presents
Voter’s Edge California
Conozca la información antes de votar.
Presentado por
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KPBS Voters Guide@KPBSNews
June 7, 2016 — Elecciones Primarias de California
Condado

City and County of San Francisco
Proposition C Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Resultados electorales

Passing

161,324 votos si (67.92%)

76,207 votos no (32.08%)

Affordable Housing Requirements
— undefined

Shall the City amend the Charter to increase affordable housing requirements for private developers of new market-rate housing projects of 25 or more units until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance changing those requirements and also authorize the Board of Supervisors to change affordable housing requirements by ordinance?

¿Qué es esta propuesta?

Información básica sobre la iniciativa de ley — Información oficial sobre esta iniciativa

Un voto por el SÍ significa

If you vote “yes,” you want to amend the Charter to:

• increase affordable housing requirements for private developers of new market-rate housing projects of 25 or more units until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance changing those requirements and

• authorize the Board of Supervisors to change affordable housing requirements by ordinance.

Un voto por el NO significa

If you vote “no,” you do not want to make these changes to the Charter.

Resumen

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City’s Charter generally requires private developers of new market-rate housing to provide affordable housing (sometimes called inclusionary housing). A private developer can meet this requirement in one of three ways:

• pay a fee based on the cost to build affordable housing units equal to approximately 20% of the total units being developed;

• make at least 12% of the on-site housing units affordable; or

• create new affordable units off-site, equal to approximately 20% of the total units.

A rental unit counts toward these requirements if it is affordable to households earning up to 55% of the area median
income. A unit for sale counts toward these requirements if it is affordable to households earning up to 90% of the area
median income.

These requirements can be modified only by amending the Charter through a ballot measure.

The Proposal: Proposition ___ would amend the Charter to:

• increase affordable housing requirements for private developers of new market-rate housing projects of 25 or more units until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance changing those requirements and

• authorize the Board of Supervisors to change affordable housing requirements by ordinance.

Until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance changing affordable housing requirements for private developers of new market-rate housing, the following requirements would apply:

• for housing development projects of 10 or more dwellings but fewer than 25 dwellings, the project must:

1) pay a fee based on the cost to build affordable housing units equal to approximately 20% of the total units being developed;

2) make at least 12% of on-site units affordable; or 

3) create new affordable units off-site, equal to 20% of the project’s units;

• for housing development projects of 25 or more dwellings, the project must:

1) pay a fee based on the cost to build affordable housing units equal to 33% of the total units being developed; 

2) make at least 25% of the on-site units affordable, with 15% of the units affordable to low-income households and 10% affordable to middle-income households; or

3) create new affordable units off-site, equal to 33% of the project’s units, with 20% of the units affordable to low-income households and 13% affordable to middle-
income households.

A rental unit would count as low income if it is affordable to households earning up to 55% of the area median income. A unit for sale would count as low income if it is affordable to households earning up to 80% of the area median income.

A rental unit would count as middle income if it is affordable to households earning up to 100% of the area median income.A unit for sale would count as middle income if it is affordable to households earning up to 120% of the area median income.

The chart below shows Area Median Income (AMI) for certain households in San Francisco:

Income Definition

                                     1 person       2 Person       3 Person        4 Person

55% OF MEDIAN      $39,250       $44,850        $50,450       $56,050

80% OF MEDIAN      $57,100       $65,200        $73,350       $81,500

100% OF MEDIAN    $71,350       $81,500        $91,700       $101,900

120% OF MEDIAN    $85,600       $97,800        $110,050     $122,300

Análisis del analista legislativo / Proposal

http://sfgov.org/elections/sites/default/files/Documents/candidates/IHR%20Legislative%20Digest.pdf

Efectos fiscales

Office of the Controller

Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have both positive and negative impacts on City revenues. The City is likely to realize an increase in fees paid to develop affordable housing, an increase in the proportion of affordable housing units required in larger housing developments, and a reduction in property tax revenues given the lower taxable assessed values of these units. The magnitude of these changes will be affected by the requirements established in future ordinances, the impact of established fees on the rate of new housing unit construction, market conditions, and other factors. 

The proposed amendment would remove the current Charter-mandated limits on the affordable and inclusionary housing requirements and fees that are applied to housing developments. The Board of Supervisors would instead be authorized to change these requirements and fees by ordinance. 

The Charter amendment specifies varying interim requirements that would be in place for developments of 10 to 25 units and for developments of 25 units or more during the period between the passage of the amendment and the enactment of a future ordinance. These interim requirements are higher than those currently established in the Charter, and are likely to increase the proportion of units in these developments that are affordable or result in an increase in the one-time fees paid to the City to develop affordable housing. Increases in fees paid at these interim levels are likely to be offset by reductions in property taxes given lower assessed taxable value of affordable housing units versus market rate units. To the extent that requirements established in this interim period or in future ordinances slow the development of market-rate housing in the City, the loss of property tax revenues would be more pronounced.

This statement does not address the potential impacts of the proposed amendment on the local economy or housing prices generally.

