Dear Editor,
Places to Age would like to share an unintended consequence of supporting local ballot issue 300 in the November election. While the measure makes it appear that a “Y” vote would increase revenues going toward housing solutions, it will actually do the opposite. This is because the measure was brought forward to specifically repeal and replace Measures 2A and 2B which were passed by voters less than one year ago and are the primary source of the Affordable Housing Fund.
If passed, it will deprive our community of revenue desperately needed to address our housing crisis. The Affordable Housing Fund may not contain enough money to actually build a housing project, but it is enough to provide matching funds required when applying for grants.
Let me share an example of a potential project that will be negatively impacted if the measure passes: The city has a plan to acquire a piece of property on the east side of town. Part of that purchase would be paid for through a Proposition 123 land banking grant that the city is applying for. The rest of the property would be paid for through our Affordable Housing Fund.
The property would then be used to construct a “low-income housing tax credit project” (LIHTC) for seniors making between 30 to 60 percent AMI [Area Median Income], plus a neighborhood park. The project would contain 35-40 units, and would allow many economically challenged long-term residents to age in place in the community where they have spent most of their lives.
The unintended consequence if question 300 passes, is the city will lose the revenue source needed to fund the land purchase for senior housing. Given that 62 percent of short-term rental owners live outside of the county, how does it make sense to neglect the needs of long-term residents who have helped build and shape this community?
There are other complications with ballot issue 300. As a statutory city, Salida cannot apply a tax or fee to selected populations, such as short-term rental owners who live out of town versus those who live in town.
If this passes, it will go to court and there will be no revenue to the housing fund at all while the court case is being decided. Nor will the city receive compensation for the cost of running the short-term program. This is also a case of taxation without representation. The short-term rental owners who reside outside of Salida cannot vote on a tax or fee that will be charged to them.
It appears that the City Council is willing to compromise and reduce the per-room amount charged. That should assist local short-term rental owners. So let’s keep a steady flow of funds for the Affordable Housing Fund.
Sincerely,
Places to Age Board Members (Andi Bruno, Dee Dubin, Marilyn Bouldin, Cheryl Brown-Kovacic, Wendall Pryor, Lydia Segal, Judy Hoch and Jeff Eaton)
Editor’s note: During this past week’s Salida City Council meeting, and also during the Salida Community Coffee Mayor Dan Shore said that after the election and depending upon the results of the ballot question, the city council may be willing to reduce the per-room amount for STR owners.
Recent Comments