300 million dollar housing bond

[Fortunecookie]

Shouldn't we be planning infrastructure first , if we are to enable 30,000 more new homes built in Sonoma County? If this bond passes, it will only worsen the quality of life for everyone new and those that already live here. Sure, help the homeless, fire victims, and middle class but not at the expense of our quality of life. This build first mentality and worry about infrastructure later is wrong. You think traffic is bad now, if this bond passes, it will gridlock our roads worse than ever. Is there no other sensible plan available? Enlighten me!

[tommy]

There are so many arguments against building housing - here's another one! Building housing will "worsen the quality of life for everyone". aka We Who Have Housing are the only ones who count. We shouldn't have more housing because it will mean more traffic! That's a tad self serving, if you have housing... however a less beautiful argument if you're homeless, living in a shelter, on a waiting list to get into a shelter, living in a camper van, camping out along the Russian River, working two jobs to pay the rent, or a family jammed into a small bedroom.

This is a form of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) - build it elsewhere. We have infrastructure. We have roads, Smart Trains, sewer systems, electric grids, schools. Housing will be build using the existing infrastructure.

This is the face of class-ism in our society: I got here first, I have my housing, screw you, more housing will degrade my comfortable life style. Go elsewhere. Live in tents and trailers at the Fairgrounds. Too bad. You may be black, and frozen out of the real estate wealth buildup of white homeowners, but that's just too bad. I didn't do it personally to you. I'm the only one who matters here.

The solution to the housing crisis is to build more housing. Please support the $300M Housing Bond, to finance the construction of new housing!

Shouldn't we be planning infrastructure first , if we are to enable 30,000 more new homes built in Sonoma County? If this bond passes, it will only worsen the quality of life for everyone new and those that already live here. Sure, help the homeless, fire victims, and middle class but not at the expense of our quality of life. This build first mentality and worry about infrastructure later is wrong. You think traffic is bad now, if this bond passes, it will gridlock our roads worse than ever. Is there no other sensible plan available? Enlighten me!

[ChefJayTay]

Why are WE paying for OTHER people to move here? Is this the desired outcome?
You don't see Beverly hills passing bond issues to allow citizens to keep living there.
Those whom cannot afford to live here... well.. they cannot afford to live here. A bond measure will not change what lower income people earn. They will continue to be displaced by those whom can afford to build here themselves.

Living in paradise is not something to subsidize.

Edit: meanwhile in the thread next door.... we have people advocating the use of questionably legal day laborers.

[podfish]

Why are WE paying for OTHER people to move here? Is this the desired outcome?
You don't see Beverly hills passing bond issues to allow citizens to keep living there.
Those whom cannot afford to live here... well.. they cannot afford to live here. ...

Living in paradise is not something to subsidize.

That's got some elements of truth to it. The problem is more complex, and it's not getting directly addressed. There are several goals and premises that get wide, but not universal, agreement: a civilized society shouldn't ignore oppression and suffering, we should not encourage separation of the population by wealth or ethnicity, hard work should be rewarded and encouraged (personally, I'm not so sure about that last bit), our economic system should allow people to live comfortably. Your implied solution goes against many of these. It's already too rich and white around here; more white than rich, but maybe that'll change as the less wealthy have to leave.

This discussion also often has the taint of people who are unaffected deciding things for those who are: those dealing with homelessness or trying to find policies bringing in lower-cost housing aren't planning on moving into it -- and those thinking that it's ok for people to be pushed out, aren't considering leaving themselves. Personally, I'd love to hear ideas from people who work in the county but are stressing out about how/where to live.

[ray50sfo]

Do the math people. $300 million won't build 30,000 units. That would be a cost of $10,000 per unit. At the going rate of $300 per square foot construction cost, not to mention government fees, land cost, architecture, engineering, etc.. that would build a 33.3 square foot dwelling. That's not even 6' X 6' - smaller than a standard prison cell.

