News

County officials eye housing tax measure

Polls show Santa Clara County residents could favor a property tax for affordable housing

In an ongoing effort to shore up affordable housing throughout the South Bay, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors are considering a $750 million bond for the November ballot that would help pay for new homes for veterans, seniors, low-income families and the homeless.

Earlier this year, the board of supervisors signed a resolution stating that homelessness in Santa Clara County constitutes a "crisis," with unacceptable costs in terms of both public resources and human suffering. What's more, the resolution called on individual cities to do their parts and increase the availability of below-market rate and affordable housing to stem the tide of residents falling into homelessness.

Similarly, the board of supervisors is trying to find ways to do the same. In February, the board voted unanimously to test the mood of Santa Clara County voters to see whether residents would support a county-wide affordable housing measure. And it turns out that the support could be there.

Last week, the firm EMC Research found that roughly two-thirds of likely voters in Santa Clara County would support a $750 million general obligation bond to build low-income and supportive housing geared towards veterans, seniors, low-income families, the homeless and other "disadvantaged residents," including victims of human trafficking and domestic abuse.

Of the 805 residents polled, 31 percent believed housing was the most important issue facing Santa Clara County, beating out transportation, crime and public safety, jobs creation and education. It's also a big change from previous years, according to Ruth Bernstein of EMC Research. In 2005, just 11 percent of those polled said housing was the most important issue -- specifically housing for low-income residents.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

"There is significant support for a measure that would focus resources on increasing the number of affordable housing units in the county," according to a staff report.

Following arguments for and against the housing bond measure, and explaining that it would cost property owners $14 per $100,000 of assessed value, Bernstein said support drops to just below the two-thirds majority required to pass a measure. But with the right public messaging from a private, positive campaign, she said, the measure could succeed in November.

"We do think there is an opportunity, and it is worth considering, given these numbers," Bernstein said.

The board of supervisors agreed in a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Joe Simitian absent, to have county staff flesh out exactly what the general obligation bond would look like and how the money would be spent. The board is expected to review a resolution by August, in time for the November ballot.

"Our polling results shows a very strong concern among voters about our lack of affordable housing as well as support for a measure to pay for it," Board President Dave Cortese said in a statement following the meeting. "Now we need to get down to the details so that our voters have a clear picture of what we are asking them to support."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Some of the greatest support for an affordable housing measure came from Santa Clara County's fifth district, which encompasses North County cities including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and part of Sunnyvale. Of those polled in the region, 62 percent consistently supported a potential ballot measure, regardless of arguments for or against, and regardless of the cost -- the most of any district.

Voter support for a ballot measure is expected to be highest among residents who do not typically vote in elections, but are expected to cast their ballot in the November presidential election, which Bernstein said indicates that the county has a rare opportunity now, but probably not if it's delayed to the 2018 election.

"Many of those voters will show up to vote in this presidential election because that's when they tend to vote, in these big turnout elections," Bernstein said. "They tend to be younger, maybe more progressive, and much more likely to be renters who are more concerned about housing issues."

Jennifer Loving, executive director of the supportive housing agency Destination Home, told the board that she was "thrilled" that there's an opportunity to build new housing for the most vulnerable residents in Santa Clara County.

"New money can go a long way to ending our homelessness crisis," Loving said.

Supervisor Ken Yeager said public support could waver depending on the specific details of the bond. The polling showed enough public support, he said, but it's not clear whether those polled were hoping for rental units or homes, and whether they would support high density developments.

"We're going to need a certain level of detail so people can understand what they're supporting," Yeager said.

Cortese said he wondered whether the scope of the housing bond could be extended to middle-income families as well, recalling recent data that found only 17 percent of the residents in Santa Clara County could actually afford to buy a home. He said a lot of people feel like they are caught up in the affordability crisis in the Bay Area, and it'd be hard to go wrong building housing for broad number of people.

"The need for housing is so severe across the board that it's pretty hard to make a mistake investing in housing," Cortese said. "It's not like you can invest in the wrong sector of housing and waste your money. There's just a tremendous need."

As the details of the ballot measure are fleshed out, Yeager suggested that the county ought to seek public input from city leaders across all 15 cities in Santa Clara County, and get a feel for what kind of development might be feasible in local communities. The worry is, Yeager said, that the bond might end up being used to bolster affordable housing in San Jose instead of the far-flung communities that haven't done enough to build more housing for low-income residents.

