Housing — an excessive amount of, not sufficient, incorrect type — is on everybody’s minds. And now Bay Space voters in a couple of dozen cities can have the prospect to determine on a variety of native housing measures showing on their ballots this yr, starting from taxes on empty properties to strengthening eviction protections.
Voters in Palo Alto and Emeryville will determine on tax measures that may assist fund new housing. And a few Santa Clara County residents shall be requested whether or not to simply accept a faculty bond measure that may put aside funds for trainer housing.
Right here’s a breakdown of among the different vital measures that might form the area’s response to its power housing crunch.
Taxes on vacant models: San Francisco and Berkeley
Poll measures in San Francisco and Berkeley would levy a tax on vacant properties. The measures, backed by elected officers in each cities, intention to unlock much-needed housing by compelling property homeowners — particularly these shopping for properties as investments — to lease or promote their empty models.
San Francisco’s emptiness tax measure, known as Proposition M, would tax homeowners of vacant residential models in buildings with three or extra models. A metropolis report discovered it might release greater than 4,500 models to the market inside two years. The report estimated there have been round 40,000 vacant models within the metropolis in 2019, although many had been listed as on the market or lease or had been empty for different causes similar to needing repairs. The tax might increase as much as $37 million yearly for reasonably priced housing, in line with the town.
Berkeley’s emptiness tax measure, known as Measure M, would tax most vacant properties of all types. A metropolis report discovered it might make greater than 1,000 models accessible over two years. In response to 2020 Census knowledge, over 4,700 models had been vacant within the metropolis for numerous causes. A metropolis evaluation discovered the tax might increase as much as $5.9 million yearly for the town’s basic fund.
If accredited by a easy majority, each measures would outline a unit as “vacant” if it sits empty for over six months throughout a calendar yr.
Opponents query the accuracy of the cities’ income and unit projections and argue the taxes would disproportionately damage small landlords. Some additionally say the measures don’t handle the basis explanation for the cities’ housing shortages: an absence of latest homebuilding.
The per-unit taxes would begin between $2,500 to $5,000 a yr in San Francisco and $3,000 to $6,000 a yr in Berkeley, relying on the dimensions or sort of unit. If models stay vacant after a yr, charges would double in Berkeley. For properties that keep empty in San Francisco, charges might attain as excessive as $20,000 a yr.
Reasonably priced housing bonds and reasonably priced housing approval: Oakland and Berkeley
Giant housing and infrastructure bonds are on the poll in Oakland and Berkeley.
Oakland’s Measure U would increase $850 million for reasonably priced housing and bettering metropolis streets and different public infrastructure. Owners’ property tax payments would spike by about $71 per $100,000 in assessed house worth, in line with metropolis estimates.
Berkeley’s Measure L would increase $650 million for reasonably priced housing and infrastructure initiatives similar to highway repaving and “undergrounding” utility strains. Owners’ property taxes would enhance by about $40.91 for each $100,000 of a house’s assessed worth. Supporters say the measure might assist create 2,000 housing models.
Opponents say the bonds will saddle the cities with an excessive amount of debt and result in wasteful spending. The measures want not less than a two-thirds majority to cross.
Voters in each cities may even be requested whether or not 1000's of models of reasonably priced housing ought to ultimately be constructed. Native governments are required to get neighborhood approval earlier than funding reasonably priced housing — a legislation voters throughout the state will select whether or not to repeal in 2024.
In Oakland, Measure Q would permit 13,000 reasonably priced models. Berkeley’s Measure N would greenlight 3,000 low-income models.
Lease management and eviction adjustments: Oakland and Richmond
Voters in Oakland and Richmond will determine on adjustments to native eviction and rent-control legal guidelines.
Oakland’s Measure V would defend Oakland public faculty lecturers and households with youngsters in public faculty from sure forms of evictions in the course of the educational yr. These households couldn't be evicted for landlords to make renovations to their properties or so the owner might transfer into the unit, however they might nonetheless be evicted for nonpayment or violating lease phrases.
The poll measure additionally would lengthen “simply trigger” tenant protections — that means a landlord should have a legitimate motive, similar to nonpayment, to evict Oakland residents in RVs, tiny properties and all residential buildings besides these constructed within the final 10 years.
Richmond’s Measure P would decrease the utmost charge hike for rent-controlled models every year, capped at both 60% of the Client Worth Index — a measure of inflation — or 3% of a rent-controlled unit’s present charge, whichever is decrease. Most multifamily models constructed earlier than 1995 are lined by Richmond’s rent-control legislation. Measure P opponents argue it'll damage small landlords already battling inflation.
Each measures want a easy majority to cross.
A zoning struggle in Menlo Park
In Menlo Park, voters are being requested whether or not a public vote must be required earlier than metropolis officers can permit denser housing in single-family neighborhoods.
A neighborhood group spearheaded the initiative, known as Measure V, in response to the Ravenswood Metropolis Faculty District’s plans to construct a 90-unit reasonably priced trainer housing complicated on land it owns that's presently zoned for single-family properties. The group desires the district to scale back the variety of models whereas arguing native residents ought to have authority over any future zoning adjustments to single-family neighborhoods.
Opponents contend that along with blocking the varsity mission, the measure might hamper desperately wanted new housing and should violate state legislation.