What could get built is roughly 3,000 units at a cost of $100,000 per unit. At $300 a square foot they would be roughly 333 square feet. Depending on the financing structure, with the addition of 50% debt, that could double the number or size of the units.

Read the bond measure carefully, not the politically and financially motivated emotional arguments for or against. Think it through, otherwise we'll get another Smart Train: half the route we were promised at the ballot box, twice the cost, not delivered on time or on budget, twice the bureaucracy, and lining the pockets of some very prominent local politicians.

[MikeH]

If you would like to see another 30,000 homes/units/apartments built it DOES NOT follow that you need to support approving a 300 million dollar bond.

If you read the Press Democrat story on this you may have noted that the picture at the head of the story was of the new tract housing development being built on Fulton Road by Hugh Futrell (whose partner I understand is attorney Bill Carle). Understand that Futrell has become filthy rich building this type of housing. Futrell does not want to be subsidized and does not need to be subsidized. And I'll be damned if I'd like to pay an extra property tax to subsidize him. We need not tax the poor to subsidize the rich.

So think seriously about this "bond" business. Why is it supposedly needed and if approve what would it go toward, or would it simply be another burdensome tax on us for the electeds to waste.

One idea is to require developers, especially apartment building developers, to include a large percentage of "affordables" in their projects WITHOUT government subsidy. The idea being that the excessive profit from the high rent units justify requiring the developer to set aside a significant number of rent-restricted affordables.

I think people are tired of regressive taxes burdening those of modest means so the proceeds can effectively be used to subsidize the rich.

I'll tell you one thing that is going on with this: For-profit developers will enthusiastically support it because they would rather affordables be built with tax dollars, rather than be mandated to include them in their developments at their own expense as a condition of project approval.

So I see some of this going on: a tax that effectively will be a subsidy for the wealthy developers in our midst.

[podfish]

If you would like to see another 30,000 homes/units/apartments built it DOES NOT follow that you need to support approving a 300 million dollar bond.... Understand that Futrell has become filthy rich building this type of housing. Futrell does not want to be subsidized and does not need to be subsidized. ...
One idea is to require developers, especially apartment building developers, to include a large percentage of "affordables" in their projects WITHOUT government subsidy. The idea being that the excessive profit from the high rent units justify requiring the developer to set aside a significant number of rent-restricted affordables.

I think that's true. The general argument is that the developers want to get the highest return, thus build expensive housing. I gotta admit, requiring them to build low-cost housing is "government taking" - it's not the Ayn-Randian pure free market where if you own it, you do what you want with it. I don't personally believe that if you own it you should be able to do what you want with it - but it's wise to remember that for many, that's the definition of American freedom. So I think that's where the subsidies are of some use - almost as a sop to those who feel aggrieved that they're being denied their rights. And not just them, but the portion of the populace that agrees that it's not the right of the community to 'take' property. Personally, I think the (mythical? I don't know) view of the original population, that land can't be owned by individuals, has a lot to recommend it.

[Barry]

Here's the PD article about the bond proposal:



Sonoma County supervisors advance proposed $300 million housing bond for November election

J.D. MORRIS
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | April 17, 2018, 8:45PM

Expand

Sonoma County supervisors on Tuesday advanced efforts to place on the November ballot a $300 million bond measure meant to help subsidize the construction of tens of thousands of new homes in the region.

Policymakers, housing advocates and environmental leaders have aligned in support of the proposed general obligation bond. They see it as crucial tool to speed recovery from the October wildfires, which destroyed nearly 5,300 homes in the county.

The proposal, which awaits a final vote by the Board of Supervisors this summer, would be patterned off similar efforts approved by voters in San Francisco, Santa Clara and Alameda counties to support affordable housing development.

“So many people my age, my generation, feel like they have no future in Sonoma County,” said Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, 35, who is part of the coalition working to bring the bond before voters. “I see them leave for other states … This is also true at the other end of the age spectrum and with our senior community who increasingly feels like there’s not place left for them.”

Supporters hope the bond measure can be used to leverage more money at the state and federal level, including a proposed $4 billion state housing bond going before California voters in November.

The local money could provide funding to help much-needed housing projects pencil out, backers say, spurring the creation of affordable units that were in short supply even before the wildfires.

“It’s never easy to go before the voters for local revenue measures, be it ag preservation, be it open space, be it parks, be it roads, be it bridges, and in this case, housing,” said Efren Carrillo, a former county supervisor, who now leads government relations for the nonprofit developer Burbank Housing in Santa Rosa. “And yet we recognize that there are many tools that the local leaders have to look at to start to crawl back out of the crisis that we have before us.”

The bond proposal has drawn support from a cross-section of local political leaders and environmental interests, including Sonoma County Conservation Action. Santa Rosa City Councilman Jack Tibbetts is helping lead the push for the proposal.

Supervisor David Rabbitt, an architect, voiced strong support for comprehensive efforts to expand the housing market and said county leaders needed to hold themselves accountable to their ambitious targets.

“We’ve never done that before,” Rabbitt said. “We say we do, but that’s not true.”

The Board of Supervisors, for its part, has floated a goal of adding 30,000 units in the county over the next 5 years.

“I hope we can have an adult conversation about housing, about growth in this county and really talk about where that should be and how it should occur,” Rabbitt said.

But not everyone is on board yet. Maddy Hirshfield, political director of the North Bay Labor Council, said her organization was “disappointed and saddened” with the bond plans so far. The current statement of principles drafted by supporters does not include sufficient workforce protections, including ironclad requirements that developers who tap into housing bond money pay prevailing wages and hire local workers, she said.

If the government is trying to help ensure workers can afford to live near their jobs, “we simply cannot scrimp on these things,” Hirshfield said.

Continues here

[Moon]

Another idea to get it paid for is to tax the living bejabbers out of the richest!

If you would like to see another 30,000 homes/units/apartments built it DOES NOT follow that you need to support approving a 300 million dollar bond....

[tommy]

This comment does not reflect the way the $300M housing bond would work.

The $300M would be seed money, to be used as partial funding, for affordable housing. For instance, say a developer is proposing 200 homes, to sell for $450k each. The County or the City might approve the project, if he made 20 of the units affordable, and sold for $250k each. As an incentive, the County or City could offer funding of $100k/unit (or $2M), and $75k from a State Housing bond. The Housing Bond would offer partial funding, to bridge the affordable price and the developer's cost. At $100k subsidy/unit, $300M would subsidize 3,000 units (300,000,000/100,000=3,000).

Other comments on this thread included a rant against the developer Hugh Futrell, because he's rich from building homes. This is capitalism. Do you want to rant about Bill Gates for becoming a billionaire off of Microsoft, or any of the other tech billionaires? This is the way products are developed, and housing is built. It takes lots of money and good credit to build housing. It's also risky - it takes at least several years to acquire the land, get permits, and build... during which the economy could tank.

Then there's the argument against private property. I believe property rights exist in all countries, as a foundation of a stable economy. They provide an incentive to improve property. I'm not aware of any good alternative.

Do the math people. $300 million won't build 30,000 units. ...

[MikeH]

Here is the link to the master list of so-called affordable apartments in Sonoma County; including those in various cities and those in the County unincorporated areas.

https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CDC/Affo...ing-Inventory/

https://www.sonoma-county.org/cdc/pd...apartments.pdf -easier to read pdf version.

I am very concerned about it because I get the sense it may be misleading, and have the question what exactly does it mean?

Look at the entry for Vineyard Creek Apartments, for instance, which is near the Airport in the unincorporated area. (It's under Santa Rosa because it is an unincorporated area that uses Santa Rosa as a mailing address)

Vineyard Creek Apts. 802 Vineyard Creek Dr. Santa Rosa (707) 542-1100, Total number of units= 232

This seems to indicate there are 232 affordable units there. But here are the rental listing:

Vineyard Creek Apartments, 1 Bedroom $2,195 – 2,395, 2 Bedrooms $2,595

I think someone in the market for an apartment should call them up, say they saw them on the County affordable housing list and you'd like to know what they have available in the "affordable" category. I doubt most of us would consider a 1 bedroom for $2195 to $2395 to be affordable.

https://www.vineyard-creek.com/ https://www.apartments.com/vineyard-...sa-ca/lt6j9pd/

[Fortunecookie]

Thanks everyone for your perspectives. My hope is that the majority of Sonoma County residents will know better than to vote for this 300 million dollar bond measure. I may be wrong. I have before. Though, I would like to see our quality of life here improve the better for a change and not worsen. The mere thought of adding 30000 homes is absurd! And " IT'S NOT IN "OUR" BACKYARD", not " MY" We will all see come this November. I do not support it at all.

[tommy]

Dear Fortunecookie,

This is obviously your right, to vote against the bond.

I am curious, however, what solutions, if any, you support, to lessen homelessness, lessen the overcrowding and long waiting lists of shelters, people camping in the Russian River area, people living in camper vans, homeless & hungry children who don't have the stability required for good learning in schools?

Thanks everyone for your perspectives. My hope is that the majority of Sonoma County residents will know better than to vote for this 300 million dollar bond measure. I may be wrong. I have before. Though, I would like to see our quality of life here improve the better for a change and not worsen. The mere thought of adding 30000 homes is absurd! And " IT'S NOT IN "OUR" BACKYARD", not " MY" We will all see come this November. I do not support it at all.

[jbox]

...I am curious, however, what solutions, if any, you support, to lessen homelessness, lessen the overcrowding and long waiting lists of shelters, people camping in the Russian River area, people living in camper vans, homeless & hungry children who don't have the stability required for good learning in schools?

I doubt this bond will do anything to prevent any of the things you mention. What is needed is to pay people who work for a living a living wage, increase taxes on the rich, and support Planned Parenthood.

The County also needs to get out of its own way and reduce fees on developing and building housing. Rather than load up the front end with excessive costs and fees that just drive up the cost of housing the County should instead rely on the steady stream of property tax income it will derive in the future from development.

[occihoff]

The sad truth is that as long as the human population continues to multiply unchecked, housing will multiply, natural resources will be drained, and our amazing and miraculous natural world will be damaged and diminished year by year.

Sadly, a reason to be grateful that I'll be out of here sometime in the next 20 years or so...

[Moon]

Thanks for showing us the arithmetic, Tommy; we've had a lot of good comments on this. A combination of a very progressive tax and a living wage would go a long way; I'd also be in favor of putting contraceptive in all drinking water and making people really show some good parenting skills to be qualified for the antidote.

...The $300M would be seed money, to be used as partial funding, for affordable housing. For instance,...

[MikeH]

One of the principle architects of this $300M bond is Santa Rosa Councilman Jack Tibbetts. He is your typical Sonoma County Alliance affiliated elected official meaning favoring developers and wealthy business interests.

He recently voted in favor of approving a new housing development in Fountaingrove, just recently after the fire ravaged that whole area. The approval was for 237 new homes on 18 acres along Round Barn Blvd, and area where homes likely would have burned to the ground had they been already up.

This is not the type of development this area needs. It is like they are going out of their way to attract wealthy out of the area buyers from San Jose and Silicon Valley. You can bet the developer will like to squeeze the most big expensive homes onto the parcel that is possible.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7...cil-deadlocks?

“This particular area just went through the worst wildfire in California history ten weeks ago,” Mayor Chris Coursey said. “It’s a good bet that if 237 homes had been on that property 10 weeks ago that there would be 237 piles of ash there right now.”

“There could be 237 million-dollar homes on that property,” Coursey said.

Tibbetts noted .... “Disasters are a fact of life,”

[tommy]

For what it's worth... I called Vineyard Creek Apt. They do have 232 units, however only 20 units are "affordable". The mgr said all 20 units are occupied, & the waiting list is "closed". The rent is regulated by the city or county. For instance, in the County, the rent on an "Affordable" 2 bedroom apt $991 to 1190 depending on the category of unit. The rent is further reduced by approx $60 utility credit. There are limits to the income you can have to quality.

& to Jbox who stated: "I doubt this bond will do anything to prevent any of the things you mention. What is needed is to pay people who work for a living a living wage, increase taxes on the rich, and support Planned Parenthood"...

Housing responds to supply & demand - a basic law of economics. If demand outstrips supply, the price will increase. All comments that I've read about the housing crisis, state that we need to build more housing. That's the reason for the $300M bond.

Kick holes in it, say we need all these other things... regardless, making housing more affordable with some govt funding is a good thing that has wide agreement. It's not the revolution, or overthrow of the tyrants... but you'll sure be happy if you get one of those affordable apartments!

Here is the link to the master list of so-called affordable apartments in Sonoma County; ...

[MikeH]

Planning for the bond measure will be on the County agenda Tuesday May 8th. It would be a "General Obligation" bond. It will have property tax associated with it, the property tax being what would pay back the principle and interest on the bonds, just like for a school bond. Bonds would get issued. That would be like taking out a loan which would be paid back over time with the property tax. An "ad valorum" property tax, which means a percentage of the property's assessed value. Here are links to the agenda item and general info on general obligation bonds.

You should note there is a difference between state issued general obligation bonds, and County or other "local jurisdiction" issued general obligation bonds. The state can pay off general obligation bonds out of the state general fund, but the County would not be allowed to do that, and would need a dedicated new tax to fund the bond issue.

https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/M...meta_id=241859

If a general obligation bond measure if pursued,
staff recommends election cost should not be charged back to the bond issuance out of an abundance
of caution to ensure compliance with state constitutional restrictions on GO bonds.

https://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/GOBond.pdf

The agency issuing a G.O. bond is authorized to levy an ad valorem property tax at the rate
necessary to repay the principal and interest of the bonds. The property taxes being used to
repay a G.O. bond issue are not subject to the usual ad valorem limitations based on property
tax rates, however special overall limitations exist to avoid excessive G.O. debt:
How is the Annual Charge Determined?
G.O. bonds are repaid with proceeds from ad valorem property taxes. These are calculated
based on the assessed value of property.

[MikeH]

This link to a Greenbelt Alliance article provides a more informed look at the "housing issue." Mainly it challenges the Board of Supervisor's claim that 30,000 new housing units are needed in the next 5 years. It points out that "Plan Bay Area" says this County should expect to accommodate 30,000 new households by the year 2040. In other words we need to add 30,000 new housing units, for these new families or households by the year 2040, which is 22 years away, NOT in the next 5 years.

"Plan Bay Area" is some Bay Area wide organization that seeks to plan growth Bay Area wide, and some say seeks to promote growth and spread it out. It is not some anti-growth entity.

So what does this add up to? It suggests the Supervisors pulled this figure of needing 30,000 new housing units in the next 5 years out of their nether orifice. It is nonsense, and may be motivated by political contributions by developers.

Sonoma County Housing - How Much and Where?

Can We BUILD Our Way to Affordable Housing?

May 5, 2018
by Teri Shore, Greenbelt Alliance

https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/...much-and-where

From the article -

At a recent fire recovery and housing workshop held by the Board of Supervisors, county and city planning officials claimed that we need to build 30,000 new housing units over the next five years.
Many people are taken aback by this number – a number that far exceeds any official growth projections, and isn’t reflected in any approved city or county plans.

The regional Plan Bay Area program, which went through extensive public review, projects that Sonoma County can expect 30,000 new households by 2040 (more than 20 years away).

In 2017, Sonoma County set a goal to build 3,375 new homes in unincorporated areas by 2022.

[Barry]

Press Democrat Poll shows tight race for Sonoma County housing bond

KEVIN MCCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | May 19, 2018, 10:13AM

Expand

A majority of Sonoma County voters support the $300 million housing bond that county supervisors plan to place on the ballot this fall, but that support will need to grow between now and November for the proposal to pass, according to The Press Democrat Poll.

A bond measure to boost production of affordable housing in the county was supported by 62 percent of respondents in the poll. The figure is 4 points short of the 66.6 percent required for approval in November, a gap almost equal to the poll’s 4.4 percent margin of error.

The results are a sign that supporters have work to do if they hope to succeed, said David Binder, whose San Francisco firm conducted the poll for The Press Democrat.

“I would be concerned more than encouraged if I was someone trying to pass this,” said Binder. “It’s tight.”

Advocates say their polling shows stronger public support for the measure, which they contend is the fastest, most effective way to help resolve a housing crisis that only deepened after the October wildfires destroyed 5,283 homes in Sonoma County.

Continues here

[Fortunecookie]

Interesting Press Democrat will say it's close.....They're also owned by big money developer. I am against it for the many reasons, as are most people I know in Sonoma County. We'll see in several weeks.......

[Lilith Rogers]

Press Democrat Poll shows tight race for Sonoma County housing bond

Continues here

I sure hope people are wise enough to pass this and that it helps create more affordable housing for the county. I just read the article in the PD about talking away the homeless camp along Joe Rodota trail which--while the encampment is not a good idea and is in a bad place for it--only forces the people who are living there to try to find another spot to move to. The county should never have moved them out from the community they had formed behind the vacant water department building in the first place. It would have made so much more sense to turn that building into a shelter or at least a communal space and let the campers continue their camping.

Apparently, from the article's interviews with some of the campers, some people just aren't able mentally to abide by the rules, etc. of the shelters. I know I would have a difficult time of it. wouldn't most of us WACCOS? And with the cost of housing being insanely high in the whole area, it's very hard even for people who are mentally healthy and with full time low wage jobs to keep a roof over their heads. Let's pass this bill--it's a good start. Lilith

[kane]

What's the short skinny on this?
What does this cost property owners per/$100k assessed?

thanks

[kane]

I would like to see the 'Sustainable' Tourism & Wine Businesses pay for more low-income housing for their workers, which place great pressure on less expensive housing for senior other citizens. Big Retail probably needs to chip-in as well.
I feel as though we're being asked to subsidize housing for their low-wage workers.

Many of us are on the verge of being driven out of the County by high property tax costs; Mentioned are "low-income" rents of $900-$1100, but how many in the County have monthly property tax bills approaching that level?
Increasing property taxes bias toward long-term residents being pushed-out, due to re-assessments with sibling splits etc., with the effect of turnover benefitting mostly the Real Estate industry; Increased turnover vs long-term engaged residents; choose only one.
With the added indignity of vehicle-destroying roads for our precious tax dollars, I'm not ready to pay yet more tax.

[MikeH]

I would like to see the 'Sustainable' Tourism & Wine Businesses pay for more low-income housing for their workers, .....

Some of this bond money ( which you would be paying on your property tax bill ) is being earmarked for "farmworker housing." You know what that means don't you? ( And I don't mean you specifically, but "you" meaning everyone )

[deepresto]

I agree with both Kane and MikeH: I do want farmworkers to have housing, but I believe the businesses (namely, the Wine Industry) that profit from their low wages and poor working conditions don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers.

I also believe taxes are a necessary evil in a civilized society. That said, my property taxes have gone up up up, with the Tax Collector's office advising me to be grateful they didn't increase even more. I don't know how long I can keep this up.

I would like to see the 'Sustainable' Tourism & Wine Businesses pay for more low-income housing for their workers, ...

[MikeH]

So there will not be this simple county-wide bond. There will likely be a Santa Rosa bond, and maybe a separate bond for the County. The "Sonoma County Alliance" and the farm Bureau opposed the county-wide bond.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/8...sonoma-county?

Here's what Lynda Hopkins has to say, according to the article. And in my opinion it should be concerning to those of you in the 5th District. First, she likes the idea of a "parcel tax" which is the MOST REGRESSIVE type of property tax. Second, she uses this goofy language about a “legal rabbit hole” which suggests she is unfamiliar with how a parcel tax is defined. Third, she is generally reckless and wants to secure this money via some tax in such a way that will appeal to her Sonoma County Alliance and wealthy wine industry backers which means a regressive tax where the rich pay less and the non-rich pay more would be good by her. She would also be good with a sales tax increase, which is very well known to be a regressive tax.

Whenever the proposal of a parcel tax comes up I am offended. The most expensive properties paying the same as the least expensive.

Here's where the article has some quotes from her:

Another option is a parcel tax, which would raise an estimated $25 million per year. The tax could be either a flat rate of $140 per parcel, or different values for improved versus unimproved properties. This option, however, has gone into a bit of a “legal rabbit hole” around issues that include how to define “improved” versus “unimproved” property and how it would mesh with a city measure, said Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, who serves on the steering committee.

The third option involves a half-cent sales tax in the unincorporated areas, which would raise about $9.5 million annually for 10 years and could be used for a combination of housing recovery outside city limits, as well as boosting fire services.

Hopkins said this third option was the “most flexible” of the three.

Here is the County agenda item, obviously incompetently done:

https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/M...meta_id=244359

Countywide Parcel Tax
Another revenue measure option is a countywide parcel tax. A parcel tax cannot be based on assessed
value, and must be applied uniformly to all real property, although unimproved property may be taxed
at a lower rate than improved property.
Excluding properties coded as “nontaxable” in the County’s property tax system, there are
approximately 158,213 “improved” parcels (parcels with value on property tax bill beyond just land
value) and 21,253 “unimproved” parcels (parcels with only land value on property tax bill) countywide.
Parcel tax proceeds may be used for any purpose specified in the ballot measure, including programs
and services. The existing policy framework would be used as the basis for a parcel tax measure but
could be modified to include additional programs and services.
Because there is no ability to bond against parcel tax revenues, staff anticipates that a parcel tax would
need to raise approximately $25 million annually to begin to meet countywide housing recovery goals.
There are two primary scenarios to meet this target:
Revision No. 20170501-1
• Equal amount per parcel: $140 per parcel
• Equal amount per improved parcel with a lower amount per unimproved parcel: Illustrative
examples provided below (round to whole dollars); staff is able to provide additional multipliers.
Flat rate 1.6X improved, X unimproved: $147 per improved, $92 per unimproved
Flat rate 3X improved, X unimproved: $153 per improved, $51 per unimproved
Flat rate 5X improved, X unimproved: $155 per improved, $31 per unimproved
There is an estimated election cost of $300,000 for a countywide parcel tax measure, which can be
charged back to tax revenue if the measure is successful. Assuming a successful measure, there will be
administrative costs to the County department responsible for preparing the annual levy, which will be
higher if the measure imposes a lower rate on unimproved parcels, and to the Auditor-Controller
Treasurer-Tax Collector for administering and apportioning the parcel tax on the tax roll. These
administrative costs can be covered through the tax proceeds.

[luke32]

Unless you know more about what Lynda Hopkins said than is quoted in the article, I think you are off base in castigating her. She did not say she was in favor of a parcel tax vs. a bond which would be repaid with general value-based tax revenue. As i read it she was quoted only with regard to the parcel tax -assuming the bond is no-go. I think her rabbit hole comment was right on. How does one define "improved"?

Again, perhaps you know more than was quoted in the article.

So there will not be this simple county-wide bond. There will likely be a Santa Rosa bond, and maybe a separate bond for the County. The "Sonoma County Alliance" and the farm Bureau opposed the county-wide bond.

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/home/8...sonoma-county?

Here's what Lynda Hopkins has to say, according to the article. ...