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

County officials eye housing tax measure

Polls show Santa Clara County residents could favor a property tax for affordable housing

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, May 5, 2016, 9:44 am

In an ongoing effort to shore up affordable housing throughout the South Bay, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors are considering a $750 million bond for the November ballot that would help pay for new homes for veterans, seniors, low-income families and the homeless.

Earlier this year, the board of supervisors signed a resolution stating that homelessness in Santa Clara County constitutes a "crisis," with unacceptable costs in terms of both public resources and human suffering. What's more, the resolution called on individual cities to do their parts and increase the availability of below-market rate and affordable housing to stem the tide of residents falling into homelessness.

Similarly, the board of supervisors is trying to find ways to do the same. In February, the board voted unanimously to test the mood of Santa Clara County voters to see whether residents would support a county-wide affordable housing measure. And it turns out that the support could be there.

Last week, the firm EMC Research found that roughly two-thirds of likely voters in Santa Clara County would support a $750 million general obligation bond to build low-income and supportive housing geared towards veterans, seniors, low-income families, the homeless and other "disadvantaged residents," including victims of human trafficking and domestic abuse.

Of the 805 residents polled, 31 percent believed housing was the most important issue facing Santa Clara County, beating out transportation, crime and public safety, jobs creation and education. It's also a big change from previous years, according to Ruth Bernstein of EMC Research. In 2005, just 11 percent of those polled said housing was the most important issue -- specifically housing for low-income residents.

"There is significant support for a measure that would focus resources on increasing the number of affordable housing units in the county," according to a staff report.

Following arguments for and against the housing bond measure, and explaining that it would cost property owners $14 per $100,000 of assessed value, Bernstein said support drops to just below the two-thirds majority required to pass a measure. But with the right public messaging from a private, positive campaign, she said, the measure could succeed in November.

"We do think there is an opportunity, and it is worth considering, given these numbers," Bernstein said.

The board of supervisors agreed in a 4-0 vote, with Supervisor Joe Simitian absent, to have county staff flesh out exactly what the general obligation bond would look like and how the money would be spent. The board is expected to review a resolution by August, in time for the November ballot.

"Our polling results shows a very strong concern among voters about our lack of affordable housing as well as support for a measure to pay for it," Board President Dave Cortese said in a statement following the meeting. "Now we need to get down to the details so that our voters have a clear picture of what we are asking them to support."

Some of the greatest support for an affordable housing measure came from Santa Clara County's fifth district, which encompasses North County cities including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos and part of Sunnyvale. Of those polled in the region, 62 percent consistently supported a potential ballot measure, regardless of arguments for or against, and regardless of the cost -- the most of any district.

Voter support for a ballot measure is expected to be highest among residents who do not typically vote in elections, but are expected to cast their ballot in the November presidential election, which Bernstein said indicates that the county has a rare opportunity now, but probably not if it's delayed to the 2018 election.

"Many of those voters will show up to vote in this presidential election because that's when they tend to vote, in these big turnout elections," Bernstein said. "They tend to be younger, maybe more progressive, and much more likely to be renters who are more concerned about housing issues."

Jennifer Loving, executive director of the supportive housing agency Destination Home, told the board that she was "thrilled" that there's an opportunity to build new housing for the most vulnerable residents in Santa Clara County.

"New money can go a long way to ending our homelessness crisis," Loving said.

Supervisor Ken Yeager said public support could waver depending on the specific details of the bond. The polling showed enough public support, he said, but it's not clear whether those polled were hoping for rental units or homes, and whether they would support high density developments.

"We're going to need a certain level of detail so people can understand what they're supporting," Yeager said.

Cortese said he wondered whether the scope of the housing bond could be extended to middle-income families as well, recalling recent data that found only 17 percent of the residents in Santa Clara County could actually afford to buy a home. He said a lot of people feel like they are caught up in the affordability crisis in the Bay Area, and it'd be hard to go wrong building housing for broad number of people.

"The need for housing is so severe across the board that it's pretty hard to make a mistake investing in housing," Cortese said. "It's not like you can invest in the wrong sector of housing and waste your money. There's just a tremendous need."

