|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A former San Jose official is taking regional leaders to court over the wording of a $20 billion affordable housing bond, claiming it’s misleading voters.
Former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis, along with 12 other registered voters across eight Bay Area counties, filed a lawsuit last Thursday against the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) over discrepancies in the ballot language for Regional Measure 4, the $20 billion affordable housing bond going to voters in November. Among those discrepancies is the annual cost to taxpayers through 2077-78. It’s listed on the ballot as $670 million, but with interest the amount increases to about $910 million.
But it might not matter, because the housing finance authority will review the measure and statewide Proposition 5 at a special 9 a.m. meeting tomorrow, including the possibility of withdrawing the measure.
Khamis discovered the mathematical error while working on the measure’s rebuttal. He said the discrepancies he found were “not a confidence builder” for BAHFA.
“Not only are they brand new, but they either don’t know how to do math, or they’re trying to deliberately mislead the population,” Khamis told San José Spotlight. “One way or another, it doesn’t build trust, so why should we trust them?”
The housing finance authority unanimously approved updating the ballot question with the increased number at last Thursday’s meeting, where authority employees attributed the wrong amount to a “mathematical error.”
Khamis said he was already suspicious because of the measure’s monetary amount and because BAHFA does not have an accountability track record.
Changing the annual amount on the ballot question is one in a list of nine changes the lawsuit’s plaintiffs are requesting. Khamis said the ballot question is misleading, and adjusting the phrasings identified in the lawsuit will make it more objective.
Supporters of the bond dispute some of the lawsuit’s assertions on what is and isn’t misleading, including the ballot question’s promise to build housing near transit and retail, which has been a trend in affordable housing developments in Santa Clara County.
John Goodwin, spokesperson for BAHFA and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, said he can’t comment on pending litigation.
Khamis is also calling on the San Jose City Council to rescind its endorsement of the measure, because it was based on the lower, incorrect amount. Khamis said he has not yet received a response from anyone on the city council.
Mayor Matt Mahan could not be reached for comment.
SV@Home Action Fund is a co-lead of the measure’s support campaign in Santa Clara County, and SV@Home Executive Director Regina Celestin Williams said she’s excited about the opportunity to put more resources into building affordable housing. She added no there’s intention to mislead voters, and regardless of wording, she thinks voters will be excited about the potential of more affordable housing.
The measure is endorsed by multiple elected officials across all nine counties in the region it covers, including Cupertino Vice Mayor J.R. Fruen. The Cupertino City Council also endorsed the measure “on principle,” Fruen told San José Spotlight.
Fruen also pointed out that the lawsuit was filed after BAHFA removed the incorrect amount from the ballot question, suggesting Khamis and others on the lawsuit are not upset about the inaccuracies. An example Fruen used was the lawsuit asks the word “homes” be changed to “housing units” in the ballot question, under the argument that “home” is not a neutral word.
“To say that… the use of the term ‘home’ is somehow false and misleading for a ballot measure whose intention is to produce affordable homes, and to require instead that voters only hear that term as ‘housing units,’ speaks to the elitism behind the opposition,” Fruen told San José Spotlight. “They argue that a home evokes an image of a cozy abode. Yes, yes it does, and it should. Because that’s what it is intended to fund.”
Khamis has also raised issues with some of the measure’s supporting arguments, including the notion that more affordable housing would reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. Fruen said studies show increasing affordable housing in urban areas would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by taking cars off of the road, because the housing would be near where people would travel to, such as their jobs or retail.
Williams said many affordable housing developments are built around existing resources and infrastructure, by utilizing vacant lots. She added that while she can’t speak directly about the environmental benefits of the measure, there are members of the Yes on RM4 campaign who specialize in environmental justice and would know more.
“I think some issues can maybe rise above word choice, and just be so big that people aren’t as easily persuaded one way or another, that they are looking to do something about it,” Williams told San José Spotlight. “My job is to really think about solutions, and I think people will be excited about this one.”
This story was written by B. Sakura Cannestra for San Jose Spotlight. The original version of this article can be viewed here.
