$20B housing bond pulled

The bond would have been bolstered by Bay Area property owners, who would have paid approximately $19 per $100,000 of assessed property, translating into 72,000 housing units, according to estimates from BAHFA. San Mateo County was set to receive about $2 billion from the bond.

But several legal hurdles deflated the effort, causing elected officials and regional leaders to reconsider whether the measure was premature, especially given the millions of dollars needed to invest in its passage. Aug. 14 was the deadline to pull the measure off the ballot, causing BAHFA officials to make the last-minute decision, despite voting in June to move forward with it.

One lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County earlier this month states the ballot text violates the state election code as it is written in language that is considered impartial. The complaint noted that using words like “affordability,” for instance, without accompanying them with the term “housing” is “argumentative and likely to create prejudice because it implies to voters to that RM4 generally addresses the cost of living in the Bay Area, such as ‘affordable health care,’ ‘affordable groceries,’ ‘affordable transit,’ and/or ‘affordable utilities,’” it said.

The ballot measure’s odds also looked grim when considering its reliance on the passage of Proposition 5, which has been facing its own legal challenges. If passed, the proposition would lower the voter threshold of certain bonds from a two-thirds majority to 55%. BAHFA’s own polling, however, indicated that it would be unlikely for the housing measure to pass if it needed a two-thirds majority, reinforcing its precarious ties to Prop. 5.

The push to take RM4 off the ballot also came from some pro-housing advocates and local elected officials, however, not for the same reasons listed in lawsuit complaints. For some, such as San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, putting the bond measure to voters this November is a poor strategic decision, given the financial crunch agencies and households are facing.

“It’s simply a terrible time to ask residents to pay more taxes,” Mueller said. “Food costs are up over 25% and gas is up 29%. Additionally, in this challenging environment, many of our local agencies are in the position of facing serious budget difficulties ... .to balance their budgets, many local agencies are asking voters to pass their own tax measures this election cycle. RM4 has the potential to sink those local measures and rob those agencies of any remaining taxpayer appetite.”

Others, such as Ali Sapirman, Peninsula and South Bay organizer at Housing Action Coalition, said in a written statement that the decision was unfortunate, as it would have helped tens of thousands of Bay Area residents secure safe, affordable shelter in the midst of a severe housing crisis.

“Even amidst budget shortfalls, affordable housing must be a top priority, or we will see thousands in our community continue to face housing insecurity or be forced to leave the Bay Area entirely,” they said.