As the details of the ballot measure are fleshed out, Yeager suggested that the county ought to seek public input from city leaders across all 15 cities in Santa Clara County, and get a feel for what kind of development might be feasible in local communities. The worry is, Yeager said, that the bond might end up being used to bolster affordable housing in San Jose instead of the far-flung communities that haven't done enough to build more housing for low-income residents.

Comments

Assess
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm
Assess , Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 5, 2016 at 12:24 pm

how do we make sure beneficiaries are local and haven't flocked here for the weather (in case of the homeless?)


bjd
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm
bjd, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on May 5, 2016 at 1:48 pm

If you want to fund a program by raising property taxes, then do it by fixing Prop 13. Under Prop 13, Santa Clara County's tax rate is effectively 0.57%, versus the 1% collected from market value properties. Owners who have lived here for decades pay as little as 0.07% effective property tax rate. Practically no other state in the country has rates that low.

Modify the property tax structure and bring the effective rate to somewhere around 0.70%, raise your funds while starting to re-level the housing market.


Mark
The Crossings
on May 5, 2016 at 2:24 pm
Mark, The Crossings
on May 5, 2016 at 2:24 pm

Finally,

It finally looks like enough attention as been brought to this issue of affordable housing.

Here are our county supervisors idea to address this issue here,

Web Link

and also another state solution to address this here,

Web Link

This would be $2 Billion dollars in aid the first year. We should ask that they provide immediate cash-vouchers in aid the first year till the new low income housing come on line.
I will whole heartily support these measures and we need to contact our representatives to support them.

I am very comfortable in supporting these ideas and I am no longer open to the initiative asking for rent control. This would unfairly put the burden on one small group of people instead of everyone paying their fair share to solve this problem.


No New taxes
Bailey Park
on May 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm
No New taxes, Bailey Park
on May 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm

No new taxes, we are already taxed to death. The Govt needs to learn to live within it's means.

Prop 13 is not the problem, the problem is govt over spending thanks to the Unions.


What next?
Monta Loma
on May 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm
What next?, Monta Loma
on May 5, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Wow. I just wonder what all these people are going to do when they run out of everyone else's money. Guess I better start teaching my kids how to rely on others and feel good about getting everything subsidized instead of teaching them independence and pride like I have been.

While we're at it, can you make Los Altos lower their prices? Cause I'd really like to live there.

We've lost our collective minds.


Enough taxes already
Cuesta Park
on May 6, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Enough taxes already, Cuesta Park
on May 6, 2016 at 12:56 pm

Shocking - government "officials" looking for yet another taxpayer-funded slush fund to splurge on their favorite interest groups. If you can't afford to live here, then leave - that will help reduce demand and lower prices. And don't even think about trying to spend taxpayer funds to support housing for illegals.


Amelia
Old Mountain View
on May 6, 2016 at 9:10 pm
Amelia, Old Mountain View
on May 6, 2016 at 9:10 pm

Prop 13 is the reason most of us can afford to stay in our homes. We're forced to buy houses at insane prices and one of the only upsides is that our crazy high property tax bills won't be as punishing 10 years down the road.

California seems to enjoy piling on taxes on it's citizens. Instead of inventing yet more new taxes, adjust where the money you are already receiving is going.


Trickery
Sylvan Park
on May 7, 2016 at 12:55 am
Trickery, Sylvan Park
on May 7, 2016 at 12:55 am

Such a bond measure (which authorizes borrowing money by selling bonds) would provide enough money to help only a handful of recipients. It is not clear which group would benefit most. Homeless? Upper-middle income Googlers looking to buy below-market? This appears to be a trick designed to make some politicians look like they are helping when, really, they are not. Hey politicians: If you add jobs, open new areas for housing. Otherwise, don't add places for jobs.


Plane Speaker
another community
on May 8, 2016 at 2:55 am
Plane Speaker, another community
on May 8, 2016 at 2:55 am

The reason people think they are taxed to much,
and that the government spends beyond its means
is because the very rich and corporations do not
contribute to the well-being of the United States
or the states themselves.

OF COURSE, when the burden of taxes is put on the
working people while the investing and professional
classes use their plentiful free time to figure out how
to rip everyone else off - taxes seem high ... and they
are high, and they are unfair.

We cannot continue to be bent over a barrel and
extorted by business - and really we all know this.

