If We could wave my magic wand, Proposition H–the billion-dollar “affordable” housing bond measure–would disappear from the Nov 7th stage, and the Prop H supporters would be revealed as illusionists.
These illusionists want you to accept “official statistics” about a “dismal” T. A. housing situation, require figures amount to drawing a rabbit out of a hat; they are not grounded in actuality. According CNN Money, Los Angeles is statistically more affordable than 43 other los angeles mansion rentals cities, and Forbes says LA has a less expensive rental market than cities such as Boston, San Francisco and Honolulu.
Middle-income Angelenos buy property every day in this city, so why should we believe Prop H illusionists who believe families making over six figures need financial assistance, in particular when this financial assistance will come from taxpayers with lower incomes than they have?
The illusionists want to hide the truth that wealthy developers–often masquerading as nonprofit organizations–are the true backers and beneficiaries of the calculate. The illusionists wish to distract you with tear-jerking tales about how precisely H may help the elderly and the down-and-out in downtown L. A., but this is simply a tool to gain sympathy and votes. Numerous elderly and lower income Angelenos will be seriously hurt if H passes because they will be paying higher taxes, and not acquiring any benefits.
The illusionists want you to think that this billion-dollar housing relationship will cost you only a Frappucino, when in truth it could cost you personally over $10, 000 during the 30-year bond period, with virtually no benefit.
Proposition H is comprised of three components, and like oil and water, the parts do not mix. Part One is the “water” or the sustenance factor. This allocates approximately one third of the funds for the homeless and truly indigent of our city, a noble cause which may or may well not need additional funding. Los Angeles’ current surplus of $717 mil could be used for this purpose.
Parts A couple of and Three, the slimy or “subsidizing the rich” components, do not in any way merit financing and necessitate a vote against the complete proposition. Part Two–which will receive another one-third of the funds–is nothing more than the latest brand of rent control, and the traditional arguments against it apply. Studies show that hire stabilized buildings–even those that start out new–eventually become dilapidated and drive up the expense of market-rate rents, hurting the poor and middle course in the end. Typically the developers who build the projects are the true beneficiaries.
Rent control can also impede those it is supposed to help. Rent control tenants who experience any degree of financial success often do not buy, but instead remain psychological prisoners, sacrificing equity-building opportunities and 100s of thousands of dollars in order to cling to their cheap leases. “Clinging, ” a common practice, negatively impacts cost for others.
Part Three is related to home buying and is the most problematic or slick component of Prop H. It taxes “property owner” families so that “non-property owner” families (even those making six figure incomes) can buy real house. If Prop H passes, lower and middle income Anglenos will be required to subsidize those who earn more money than they do. A family of 4 with an income of $103, 950 could receive Prop H money from a family with a mere $50, 1000 income. This gross injustice could lead to financial hardship, even foreclosure, for existing home owners, like the elderly on fixed incomes.
Typically the illusionists are inaccurate when they say H helps middle-income workers. Used to do a calculation for five of my real estate clients–a small business owner, an advertising sales employee, a police officer, a structure worker and a teacher–to determine the impact of Proposition H on their wallets. They all made sacrifices to buy homes within the last 2 years, including investing in breads and butter rental properties. If H passes, all will be seriously punished for their hard work. They may be forced to sell or to lose their properties to foreclosures.
Over the 30-year connection period, the small company owner with a family total annual income of $90, 000 would pay between $23, 214 and $34, 980. In the end, he will have paid one-third to one-fourth of a year’s income for nothing.
The salesperson with a family income of 80, 000 would pay between $17, 958 and $27, 060. The particular police officer with a family income of seventy dollars, 000 would pay from $9, 636 to $14, 520.
The construction employee with a family income of $60, 000 would pay from $4, 380 to $6, 600, and the teacher with a family income of $48, 000 would pay from $2, 190 to $3, 300. It should also be noted that these figures are based after the probably underestimated figures provided in the Voter Details Pamphlet; they could be higher due to interest rate hikes in the bond.