This week in affordable housing news…:

State Update:

The November ballot won’t have any statewide housing measures for the first time in years, but several major local ballot measures are making news with a few weeks until election day:

• In the City of Los Angeles, voters are being asked to support a proposed new “mansion tax” that could raise more than $900 million a year for affordable housing—and produce roughly 26,000 units of new housing over the next decade. The initiative, known as Measure ULA, would add a 4% tax to sales or transfers of homes above $5 million—and a 5.5% tax to property of $10 million or more. A total of 70% of revenues would be dedicated to programs aimed at building and acquiring affordable housing, and 30% would go to homelessness prevention programs like emergency rental assistance. The initiative is backed by a coalition of 200 local organizations, including CHC partner SCANPH. “Los Angeles desperately needs more affordable housing,” the Los Angeles Times editorial board said in a recent endorsement. “Measure ULA would provide the resources needed to make sure it gets built.”

• Voters in San Francisco will be considering one of the state’s first “vacant property” tax proposals, Proposition M, which seeks to expand access to housing by assessing annual fees of up to $5,000 on condos and rental units that are vacant six months of the year. Fees would rise to $10,000 in 2025 and $20,000 in 2026 for owners who continue to keep their units empty. The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board recently withheld their endorsement, noting that only about 4,000 units would be subject to the tax—largely because the measure doesn’t apply to one of the city’s most commonly vacant types of housing: “Prop. M contains a critical error that hampers its efficacy: Single-family and two-unit homes are inexplicably exempted from scrutiny,” the Chronicle said: “San Franciscans should reject Prop. M and ask supervisors to try again on a vacancy tax—the right way next time.” 

• The City of Berkeley has the largest revenue measure in the city’s history on the ballot this year—a $650 million bond proposal, Measure L, that would raise $200 million for the construction and preservation of affordable housing. Berkeley joins a number of cities in recent years that have proposed borrowing on an increasingly large scale to fund affordable housing. As Governing magazine noted this week, the City of San Jose, which is ten times larger than Berkeley, passed a record-setting $650 million bond measure in 2018. A $900 million bond in San Diego failed in 2020. In Los Angeles, a $1.2 billion bond approved by voters in 2016 continues to ripple through city politics, with half of the bonds still yet to be sold. 

ICYMI – Top news stories:

From Menlo Park to Laguna Beach, residents turn to ballot box to fight new California housing mandates 
KQED 
Californians opposed to new development in their neighborhoods have long had local elected leaders on their side. But their power to say no is waning. Faced with a massive housing shortage, state leaders over the past half-dozen years have approved a bevy of new laws to override opposition to new housing and have become more willing to take recalcitrant cities to court. Still, residents in some California cities are firing back. From Menlo Park to Watsonville and Laguna Beach, they’re hoping to rely on another time-tested tradition: using the ballot box to restrict growth. “We have no choice,” said Nicole Chessari, a Suburban Park homeowner co-leading Menlo Park’s Yes on Measure V campaign. “No one was listening to us.” 

Most Southern California cities miss new deadline to complete housing plans 
Orange County Register 
Almost two-thirds of Southern California’s cities and counties failed to meet a state housing plan deadline Saturday, Oct. 15, costing them a 2 ½-year extension needed to rezone land for future home construction. As a result, 124 governments have two hurdles to overcome to get into compliance with state housing laws. First, they must get state approval for a new “housing element” that lays out how local communities will meet state-mandated homebuilding goals by 2030. Then, they must rezone enough parcels to give developers the authority to build that new housing. Governments without an approved housing plan and completed rezoning can lose access to state housing and transportation grants, have less control over future developments and face the risk of lawsuits and fines. 

What to know about California’s ‘builders remedy’ — and how it could explode housing development in S.F. 
San Francisco Chronicle – Oped by Kevin Burke, East Bay for Everyone 
Cities in California have long insisted that they take the state’s housing crisis seriously and that they know best where new housing should go. This year, they actually have to prove it. Every eight years, the state makes cities plan for growth through the RHNA process, which sets baselines for housing production. Until recently, those plans were rubber-stamped by the state. This cycle is different. HCD is now enforcing the rules, and state-mandated housing goals (and financial penalties for missing them) are much higher, especially in wealthy cities. While some cities, such as Beverly Hills, don’t especially want affordable housing and don’t mind losing funds, a little-known penalty, a 1990 amendment to the Housing Accountability Act informally called the “builder’s remedy,” is getting more attention.