It is the right thing to do to worry about housing
low income and poor people, but stop expecting
all the contributions for that to come from people
who have their own struggles, ESPECIALLY when
the 1% are making record profits, bonuses, totally
deregulated, taking their money off-shore or out
of state and hiding it.

Fix those problems before you come to me asking
for money! I want to see people get help with
housing ... a certain level of housing should be like
health care and education - a human right. I don't
mean that people should not have a responsibility
to contribute to the country and state, but that a
lot of these people are in well-understood cases
where they need services to help them to that next
level.

Want to fix things, remove these loopholes and
special laws that subsidize at least the industries
that are making record profits.

Remove the distinction between earned income and
capital gains - and make the tax rates more progressive.
At the lofty level of millions and tens of millions of
dollars no matter how you make your money you can
afford to, and should be willing to, pay your fair
share of taxes - and certainly not focused like a laser
on how to take more and more and more like it just
never ends.


Rocket ship dpeaket
Waverly Park
on May 8, 2016 at 2:16 pm
Rocket ship dpeaket, Waverly Park
on May 8, 2016 at 2:16 pm

Do you seriously believe the very rich and corporations don't contribute? You truly are naive. Yes, I'm sure, there are selfish in both however the vast majority give in multiple ways. Through the Arts, thru education, through grants and research and so many I can't even begin to name.

What is happening now is a very large, uncontrollable layer of "fat" in government; whole departments and agencies with no tangible output or benefit. And they are absolutely sucking the middle class dry. Between these taxes and very little job creation the middle class is screwed and yet they continue to create their own demise by approving additional taxes they think are helpful but are undermining the very fabric of our culture.

What barrel are you bent over? Perhaps the Apple barrel because you have to have an iPhone? Or the Nike barrel because you want those latest shoes?

There has always been a 1%. Hopefully there always will be a 1% as they're usually the ones taking the risks and investing. Maybe if you stop being envious of those with more, look at where you are and if you don't like it figure out a way to change it. What sacrifices can you make to improve your situation, what changes in your life can you make? I promise it's much more fulfilling than pointing fingers at those who have more and wanting what they have.


Plane Speaker
another community
on May 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm
Plane Speaker, another community
on May 8, 2016 at 10:58 pm

So, your argument is that because I believe something that is documentable,
( go look at what our largest corporations have paid in taxes ) you feel justified
to call me naive because you feel it is wrong.

How much data do you need to see? ... well, I am not going to argue with you,
You can Google it if you like.

The point is that we did not have these crushing deficits and built up debt
is because we are spending more than we are taking in - meaning that someone
is not paying their fair share. You and your ilk seem to always want to make
that about only the money, not the fact that our country needs to get certain
things accomplished to be a real country ... with a real culture and part of
Western Civilization. You POV is about caring only for the rich, talking like it
is only the rich that MERIT being able to live, and participate in life.


Rocket ship
Waverly Park
on May 9, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Rocket ship, Waverly Park
on May 9, 2016 at 1:34 pm

"Someone is not paying their fair share"

more likely the government is spending money that isn't theirs to begin with.


Jim Neal
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on May 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm
Jim Neal, Old Mountain View
Registered user
on May 9, 2016 at 2:27 pm

After reading the overwhelming majority of the comment here, most of them made by one poster, I am shocked and amazed at the claim that emotional arguments are "documentable facts". Wealthy people and corporations pay far more than their "fair share" of taxes. in 2014, the top 1% of income earners paid almost 50% of ALL income taxes. ( Web Link )

The bottom 50% of income earners paid NOTHING.

The housing problem has one cause, greedy cities allowing businesses to expand at warp speed while knowing that there isn't the housing or infrastructure to support them. This by default drives up housing costs while providing cities with greater tax revenues. Having lower income people driven out of the cities also raises tax revenues, so it's a win/win.

The burden on the working people does not primarily come from taxes, it comes from the government agencies and representatives that claim to be acting in their interest while at the same time implementing policies that make it ever more difficult for them to survive.

Another fallacy is that rich people and companies just sit on their money. That is not true. Both reinvest the money in the company or in acquisitions and services which create jobs that then give others the opportunity to create their own wealth. Every government that has tried to redistribute wealth has failed miserably, destroyed their economy, and reduced their people to crushing poverty. ( See Greece, Cuba, and Venezuela ).

