2016 US Bay Area housing ballot measures (California)

There are a number of initiatives on the November 8, 2016 ballot in the San Francisco Bay area that are YIMBY relevant.

San Francisco 

PROP C: Loans to Affordable Housing

SFYIMBY:  "YES! Authorizes bonds to finance acquisition, improvement and rehabbing of at-risk multiunit buildings and to convert them into permanent subsidized affordable housing. Will result in more units of housing being built or brought back into use."

PROP J: Funding for Homelessness and Transportation

SFYIMBY: "YES! Designates funding from the General Fund to go to homeless services, including Navigation Centers, and public transportation. Will only go into effect if proposition K passes.

PROP K: Sales Tax to fund Proposition J

SFYIMBY: "YES! Increases the Sales tax by 0.75% for a total sales tax rate of 9.25%. Proceeds would go into the General Fund. The funding in Prop J relies on Prop K passing."
 

PROP M: Another Housing Commission

SFYIMBY: "NO! Creates a new unelected “Housing and Development Commission” to oversee two more new departments, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development and Department of Housing and Community Development. It moves responsibilities from the Mayors Office on Housing to an unelected commission. This additional bureaucracy will further slow the production of new housing, especially new affordable housing. The new Commission would add more places for special interest groups to block housing. More hearings, more red tape, more cost, less housing. (In addition, Prop M contains a poison pill for Prop P, which we endorse below).

PROP O: Office and Housing Development in Candlestick Point

SFYIMBY: YES
"Makes an exception to the office square footage cap for a housing and office project in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point. Would allow more office space by exempting this project from the annual limit on new office space. Not great for our job-to-housing ratio, but does add more units of badly needed housing. We know the solution to our housing shortage is not to restrict the creation of jobs. This project won’t pencil out without the office space. We’re not huge fans, but generally think it’s a fine project."

PROP P: Competitive Bidding for Affordable Housing Projects

SFYIMBY: YES! 
Due to our current structure for contracting with subsidized affordable housing construction companies, the City often only receives ONE bid. By opening up the process to allow more competition, especially from state-wide affordable housing construction companies, we could bring down the cost to government of building subsidized housing, giving us the ability to build more units.

READ MORE HERE...

PROP Q: Prohibiting Tents on Sidewalks

SFYIMBY: NO! 
Currently tents on sidewalks can be asked to move along at any time. This legislation would require the City to issue 24-hour notices, offer some form of shelter and require the City to store residents property for about 3 months. Some view this as an improvement on the status quo. Others think it’s not enough support to tent residents and we can do better. Ultimately, Prop Q does not increase the amount of housing availability or shelters for the homeless. This is not going to improve anyone’s housing situation. Yes, it is very slightly better than the status quo. However, we know this is not the ideal policy, and the possibility of passing far superior legislation properly via the Board of Supervisors is relatively high. If this passes as a ballot initiative, it will be extremely difficult to change as problems arise. 

PROP U: Subsidized Affordable Housing for Middle Income

SFYIMBY: NO
"In June, we bumped the subsidized low-income affordable housing requirements on new housing projects to 25%. That was a seriously bad idea and has sent shock-waves through the pipeline. Applications for new projects have dropped by half since this time last year. 

"This prop would take the housing currently targeted to people making 55% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and give it to people making up to 110% of the AMI. The argument for Prop U is that it will bring some housing projects back from having been killed by the June percent change.

"There are two arguments against Prop U, however. We decided to vote to against it because it would take away subsidized units for low and and very-low income households, and because we are generally against the idea of subsidizing housing for middle income people.

"Middle income people should be able to afford housing in San Francisco without subsidies. We cannot subsidize our way out of this housing crisis. We need a housing market that functions for middle class people.

PROP X: Keeping Production, Distribution, Repair Zoning

SFYIMBY: NO! 
Prop X would reduce housing production. It requires projects that convert or demolish existing production, distribution, or repair (PDR) space a.k.a. urban manufacturing in the Mission & SoMa to get a Conditional Use authorization before building housing on those sites. These projects would also be required to provide a new space to replace the PDR or community space that is converted or demolished, making housing projects more expensive and further limiting space available for housing. 

SFMade, the City’s largest trade group for manufacturers, does not support this measure, in part because the measure’s requirements seem arbitrary (not based in data or analysis), and in part because replacing industrial space building by building often results in the wrong types of industrial spaces being developed.

Anyone who has sat through a Conditional Use hearing knows how tedious and unnecessary they can be. YIMBY believes it should be perfectly legal to tear down under-utilized manufacturing to build in-demand housing.
 

PROP W: Real Estate Transfer Tax

SFYIMBY: NO ENDORSEMENT
"Prop W would raise the tax on properties over $5 million when they are sold. We couldn't decide whether this would raise the cost of multifamily housing and ultimately increase rental and housing prices by discouraging land transfers, or not. We debated this one quite a bit.

For more information, check out the San Francisco Chronicle.

For a stronger "No" argument, check out the SPUR voter guide.
 

PROP 53: Voter Approval for Revenue Bonds

SFYIMBY: NO!
"Requires voter approval for projects that cost more than $2 billion funded by revenue bonds. Just because a project is high in cost doesn't mean it should require voter approval. We have elected officials, legislators, and decision-makers - let them do their jobs. We need big infrastructure improvements, transit, drought mitigation, etc., to support our growing population. Ballots are already too long, and creating an unnecessary, expensive approval processes on voters puts infrastructure at greater risk."

 

Alameda County (Oakland, Berkeley, etc) 

Alameda County – Bond Measure A1

ALAMEDA COUNTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING BOND.

To provide affordable local housing and prevent displacement of vulnerable populations, including low- and moderate-income households, veterans, seniors, and persons with disabilities; provide supportive housing for
homeless people countywide; and help low- and middle-income households purchase homes and stay in their communities; shall the County of Alameda issue up to $580 million in general obligation bonds to acquire or improve real property, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?

Percentage needed to pass: 66.6667%

City of Alameda (2) – Measure L1

City of Alameda Measure: Shall the voters adopt the City’s March 31, 2016 Rent Stabilization
Ordinance, which (a) limits residential rent increases to once annually, (b) requires mediation for
all residential rent increases above 5%, including binding decisions on rent increases for most
rental units, (c) restricts reasons for evictions, (d) requires landlords to pay relocation fees when
terminating certain tenancies, and (e) permits the City Council to amend the ordinance to address
changing concerns and conditions?
Percentage needed to pass: 50% + 1

City of Alameda (3) – Measure M1

Shall the City Charter be amended to (a) limit annual residential rent increases for certain units to
65% of the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, (b) create an elected Rent Control
Board separate from the City with authority to hire staff, impose fees on landlords for program
funding and assess penalties, (c) limit the reasons for terminating tenancies and (d) require rental
property owners to pay relocation fees to tenants when terminating certain tenancies?
Percentage needed to pass: 50% + 1

City of Berkeley (2) – Measure U1

Shall an ordinance permanently increasing the gross receipts tax on owners of five or more
residential rental units be increased from 1.081% to 2.880%, prohibiting landlords from passing
the tax on to sitting tenants, and directing the Housing Advisory Commission to make
recommendations on funding and programs to increase affordable housing and protect Berkeley
residents from homelessness, be adopted? Financial Implications: This amendment is estimated
to raise approximately $3,900,000 annually, increasing with rents.
Percentage needed to pass: Majority 50% + 1

City of Berkeley (7) – Measure Z1

Shall any federal, state or local public entity be empowered to develop, construct or acquire an
additional 500 units of low-rent housing in the City of Berkeley for persons of low income?
Financial Implications: Uncertain, dependent on means of financing used.
Percentage needed to pass: Majority 50% + 1

City of Berkeley (8) – Measure AA

Shall an ordinance amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance to: prohibit owner move-in evictions of families with children during the academic year; increase the amount of relocation assistance required for owner move-in evictions to $15,000 with additional $5,000 for certain tenants; clarify protections for elderly/disabled tenants; require filing of eviction notices; change the source of interest rates for security deposits; and clarify exemptions and penalties to conform with state law, be adopted? Percentage needed to pass: Majority 50% + 1

• • Note: The following City of Berkeley measures BB and CC do not speak directly to housing but are relevant to wages and therefore to housing affordability.

City of Berkeley (9) – Measure BB

Shall an ordinance: (1) amending the City’s existing minimum wage ordinance to increase the
minimum wage to $15 per hour for all employees in the City of Berkeley by October 1, 2019, and
thereafter by the CPI, with exemptions for youth in job training programs and a $1.50 health
benefit credit; (2) requiring that service charges be distributed to the employees who provide the
services; and (3) mandating paid sick leave for employees, be adopted?
Percentage needed to pass: Majority 50% + 1

City of Berkeley (10) – Measure CC

Shall an ordinance: increasing the City’s existing minimum wage to $15 per hour on October 1,
2017, with annual increases based on the CPI + 3% beginning January 1, 2019 until it reaches
$16.37 per hour in 2016 dollars, and thereafter based on the CPI; eliminating exemptions for
youth in job training programs; requiring that hospitality service charges be distributed to the
employees who provide the services; and mandating paid sick leave for employees be adopted?
Percentage needed to pass: Majority 50% + 1

City of Berkeley (11) – Measure DD

Shall an ordinance permanently increasing the gross receipts tax on owners of three or more
residential rental units from 1.081% to 1.5%, prohibiting landlords from passing the tax on to
sitting tenants except as allowed by law, and authorizing the Council to create a citizen panel to
make recommendations on increasing affordable housing and protecting residents from
homelessness be adopted? Financial Implications: This amendment is estimated to raise
approximately $1,400,000 annually, increasing with rents.
Percentage needed to pass: 50% + 1

City of Oakland (2) – Measure II

Shall the Charter of the City of Oakland be amended to Increase the Maximum Lease Term of City-Owned Real Property From Sixty-Six Years To Ninety-Nine Years?
Percentage needed to pass: 50% + 1

City of Oakland (3) – Measure JJ

Shall Oakland’s Just Cause For Eviction and Rent Adjustment Ordinances be amended by: (1) extending just-cause eviction requirements from residential rental units offered for rent on or before October 14, 1980 to those approved for occupancy before December 31, 1995; and (2) requiring landlords to request approval from the City before increasing rents by more than the cost-of-living adjustment allowed by City law? Percentage needed to pass: 50% + 1