
(d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and sewer hookups (Section 65589.7).
(e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1).
(f) Density bonus law (Section 65915).
Second Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2).
(h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing are designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4).
(i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and density reductions (Section 65863).
(j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond (Section 529.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
(k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5).
(l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section 65858).
(m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing (Section 65008).
(n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3).
(o) Community redevelopment law (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413).
VOTE "NO" ON MEASURE A - 1/4 cent sales tax for preschool, etc for low-income familiesReplyDelete
It appears the Measure's primary function is to provide childcare services for low-income families. There is no residency requirement. Many will flock to Marin for free childcare.
This influx of those seeking free childcare will create the need for greater, costly social services. Marin is not even currently taking care of its own needy residents: the mentally ill, the homeless, disabled veterans and more. Taxpayer dollars should be spent on government mandates such as safety, roads, traffic mitigation, schools, and healthcare.
Moreover, the influx will increase the pressure exerted by the State for more subsidized low-income high density housing to be placed in small Marin neighborhoods. Residents of Marinwood, Strawberry, Novato, Fairfax and other Marin towns have rejected such plans, but the threat still looms.
Advocates of free childcare ought to seek funding from the Marin Community Foundation, not taxpayers. The Buck Fund was specifically established to provide such services to Marin’s needy.
Most of the "other" services mentioned in the language of the Measure are already provided in Marin. A portion is designated for healthcare - however, under the ACA every child should be insured already. It’s our County Health Department’s job to make sure children are enrolled. There is no reason to set up a new bureaucracy to duplicate services - at taxpayer's expense.
The County will have plenty of money for healthcare and other services when it addresses out of control benefits for retirees, as outlined in the 2015 Grand Jury Report.
A quarter cent may not seem like much, but the sales tax in Marin is approaching the maximum 10%. Sales taxes rob consumers of purchasing power, ultimately costing jobs. People will go elsewhere to buy goods and services.
Please vote “No on A.” It hurts Marin.