Lastly, people and businesses being able to keep money that they have legitimately earned is NOT a LOOPHOLE. The government is not entitled to every dime a person makes, nor is the government entitled to tell an individual or business how they must spend the money they have earned! There is a word for the condition where people work but are not entitled to any income... it is called slavery. Just because there may not be any whips or chains involved, it wouldn't be any less so.


As far as who should fix the problems, these problems are created by the government because of its insatiable appetite for revenues. The government can fix it by putting the people ahead of its own desire for power, revenue, and growth, but good luck waiting for that to happen.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View


@jim Neal
Monta Loma
on May 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm
@jim Neal, Monta Loma
on May 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm
Plane Speaker
another community
on May 9, 2016 at 6:42 pm
Plane Speaker, another community
on May 9, 2016 at 6:42 pm

First, 2 posts out of 14 total posts is not a majority of posts,
so please check your math.

>> Wealthy people and corporations pay far more than their "fair share" of taxes. in 2014, the top 1% of income earners paid almost 50% of ALL income taxes. ( Web Link )

>> The bottom 50% of income earners paid NOTHING.

Let's assume that was true, because the claim about "fair share" is debatable
on many grounds, and the only grounds you recognize is dollar amount.

If the bottom 50% pay "nothing",

Then what is the purpose of taxing them at all? The bottom 50% of people in
this area, and in much of CA are living on the edge and need the system to
grow and give them a breaks. $1000 to a homeless person is simply not the
same as $1000 to Warren Buffet, so let your analysis respond to that!

Built into your comment is a blind eye turned to economic principles Republicans
say they represent. As in the multiplier effect of having working and middle class
people keep and spend their money in a local economy, ie money velocity.

The only narrative on this subject we hear over and over and over again is how
we are punishing the rich by asking them to pay taxes, but most of the real rich
pay taxes at a much lower rate than working people, and their ability to prosper
from investment, deals, the law and loopholes is infinitely greater, something you
don't even conceive.

The fact is that the Founders of this country gave the wealthy land owners THE
say in the running of government, and also more responsibility as well in that they
were the ones who financed the country. That has been reversed, and playing
games of absolutes, proportions, differentials and marginals does not disprove
that it simply shows attempts to confuse the issue.

Again and again we hear about the free market solving problems, but our free
market is all about politics, and yet even as they are reaping record profits at
the top strata they are demonizing government that they control and that works
for them. A City cannot be greedy, the people who run the city by exercising
political control can though, and do.

I'd really like to see the problem solving brilliance of the businessmen in the
free market solve some of these problems, but the more money they have the
more they seem to want to set thing up to rig them in their benefit, and then
on top of that they begrudge paying taxes enough to fix them ... I wonder why?





QSBS
Old Mountain View
on May 9, 2016 at 6:49 pm
QSBS, Old Mountain View
on May 9, 2016 at 6:49 pm

Mr. Neal, have you heard of qualified small business stock treatment (QSBS)? Do yourself a favor, don't ever learn about it.


IKnowYou
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm
IKnowYou, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 9, 2016 at 7:18 pm

Rules from this forum forbid me from stating ones identity, so question for you,

Are you the same poster with the screen name Angel S. that attacks landlords in another thread, and who is part of the Mountain View Tenants Coalition/Day Worked Center?


IKnowYou
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm
IKnowYou, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm

^^^^

@Plane Speaker


Plane Speaker
another community
on May 9, 2016 at 8:50 pm
Plane Speaker, another community
on May 9, 2016 at 8:50 pm

IKnowYou ... if you are directing that question to me, no.


Resident
Old Mountain View
on May 10, 2016 at 2:36 pm
Resident, Old Mountain View
on May 10, 2016 at 2:36 pm

If you make the punishment for removing trees too harsh, they will somehow mysteriously start to die when the property owners realize how much of a liability they produce. This same kind of thing happens all over farm country when some animal is declared endangered - farmers kill it off their land as fast as possible to not deal with the burdensome regulations their presence implies. People have limits with these sorts of rules.


psr
The Crossings
on May 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm
psr, The Crossings
on May 10, 2016 at 7:03 pm

bjd
So your solution is to tax people out of their homes by eliminating Prop 13 protections? Ridiculous.

