Voters approve MTC-backed proposition, reject another

Two state propositions on which MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)'s Executive Board this September took support positions met different fates when considered by California voters in the general election that concluded yesterday. 

Voters approved Proposition 4, authorizing California's largest-ever climate bond, and rejected Proposition 5, which would have amended the state constitution to establish a 55 percent voter-approval threshold for local and regional bond measures to support public infrastructure or affordable housing. 

Winning support from nearly 58 percent of voters across the state, Proposition 4 will allocate $10 billion to programs administered by the California Natural Resources Agency and its departments to promote wildfire and flood resilience, protect coastal lands from rising sea levels and reduce risks associated with extreme heat. 

Proceeds from the Proposition 4 climate bond will fund Bay Area projects through the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act, the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, the Department of Water Resources’ Integrated Regional Water Management Program and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program, which is the only state program focused on structure-hardening projects that directly protect homes from the impacts of wildfires. At least 40 percent of the bond funds must be allocated for projects that provide direct benefits to vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities.

Proposition 5

The failure of Proposition 5, which was defeated by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin, leaves unchanged the state constitution's two-thirds voter approval requirement for the passage of local bonds for any purpose other than school facilities. A 55 percent approval threshold has been in place for local school bonds since the passage of Proposition 39 in 2000.

Proposition 5 would have extended the 55 percent vote threshold to to local or regional bonds for public infrastructure projects — including roads, public transit, educational facilities and disaster recovery — or for affordable housing.

Eligible housing investments were defined to include the construction of homes and apartments affordable to households earning up to 150 percent of the area median income, permanent supportive housing and associated facilities, and first-time homebuyer and down payment assistance programs. 

Pending California voters' consideration of Proposition 5, the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority, which is jointly governed by MTC and ABAG, this August voted to withdraw from the November ballot in all nine Bay Area counties a $20 billion general obligation bond measure for the production and preservation of affordable housing. 

Other Measures

Another housing-related proposition defeated by voters yesterday was Proposition 33, which would have repealed a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and allowed California cities and counties to control rents for any type of rental housing, regardless of age. The proposition, if it had been approved by voters, also would have allowed cities and counties to limit how much a landlord could raise rents when a new tenant moves in. Proposition 33 won the support of about 38 percent of California voters, with nearly 62 percent opposed. Neither MTC nor ABAG took a position on Proposition 33.

Voters in Los Angeles County by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin yesterday approved Measure A, a citizen initiative that called for replacement of an existing tax with a half-cent sales tax to spur development of affordable housing; support home ownership; provide rental assistance; increase mental health and addiction treatment to help reduce and prevent homelessness; and provide services for homeless children, seniors, families, veterans, survivors of domestic violence, and people with disabilities.

Another citizen initiative, in San Diego County, resulted in the placement on yesterday's general election ballot of a half-cent transportation sales tax measure. Had it been approved by voters, Measure G would have provided funding for transportation infrastructure and safety improvements throughout the county, including road and rail transit upgrades and congestion-relief projects. Voters defeated Measure G by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent.