Funding for Housing?
A reduction in work hours, a lost job, an illness or an unexpected expense can spiral into an inability to pay the rent, an eviction, and loss of housing. A good portion of the job market here is based on the tourist economy which means many jobs are part-time and seasonal. Stability in wages and rents is the conundrum that we face.
Homelessness is a regional, state and a nationwide problem and Fort Bragg cannot deal with this alone. It is not a crime to be homeless. There is no magic wand for a city to fix this. It takes a community!
There is no hard data to confirm how many homeless people are living in Fort Bragg. Accurate counts are difficult since most homeless do not stay in the same place for any length of time.
We all know the solution to homelessness. Housing is the solution and that means rapid re-housing. How is that done? Funding is needed to help individuals and families quickly exit homelessness and return to permanent housing through rental assistance paired with intensive case management. This takes a multi-agency approach. DANCO is completing the low-income Plateau subdivision on South Street. This is a step in the right direction.
With rents ever so high and where current wages do not meet the ability to pay for higher rentals, more low-income workforce housing is needed.
To end homelessness, a community-wide coordinated approach to delivering services, housing, and programs is part of the solution. That includes planning and working with local, county state and federal agencies.
Paying living wages and caps on rent increases would be ideal! That is where the private sector comes in. We all have to be part of the solution!
According to the U.S. Census there are 3,014 occupied housing units. Of these 658 are owner occupied with mortgages and 459 without a mortgage. When we plan for housing and look at housing issues it may be wise to dig into these statistics.
Are outside, non-resident entities and corporations capitalizing on raising rents?
The City of Ft. Bragg can utilize fiscal mechanisms to raise $ for housing
Example # 1--Residential Rental Business License Tax Measure
I would like to see Fort Bragg adopt a Residential Rental Business License Tax Measure. In California, leases of tangible personal property are generally subject to use tax.
In 2016, East Palo Alto Voters passed Measure O by a margin of 78% to 22% (4,861 yes; 1,408 no). Measure O was closely modeled on the City of Berkeley’s Measure U1 and is expected to raise $600,000 a year. It was placed on the ballot by a 4 – 1 vote of the City Council. In Berkeley California, Measure U1 raised the rate from 1.081% to 2.880% on landlords who own 5 or more rental units. Newly built units are excluded for the first 12 years they are in the rental market, and there are a number of other exclusions for rent-controlled, sect. 8, and other “affordable housing” units. Revenues accrue to the general fund with direction to the Housing Advisory Commission to recommend projects.
East Palo Alto, CA
Ordinance 5.08.125 - Rental of five or more units of residential real property.
A.
Notwithstanding Section 5.08.120, this section shall govern the taxation of gross receipts from the rental of five or more residential rental units in the City of East Palo Alto.
B.
Every person or entity engaged, directly or indirectly, including through an interest in another entity, in the business of renting or leasing five or more dwelling units in the City of East Palo Alto shall pay an annual tax of one and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross receipts.
C.
Gross receipts from the following categories of dwelling units shall not be subject to this section, but shall be subject to Section 5.08.120:
1.
Dwelling units owned by a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is the provision of affordable housing.
2.
Dwelling units whose rents are controlled under state or federal law, deed restrictions, or agreements with public agencies, at rental rates that are affordable to households earning no more than eighty percent (80%) of AMI and whose tenants must be income-qualified.
3.
Units occupied by tenants receiving monthly rental assistance (such as Section 8 vouchers or shelter + care) from the County of San Mateo Department of Housing; and
4.
Any dwelling unit during the first ten (10) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
D.
Any person or entity otherwise subject to the tax imposed under this section may seek a one-year hardship exemption due to exceptional circumstances. The rent stabilization administrator may approve such applications for good cause, such good cause being determined in accordance with standards set out in the city Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, Chapter 14.04 of the East Palo Alto Municipal Code. Such approvals shall be in writing and specifically state the factors that constitute good cause. Any hardship exemption shall be effective for one tax year only, after which it will expire. Taxpayers who seek hardship exemptions must reapply every year.
E.
The city council may reduce the tax rate set forth in this section for rental of five or more dwelling units, and may terminate any such reductions, without further voter approval.
F.
The tax imposed by this chapter shall not be passed on to existing tenants in the form of rent increases or in any manner, including reduction in services or added charges for services, unless such pass through is constitutionally required.
G.
The city council may use the funds generated for any purposes deemed necessary and appropriate for the benefit of the citizens of East Palo Alto. Periodically, council shall review housing policy, housing programs, and related issues to determine how and to what extent the city should establish and fund such programs, if any, to increase the supply of affordable housing and protect residents from displacement and homelessness, in light of the city's budget cycle and other relevant funding cycles.
(Ord. No. 404, § 3, 7-5-2016)
Example #2
Tax on large corporations holding real estate
In 2018 East Palo Alto residents voted in favor of Measure HH — a in the city — https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/13/east-palo-alto-passes-measure-to-tax-large-companies/
We'd have to adjust it to make it fit Fort Bragg, but in general I like the idea of taxing those whose recent profits and/or wealth far far far exceed what is necessary for living a decent life, and using the tax money to help everybody else have a chance at a decent life.
One thing that is helpful is that unlike 30 years ago, we now have results of studies of happiness. The studies show that after a certain point, more money does not make you happier. People who earn over, say, $3 million a year, often FEEL like they do not want to be taxed, and are often offered help to figure out ways to avoid paying taxes, but are actually no happier when they keep $3 million a year than when they keep $1 million. So a win-win is possible.