Fourteen statewide measures will appear on the Nov. 3 California general election ballot, covering housing, taxes, wealth regulation, healthcare, environment and more.
The Santa Barbara City Council decided to draft resolutions in formal support for Proposition 1, in opposition to Proposition 43 and called for additional analysis on Proposition 45 after a consulting presentation from Townsend Public Affairs at Tuesday’s regular meeting.
Proposition 1 would create a statewide bond of $11.25 billion to be distributed to regional affordable housing funds, Proposition 2 would require a two-thirds voter approval to pass special tax measures and Proposition 45 would expedite environmental review of development projects.
Yes on Proposition 1: Statewide Housing Bond
Proposition 1 would create an $11.25 billion statewide housing bond for vulnerable demographics. Money from the statewide bond would flow through existing affordable housing programs, like Santa Barbara’s. Carlin Shelby, lobbyist for Townsend Public Affairs, said the proposition is of “greatest importance” for the city of Santa Barbara.
Data from the city housing authority has shown that seniors struggle more to access affordable housing than any other demographic sector. $1.25 billion of the fund would go toward the CalVet Home Loan program, which offers veterans—most who are over 65—and their families low-interest home loans.
“For Santa Barbara, this creates a potential new funding source, especially with the city having a local housing trust,” Shelby said.
Santa Barbara’s local housing trust is a financial reserve that is used to fund affordable housing projects. Proposition 1 aims to fund programs like the local housing trust fund, which support creation and preservation of affordable housing. The measure would fund development, rehabilitation and preservation of sites with housing potential and acquisition of affordable rental and ownership housing.
All five members of the City Council discussed their enthusiasm for Proposition 1, unanimously deciding to take a formal position of support. The proposition also saw support at the meeting from Habitat for Humanity, an organization that promotes affordable homeownership.
“A formal position on Proposition 1 is an opportunity for the city to communicate the importance of continued state investment across the full spectrum of affordable housing,” said Penn McCormack, a program coordinator with Habitat for Humanity.
No on Proposition 43: Local Taxes & Two Thirds Vote Requirement
Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds (66.67%) voter approval, instead of a simple majority, to authorize all local special taxes.
Special taxes refers to fees created by local governments targeted to specific public projects or services. Money collected from a special tax would go directly toward a designated voter-approved project.
According to the staff report from Townsend Public Affairs, local governments would suffer from Proposition 43. It raises the threshold for approval, making it harder to pass citizen-sponsored measures. Townsend predicts that the measure would affect the structure and timing of city regional revenue efforts.
Proponents of Proposition 43 say that it protects taxpayers by making special taxes more difficult to approve. Opponents say that Proposition 43 would limit the ability to fund essential services like natural disaster response.
The Santa Barbara City Council also unanimously agreed to take a stance against Proposition 43.
Debate over Proposition 45: Expediting CEQA Environmental Review
Proposition 45 would expedite the environmental review and litigation processes for certain housing, transit, water, health and energy projects. The measure aims to create a faster delivery process from proposal to completion.
Proposed projects in Santa Barbara must pass through review of the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, which passed in 1970 to study and disclose environmental impacts of proposed development.
Proposition 45 would require qualifying projects to be completed within one year. If a project is tied up in litigation, courts would have 270 days to resolve CEQA challenges. Proponents of the proposition argue that CEQA use has been expanded beyond its initial purpose of environmental protection, and is used to intentionally delay projects.
The City Council had conflicting opinions on Proposition 45. Councilmember and mayoral candidate Kristen Sneddon gave the measure a strong no, concerned that it could be used to streamline the development of data centers. Councilmember Wendy Santamaria agreed.
“We cannot be giving developers the ability to bypass these very important regulations,” Santamaria said. “That will catch up with us later with our air and water quality.”
On the other hand, Councilmember Meagan Harmon supports Proposition 45, citing that CEQA streamlining is needed.
“I’ve seen critical, important, really good projects be crushed under the weight of an impossible CEQA regime,” Harmon said.
However, she did validate Sneddon’s concern about tech developers using the measure to streamline data centers. Harmon said the proposition needs more amendment before the council takes a formal opinion on it. For example, she said she would like to see a “carve out” for data centers from the list of approved projects.