Do you understand that the benefit of Prop 13 was to save the homes of seniors and small family businesses, like farms? You rail on about "fairness" yet want to strip long-time citizens of their right to stay in their homes and of families to pass on their family businesses to their children. Do you not understand that those people have the right to keep what they have EARNED? What on earth do you think is "just" or "fair" about taking from those who have used their talents to improve the lives of themselves and their community?

If you can't afford to live here, I feel sorry for you. Maybe it would be a good idea to apply yourself more diligently to educating yourself in order to get a job that will pay for your needs. It isn't impossible, but you can't expect other people to do it for you.


mrsbjd
Old Mountain View
on May 11, 2016 at 7:24 am
mrsbjd, Old Mountain View
on May 11, 2016 at 7:24 am

@ psr

The goals of Prop 13 are understandable and sensible given the wild and rapid inflation of home prices throughout CA. That said, one of the results has been to massively suppress property tax liability for long-time homeowners below what folks could reasonably afford and rationally expect to pay. This transfers a significant percentage of the burden to younger families (for instance: 50% of taxes are paid by post-2007 purchasers while 15% are paid by those who purchased prior to 1993; each cohort represents 1/3 of homeowners). The prior owner of our home had an annual tax bill of $1k; ours is $17k -- neither of those prices is right. And fairness aside, Prop 13 has lots of unintended consequences, including limiting turnover in homes because of the tax consequences of moving, which in turn drives prices up and up.

All of which is to say that Prop 13 isn't the panacea that it was expected to be; it deserves serious and thoughtful scrutiny. There have got to be alternatives between the status quo and overturning the current system..

On a more personal note, consider that someone who can afford to live here might give a damn about the future of the region and the opportunities of people who aren't (for instance) engineers and lawyers, and who didn't (again, for instance) go to Penn and Stanford. Housing is a justice issue and being born longer ago shouldn't be dividing line between being able to live in a community and not.




psr
The Crossings
on May 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm
psr, The Crossings
on May 11, 2016 at 12:28 pm

@mrbjd

It is laughable that you refer to housing as a "justice" issue. How is it "just" to price people out of the homes they have owned and cared for for decades? Why are you more concerned for the young families moving in?

Did it occur to you that the members of those "young families" are likely making more in a single year than the older folks earned in ten of their working years? Did it occur to you that often only one member of the older families worked, while now it is often true that all adults in the house work?

Maybe it is time that the city governments learned to spend less rather than trying to find ways of creating turnover in the housing. You cannot build a community with a pack of transients who move in, work a few years, then move away. Those long-term residents should be valued, not abused because they don't produce enough revenue. I imagine they also spend less of the cities resources as well.

What is just about forcing older folks out of their homes, then forcing those residents into city-planned "affordable housing"? There is NOTHING "just" about about you deciding how others should live.


WakeUpPeople
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 5:49 pm
WakeUpPeople, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 11, 2016 at 5:49 pm

There is a very vocal group, not only in our city but state wide as well, that has decided to target ALL property owners as a funding source for all their "moral and social justice" issues. The ballot measure to remove prop 13 has already been written, it will be split up into two election cycles. The first one will have the commercial properties, then the residential repeal will happen at a later election.

The Mountain View Tentants Coalition/Day Worker Center will be supporting this, just as they are supporting apartment owners to subsidise the low income rents.

It makes no difference to these people to point out before prop 13 that is was the low income and people on a fixed income that where losing there homes.

They will win if people do not stick together and vote no on all these issues, or it will be divide and conquer.


@wake up people
Bailey Park
on May 11, 2016 at 7:08 pm
@wake up people, Bailey Park
on May 11, 2016 at 7:08 pm

You are so correct. just want to add, thanks to the unions the govt. need more and more money so that the unions can collect there fees which they use to fund the socialist/communist progressives liberal who works off of emotions rather than plain logic. Obviously someone has to pay for their blunder of pensions/medical gamble on the stock market.

Once commie Sander come in, you won't need to worry about property taxes skyrocketing because they don't believe in private ownership of property. Your property will be part of the big glob called govt. And on top of that like bernie says he will tax you to hell in order to pay for all his crazy ideas.

I believe in capitalism, period, socialist/communism does not work. Just look at russia and how it compared to the USA over the century of communion they had.

"Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. " jfk

No to big govt. No to all new taxes.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.