[Previous entry: "County Questions Rosario EIS Responses"] [Next entry: "Learn About Historical Reef Netting Of Salmon"]

12/12/2005: "Affordable Housing "Bank" Still Moving Forward"

(Karen Vedder, SJC Deputy Prosecutor, and John Manning, County lead on the project, discuss proposed Ordinances at an earlier meeting with the BOCC)

The next interesting step to be taken before the BOCC adopts two proposed draft Ordinance that will allow the County to collect, and disburse, a new excise tax on the sale of real estate, is to see what the State Attorney General may have to say on the legality of the draft ordinances. While the first Ordinance collects the tax, a second Ordinance has been proposed that will result in the "restructuring" of the existing Affordable Housing Commission into an Affordable Housing Bank that will be the county agency that is responsible for disbursing the money collected from the new tax.

While the Prosecutors office seems at this point to be comfortable with the legality of the new tax (after forcefully questioning the first couple of submittals) Karen Vedder pointed out to the BOCC that there are a number of questions on how the enforcement and follow-up of operating the housing bank (the second Ordinance) will work once it has been passed. The questions appear to be generated by the simple fact that the proposed Ordinance is simply silent on a number of questions that come to mind when it is perused. As examples she asked what happens if a loan is not paid? Who will be responsible to take action? What if there is illegal activity in, or on, a property? What happens if the owner of a property fails to maintain it? If someone qualifies for a home, and then -for whatever reason- becomes flush with money, do they get to stay there forever, even if there making huge amounts of money as a result of their job or profession? Can they pass on the ownership to a family member even if that person would not normally qualify?

The questions point out that what has been hotly discussed for adoption these past months (and will be up to the voters to decide in May, if all goes as planned), is not how all of this is going to work, but only that "something"- in addition to existing programs- is going to be done to provide additional affordable housing. If one were to look for a simple example to understand what is going on, one could say the Ordnance that will result in the creation of the Affordable housing Bank is analogous to our Comprehensive Plan, in that it is a clustering of ideas, policies and goals; but no regulations, as to how the programs are going to work on a day-to-day basis. Whatever is done is going to have to be reviewed at some point by the planners if it is to become a part of the overall County Housing plan, and so far that appears to not have been happening.

The second ordinance is easy to understand, it simply goes out and grabs the money (99% paid by the purchaser of any real estate sale, and 1% from the seller) to pay for both the creation of the ideas and goals in the first Ordinance into a reality, and also to help pay for -at least- some of the expenses of making "it" all happen. That is, making it happen once we decide what exactly, and how, it is suppose to happen. With respect to the imbalance in who pays the bill, the organizers told the BOCC that those who move here create the problem, so they should pay the costs of solving the problem. The tax will not be retroactive to past sales.

At the end of the work last session, the BOCC agreed by consensus to move forward with the ordnances once discussed minor changes have been made, and then the Ordinances will be ready to be advertised for public comment.