|Title and Summary||Analysis||Arguments and Rebuttals||Text of Proposed Law|
|HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER
TRUST FUND ACT OF 2006.
|ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1C||ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 1C|
YES on Proposition 1C will provide emergency shelters for battered women, affordable homes for seniors and low-income families, and shelters with social services for homeless families with kids. That is why Habitat for Humanity, AARP, and California Partnership to End Domestic Violence strongly urge you to vote YES on Proposition 1C.
Importantly, this measure will be funded out of existing state resources without raising taxes.
Many of our communities face severe problems of housing affordability, homelessness, and domestic violence. Over 360,000 Californians are homeless every night.
Last year, 5,108 women and children were turned away from domestic violence shelters because they were full. Housing affordability for working families in California is at historic lows.
Safe shelter is fundamental to a decent life. YES on Proposition 1C will:• Expand the number of shelter beds for battered women and homeless families with children.
• Provide housing for homeless foster youths.
• Make security improvements and repairs to existing shelters.
• Provide clean and safe homes for senior citizens and low-income families.
Additionally, Proposition 1C helps working families afford homes and provides accessibility improvements to apartments for disabled Californians.
Proposition 1C also creates 87,000 jobs and helps improve the state’s economy.
Allows Seniors to Live Independently: This measure allows seniors to live at home without the fear of being institutionalized in a nursing home.
Helps Battered Women: “Most cities in California don’t
have adequate shelters for women and children who have
been beaten and abused. Proposition 1C begins to fix this
bad situation.” —California State Sheriffs Association
“This measure requires independent audits, limits administrative expenses, and contains strict accountability provisions to ensure the funds are used as promised.” —California Chamber of Commerce
Helps Foster Youth: “Tragically, 65% of foster youth are homeless on the day they leave foster care. Proposition 1C will help them find stable homes.” —Homes 4 California
Critical Need for Housing and Emergency Shelters:
Yes on 1C: Part of a Long-Term Plan to Rebuild California
Proposition 1C is part of the Rebuild California Plan, which uses the taxes we’re already paying to build the roads, housing, schools, and water systems we need to sustain our economy and our quality of life for the long term. Please support the long-term plan to rebuild California by voting Yes on 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E.
To learn more about how this plan will benefit you and your community, visit www.ReadForYourself.org.
Proposition 1C provides shelters for our most vulnerable Californians: the elderly, disabled, homeless families, battered women and children. Please vote Yes on 1C for emergency shelter and housing relief without raising taxes.
CHERYL KEENAN, Executive Director
Proposition 1C is fiscally irresponsible. 1C grows bureaucracy with almost $3 billion in borrowed money, burdening everyone with debt to benefit a small number of people selected by government, including financially eligible illegal immigrants.
In their “yes” argument, 1C’s backers claim the bond would be “funded out of existing state resources without raising taxes.” Sadly, there is no such thing as free money.
When California sells bonds, what is really happening is that the state is going into debt in your name. This debt gets repaid at about two dollars of principal and interest for every dollar borrowed.
Debt repayment has the top priority in government spending. So, money spent to repay bonds means budget cuts for education, roads, Medi-Cal, levee repair, prisons, and water projects. Or, even less money for tax cuts.
More debt = less money for priorities. And, less money for priorities = pressure to raise taxes on all Californians.
Debt should be used sparingly to build long lasting projects
such as roads, bridges, dams, schools, and universities.
Adding more debt to our state’s credit card hurts ALL Californians. Proposition 1C would add $600 of debt and interest payment obligations on every California family of four. That’s $600 that could be returned to the people in lower taxes, or spent on roads and schools.
Be responsible: vote “no.”
ASSEMBLYMAN CHUCK DEVORE
Proposition 1C would add almost $3 billion in new government debt and expand bureaucracy, but it won’t make housing affordable in California.
Sacramento politicians placed Proposition 1C on the ballot at 3 in the morning. Why did they vote in the middle of the night with little debate and no oversight? What were they trying to hide?
Proposition 1C won’t make housing more affordable for the average Californian. What it will do is grow government and force the average California family of four to pay over $600 in debt and interest while INCREASING PRESSURE TO RAISE TAXES.
What will $2.85 billion of new government borrowing buy? In a state of 37 million people with over 12.2 million housing units, not even a drop in the bucket. Instead, Proposition 1C will empower bureaucrats to dispense cash to a select few who meet the government rules and are lucky enough to be chosen to get the money borrowed in your name.
It’s true that only 14 percent of families in California can now afford the median-priced home. But, government itself is to blame for this problem. More than half the cost of a home or apartment rent in California is due to high taxes, overregulation, environmental lawsuits, fees, and government interference in the free market—all of which doubles the high cost of housing.
So, what do the politicians propose? Their solution: another government program that allows affordable housing only for the lucky few who can get their hands on your money.
The true way to make housing affordable again in California is to allow builders to build homes and condominiums and apartments and then allow people to pay to live in them—without the government telling everyone what to do and how to do it.
Instead, the text of Proposition 1C reads like the failed government housing programs of the past, with references to, “target population,” “Housing Finance Committee,” “supportive housing,” “operating subsidies,” and “pilot programs.” Along with millions of dollars for bureaucracy and even $400 million for parks that house no one at all!
One last reason to vote “no” on Proposition 1C: we can’t afford more debt. For every dollar we borrow, we and our children will have to repay that dollar plus a dollar in interest costs. That means the average California family will have to pay more than $600 in additional taxes over the life of this bond, half of which will be to pay the roughly $3 billion in interest fees alone.
Vote “no” on Proposition 1C. We can’t afford it, and it won’t make housing more affordable in California.
ASSEMBLYMAN CHUCK DEVORE
Yes on Proposition 1C makes shelters and homes available to battered women, seniors, homeless children, low-income families, and former foster youths. It won’t solve all of these problems overnight, but it is an important step forward.
Proposition 1C will not raise taxes. The measure will be paid for out of existing state resources. Just as important, Proposition 1C requires independent audits to protect taxpayers and ensure shelters and homes are built as promised.
This measure is the result of years of planning by experts in the problems of homelessness and domestic violence, as well as the housing crisis facing the elderly, families with children, people with mental illness, and veterans.
That is why leading California organizations have endorsed Proposition 1C, including:
Yes on Proposition 1C addresses problems we can’t afford to ignore. It will provide clean and safe accommodations for seniors, shelters for homeless families, and secure homes for battered women. Please help California take a positive step forward by voting Yes on Proposition 1C.
HANK LACAYO, President
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Back to the top