Residents say affordable housing in SLO County is important. But will we pay for it?
San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to move forward with efforts to place a $40 million housing bond on the November ballot — despite initial polling showing public support might be too weak.
A bond would provide $4 million a year for 10 years for affordable housing, which the county board promised to generate after a coalition of home builders and local business leaders said it was necessary for the health of the local economy.
SLO County is one of the least affordable places to live in the country. Some employers moved from the area in recent years because they can’t pay workers enough to afford housing, and housing costs are a barrier to attract new employers.
Thousands of local residents don’t have permanent shelter. And the state has said that more than 4,000 additional low-income or very low-income homes are needed by 2028.
A housing bond could help. Local nonprofit home builders, for example, could use money from the bond as matching dollars to leverage additional state and federal grant money to build affordable housing units for low-income and very low-income county residents. That’s been successful before.
But, it would cost landowners. Property taxes would increase by $3.85 per $100,000 in assessed value every year for 20 years to pay off the debt. That could be a hangup for county voters in November, who may also be deciding on whether to increase city taxes.
Alternative sources for the money could be identified in the county General Fund with cuts to other expenses, or by increasing fees on developers who chose not to build affordable housing units in projects.
Next steps for housing, library bond
Supervisors directed staff to begin public education and engagement with residents to learn what kind of projects voters would support if the housing bond is placed on the ballot, as well as engagement on a potential $40 million library bond to pay for new facilities and building upgrades. Those next steps will cost around $450,000.
The board is scheduled to vote June 16 on whether to place the bonds on the ballot. Other counties and cities are looking at bonds to pay for affordable housing or have already done it, such as in San Diego and Portland.
“This is the right time,” Supervisor Adam Hill said Tuesday. “This is not just an issue locally. It’s the state’s issue. It’s the issue for the future of this county. Every survey from employers, the same issue is identified as a major issue: the cost of housing. That has not changed. It will not change, and it will continue to undermine our economy.”
Not all supervisors are as enthusiastic.
“I’m not really sold on the bond issue as the way to address this,” Supervisor Debbie Arnold said. “I would like to see us take a certain amount of money from the General Fund. I am willing to send it out to the voters (to see if) are they willing to dig into their pocket.”
Supervisor John Peschong, however, supports the bond and said he he’d like to see substantial community outreach.
Engagement with the community could lead to stronger voter support. Both supervisors Arnold and Lynn Compton warned that public communication from county staff had to focus on education, not advocacy.
Housing and homelessness are top issues for residents
Recent polling suggests voter support might fall short if the ballot is placed on the November ballot. Researchers in January interviewed 952 residents who are likely to vote in the November 2020 election.
Affordable housing and homelessness were identified as the top two major problems facing the county. Among those polled, 26% said affordable housing was the most important problem, 19% said homelessness, and 9% said taxes/jobs/cost of living, according to a county report.
That concern doesn’t necessarily translate into the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass increased property taxes for an affordable housing bond. Only 58% of those polled said they would vote “yes” for a housing bound. Even with a margin of error around 3%, the poll indicates not enough voters would approve the bond with the proposed language.
Support did increase with a bit of education on the measure. Conversely, when provided with a statement of opposition, residents’ support for the measure declined by 2 percentage points.
Next steps include community education workshops, direct mailers to describe the need for housing, and opportunities for the community to give input — to understand community priorities for this funding if it were pursued, said Carolyn Berg, with the County Administrative Office.
“The next couple months will give us more insight into what our communities want to see addressed to meet our housing needs,” Berg said.
Polling support for a library bond was lower, at 48% to 50%. Supervisors voted to proceed with education and engagement to gauge potential voter support after they heard from several library supporters who expressed the need for funding.