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against the ballot measure

Argumento A FAVOR

San Franciscans are being forced out of our city every day because there is simply not enough affordable housing. Meanwhile, luxury housing developments are being built all over the city.

Proposition C is a real solution that requires new housing development to include more options for middle-class and working San Franciscans. This housing will be paid for by private developers, not taxpayers.

Proposition C:

Increases the percentage of affordable housing that private market-rate developers must provide;

More than doubles the affordable housing requirement for large projects from 12% to 25%;

Includes middle-income affordable housing requirements for the first time, so San Franciscans like teachers and nurses can afford to live here.

Encourages the creation of on-site affordable housing to promote diverse, mixed-income development in our neighborhoods.

After the recession and during this housing crisis, it is time to increase affordable housing requirements. Importantly, Prop C allows the Board of Supervisors to adjust the requirements higher or lower based on future economic conditions to ensure that we always produce the maximum number of economically feasible affordable housing units. 

Proposition C was created by a broad, diverse coalition of elected leaders, advocates and organizations who work to prevent evictions, slow the rising costs of rent and homeownership, and provide affordable housing to those most in need.

Please join us on June 7th and vote YES on C.

Supervisor Jane Kim

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

State Senator Mark Leno

Assemblymember Phil Ting

Affordable Housing Alliance

Council of Community Housing Organizations

Tenants and Owners Development Corporation

United Educators of San Francisco

Housing Rights Committee

Argumento EN CONTRA

THE WHOLE AREA OF SO-CALLED “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” HAS BECOME AN ORGY OF POLITICAL PATRONAGE AND GIFTS TO FAVORED BUILDING DEVELOPERS.

All the selective political legislation involving so-called “affordable housing” involves payments to be made by certain building developers to be put into special city government accounts — which, in turn, will raise the costs of construction for the original developers…so that they will be forced to charge more to home or condo buyers.

The resulting “affordable housing funds” will then be used to bid up the price of more real-estate and be given, one way or the other, to a second group of politically chosen building developers to increase their profits.

The second group of building developers will, hopefully, make lots of money…and, again hopefully, will make plenty of political campaign donations to candidates and issues favored by the public officials who provided the “affordable housing funds”.

That is all you need to know about so-called “affordable housing” and “affordable housing funds”.

Vote “NO!” on Proposition “C”.

Dr. Terence Faulkner*

Former Member of San Francisco City Government’s Cable Television Task Force

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Refutación al argumento A FAVOR

SO-CALLED “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” HAS BECOME AN EXPENSIVE AND WASTEFUL DRAIN OF SAN FRANCISCO TAXPAYERS’ MONEY AND GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES — WITH ENDLESS POLITICAL GAMES BEING PLAYED:

San Francisco is territorially the smallest of California’s 58 counties. It is already heavily built up, with little room for further construction. Some building developers — including the management of the Parkmerced rental complex — hope to tear down existing housing and replace it with larger highrise residential structures.

In the case of Parkmerced, which currently has about 8,000 residents on about 150 acres, it might be possible to pack 30,000 persons into the development. The complex, however, is located near the San Andreas Faultline — the source of the April 18, 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire.

How well highrise buildings of the City will fare in a future seismic event similar to 1906 remains to be seen. I’m inclined to be sceptical, given that the building codes of Japan, Chile, and other high risk earthquake locations are better than San Francisco and California’s rules.

Meanwhile, our local political figures continue to promote what they call “affordable housing”, coming up with plenty of bond issues, ballot measures, and programs of very questionable value.

All sorts of giveaways and cash offers are made to building developers, lots of campaign donations of course being raised by the “City Fathers”.

Forget all the dream sell-words.

Vote “NO!” on wasteful Proposition C.

Terence Faulkner*

State of California Certified Farmers Market Advisory Board Member (1999 to 2005)

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Refutación al argumento EN CONTRA

Proposition C was created by a diverse coalition representing communities across San Francisco. It was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors. And it has earned the support of individuals, community leaders and advocacy organizations throughout the city.

The city is uniting behind Prop C because it addresses the pressing issue of affordable housing with a common-sense, pragmatic approach. It significantly raises the affordable housing options for low-income and middle-income San Franciscans in every housing project of 25 units or more. And it does so without costing taxpayers a dime.

Prop C immediately raises the percentage of affordable housing required in large projects from 12% to 25%. Contrary to the opponent’s argument, it actually encourages the creation of on-site affordable housing, instead of asking developers to contribute to a housing fund.

As economic conditions change, Prop C also enables the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to make adjustments in the affordable housing requirements. This ensures that the city can set the requirements at the point that is most economically feasible for producing the maximum number of affordable homes.

The housing crisis is forcing many of our fellow San Franciscans to leave the city. This June, we have an opportunity to increase the affordable housing options we so desperately need. Please join us in voting Yes on C. 

Supervisor Jane Kim

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor John Avalos

Supervisor David Campos

Supervisor Eric Mar

Supervisor Norman Yee

Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.

Comparta este sitio para ayudar a otras personas a investigar sus opciones para las votaciones.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION