FCL NEWSLETTER -- July, 2003
Housing for All of Us
By Christopher Mohr
"Is this not the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the thongs of the yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house?"
- Isaiah 58: 6-7
Perhaps unaware of this particular passage from Isaiah, yet surely mindful
of both religious and social traditions of helping the poor, legislators are
working with advocates to craft bills that will begin to address the structural
problems in California that engender homelessness. These problems include high
housing costs relative to wages, a lack of housing production relative to need,
and fiscal disincentives that often discourage housing production at the local
level.
Ryan is an attender of San Francisco Friends Meeting who suffers from Tourette's
Syndrome and lives in a federally subsidized building that was acquired by a
nonprofit to keep it from going to market rate. Sergio lost his solid white
collar job and his savings when complications from HIV made him unable to work,
but has been able to get by on his disability check of less than $700 a month
thanks to a small studio apartment in another affordable building. Likewise,
Diana, a recovered crack addict, is now able to raise her grandson in a one-bedroom
apartment and work at nearby Glide Church. Knowing Ryan, Sergio and Diana, among
many thousands who live each month on the precipice of homelessness, compels
us to understand the true value of each and every affordable home.
According to a report by the Little Hoover Commission, California needs to
build 220,000 units every year between 2002 and 2020 to keep pace with population
growth.
Between 1990 and 1997, an average of only 91,000 housing units were produced
each year. There are more than 2.2 million low-income homeowners and renters
in urban California. Two-thirds of low-income renters pay more than half of
their incomes for housing, and over three-quarters of low-income homeowners
pay more than 30 percent of their incomes towards housing. More than 360,000
Californians are homeless, and many more are just a paycheck or two away from
losing their homes.
Connecting the Dots
An unintended consequence of the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 was the erosion
of California's strong tradition of local control (see "Trudging the Road
to Fiscal Solvency in the 'Not Me' Era," May 2003 Newsletter). Affordable
housing is a casualty of the fiscal limits imposed by voters on their local
governments. Some current legislation would return power to local governments,
allowing for more affordable housing. ACA 14 (Darrell Steinberg, D., Sacramento)
would lower the voter threshold to 55 percent from the Prop. 13-mandated two-thirds
super-majority for local taxes, to enable passage of locally supported measures
for affordable housing, open space, and transportation. SCA 11 (Richard Alarcón,
D., Sun Valley) would lower the voter threshold to a simple majority to allow
local governments to issue general obligation bonds for the same purposes.
This packaging of apparently separate issues makes sense. A growing number
of housing groups are teaming with environmental organizations and bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit advocates to promote infill development in developed
areas as a "smart growth" alternative to continued sprawl onto agricultural
land and open space. In San Mateo County, there has been discussion of adding
transit-oriented, affordable housing development to the voter measure to reauthorize
Measure A, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects. Building higher
density housing near transit nodes provides residents a ready source of transportation
to their jobs, enables cost-effective transit system development, and relieves
the traffic congestion and air pollution that result from
automobile-oriented suburban sprawl.
De-fiscalizing Land Use
Revenue sharing between localities and the state is another area ripe for reform.
AB 1221 (Steinberg, D., Sacramento) would swap a portion of local sales tax
revenue for property tax revenue. Since California voters enacted Proposition
13, sales tax has replaced the property tax as local government's largest source
of discretionary income. This has led to the fiscalization of land use, whereby
local jurisdictions promote retail development, especially big-box stores and
regional auto malls, and discourage housing developments that incur extra costs
for water, sewage, roads and schools. This bill is revenue-neutral, since it
swaps revenue sources without adding funding. Still, it marks a significant
start in the absence of real reform to Proposition 13, which many politicians
and voters consider untouchable (though more voices are being raised by the
public, in the Legislature, and on editorial pages to reconsider its worst effects).
AB 1426 (Steinberg, D., Sacramento) would create housing production standards
and provide new dollar incentives for cities in the Sacramento area. It is intended
to serve as a model program for other regions. Advocates have been working with
the author to change the incentives offered to cities from housing dollars to
other infrastructure funding. For example, San Mateo County offers cities, or
the County itself, up to $2000 in federal funds per newly constructed bedroom
in approved housing developments. The development must be located within one-third
mile of a Caltrain or BART Station and have a density of at least 40 units per
acre. The funds could be used for general infrastructure, whether near the new
development or not. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area
is developing a new program modeled on the San Mateo County experience.
Using State Law
Land use and planning are key elements of housing policy. The "housing
element" of a jurisdiction's general plan requires local governments to
plan for the provision of affordable housing by identifying possible sites and
rezoning those sites to accommodate affordable housing. State laws and regulations
are designed to ensure that local governments take on their "fair share"
of affordable housing; local government housing elements must be submitted for
approval by the state department of Housing and Community Development every
five years.
Neighborhood opposition to higher densities that serve lower income Californians
is another major obstacle to
affordable housing development. Senator Joe Dunn (D., Garden Grove) was unsuccessful
last year in moving a bill that would penalize cities for not having State approval
of their housing elements. Local governments are loath to have the state mandate
particular outcomes for them. But several bills to change housing element laws
have been introduced this year. SB 744, by Senators Dunn and Denise Moreno Ducheny
(D., San Diego) would require the Department of Housing and Community Development
to hear appeals to determine whether local governments discriminated against
affordable housing developments in their approval processes. If a permit or
approval was denied for an affordable housing development that was within zoning
and building code
requirements, the Department could reverse the denial.
The legislation is modeled on a similar board in Massachusetts. Having an appeals
process in place has emboldened local elected officials there to challenge affordable
housing opponents and support affordable housing developments. Though state
law already prevents discrimination against affordable housing, the only recourse
now is litigation, which is costly and time consuming.
Other Measures
AB 1217 (Mark Leno, D., San Francisco) would prohibit owners of single-room
occupancy hotels from using the Ellis Act to evict all tenants and take the
building off the market. Property owners have used the Ellis Act to skirt rent
control laws and bring buildings back on the market at much higher rents.
Proposition 46, the State Emergency Shelter and Affordable Housing Act, passed
by voters in November 2002, now has notices of funding availability rolling
out. Funds are beginning to help new projects get off the ground. Unfortunately,
as a result of the budget crisis, the governor has proposed using $39.1 million
in Prop. 46 funds for developments already under construction, even though the
intent of the bond measure was to ensure additional funding for construction
of new housing not yet approved. Currently, both the Assembly and Senate versions
of the budget accept the governor's proposal, which housing advocates hope to
reverse.
Also, Proposition 46 allocates money for local trust funds. For example, San
Mateo County recently established the Housing Endowment and Trust (HEAT). A
unique program, HEAT is structured as a joint powers authority between the County
and cities to be governed by a public/private board of directors. Most housing
trust funds operate within a single jurisdiction, whether a city or a county.
Six cities have joined with the County to create the trust, and more cities
are expected to join this summer.
The budget crisis has threatened other state housing resources. Fortunately,
$1.3 million in funding for emergency shelters was restored, and the Legislature
rejected the gov-ernor's proposal to do away with any uncommitted portion of
local redevelopment agency housing funds. By law, 20 percent of local redevelopment
agency funds must be set aside for affordable housing.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
It's easy to get lost in the minutiae of bills and policy. Nonetheless, the
call to help the homeless and the near homeless is clear. Please consider joining-or
creating-a speakers bureau on housing in your area. Local voices can become
powerful supporters who help city councils and planning commissions develop
the backbone needed to stand up to "NIMBYs" and approve well-designed,
well-located, and much-needed housing developments. For example, residents of
Friends House in Santa Rosa have become vocal housing activists after organizing
a brown bag lunch series on homelessness. The Housing Leadership Council's nascent
grassroots speakers bureau aims to provide that kind of incentive from the grassroots
level. Let us heed the words of Isaiah and encourage the State of California
to build a society that "brings the homeless poor into (our) house."
- Christopher Mohr is a member of San Francisco Friends Meeting and FCL's
development and outreach committee. An affordable housing activist for eight
years, mostly in San Francisco's Tenderloin district, Chris is now executive
director of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County (see <www.hlcsmc.org>).
Budget Impasse Continues As Bills Move to Second House
The deadline for bills to get out of their house of origin came and went June
9 without much ado, as all eyes focused on budget negotiations between Governor
Davis and party leaders. Once again, the Legislature failed to meet the June
15 constitutional deadline for passing the budget. As usual, the sticking point
is taxes, and Senate Minority Leader James Brulte (R., Rancho Cucamonga) vowed
to campaign against Republicans who vote for tax increases. Earlier this year,
then-GOP Party Chairman Shawn Steele vowed to lead recall efforts against any
Republicans who vote for more taxes.
The governor's May Revision restores some funding for public education and
health and human services and reduces the tax cuts originally proposed in his
January budget proposal. Still, while funding for education and health and human
services faces huge spending reductions, Corrections-the only category of state
spending to receive funding increases in the governor's January proposal-receives
an additional $24 million in the governor's revised proposal.
The May Revision includes the governor's original proposal to reduce MediCal
provider payments by 15 percent. Senate Democrats have rejected major cuts in
health care spending, but have included $220 million to build a new death row
at San Quentin. Assembly Democrats have rejected funding a new death row.
Instead of restoring the 10 and 11 percent income tax brackets on the highest
incomes as proposed by the governor in January, the revised budget proposal
would add a single 10.3 percent top income tax bracket and assume that the Vehicle
License Fee will be tripled. Davis now proposes smaller increases in the tobacco
tax and assumes revenues of $680 million from tribal gaming (down from $1.5
billion in the governor's January budget proposal). The governor now proposes
to finance about $11 billion of the deficit with a half-cent sales tax increase
over five years.
To the Second House . . .
Senator John Burton's SB 3 would conform California law to the recent
Supreme Court ruling that executing people who are mentally retarded is a violation
of the U. S. Consti-tution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
SB 3 places the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that a defendant
is not mentally retarded. Since there is
often disagreement as to what constitutes mental retardation, we think it only
fair to place the burden of proof on prosecutors when seeking the death penalty.
The bill also provides for a separate trial on mental retardation prior to the
criminal trial. Instead of subjecting all parties to a long and arduous capital
trial, it makes sense to settle the issue of mental retardation prior to the
criminal trial. SB 3 cleared the Senate and now moves to the Assembly.
A very intensive grassroots lobbying effort appears to have advanced the universal
health care debate to the
Assembly. Sheila Kuehl's universal health care legislation, SB 921, cleared
the Senate Insurance and Health and
Human Services Committees. Democrats in support of SB 2, an employer-based "pay
or play" health care bill by Senators Jackie Speier and John Burton, voted
to keep the debate on health care alive by also voting for SB 921. The bill's
financing language has been temporarily removed as financing options are still
being studied.
SB 60 by Gil Cedillo provides that applicants for a California Drivers
License could provide either a federal taxpayer identification number or other
acceptable form of identification in lieu of a social security number. A similar
bill was passed by the Legislature in 2001 but was vetoed by the governor following
September 11. SB 60 now moves to the Assembly.
AB 112 would amend California's "three strikes" law so that
sentencing enhancements would apply only to serious and violent felonies. Despite
any evidence that the three strikes law is reducing violent crime, it has become
something of an icon for legislators who wish to demonstrate that they are "tough
on crime." While the crime rate did take a significant dip in the mid-1990s,
a strong economy and the aging of the state's population are likely more responsible
for the reduction. The measure's author, Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, chose
to make the measure a two-year bill so that she can rally adequate support.
FCL supporters are urged to write letters to their Assemblymembers in support
of AB 112.
AB 1219 by Cindy Montañez creates a separate department of correctional
education within the Department of Corrections with its own governing board.
The department would be strictly prohibited from diverting funds from correctional
education without two-thirds approval by the governing board. AB 1219 passed
the Senate and now moves to the State Assembly.
- Jim Lindburg
Sacramento Dinner
A good cause was served along with excellent company, welcome service and support,
delicious food, and a comfortable new site as over one hundred FCL supporters
turned out to enjoy the annual northern California fundraising dinner on June
4. The theme of the evening, "Carrying on the Heritage and Spirit of FCL,"
was conveyed and felt in many ways among us. We met at Congregation B'nai Israel,
a reform temple which was one of three synagogues damaged by arson attacks in
1999.
Featured speakers Mary and Russ Jorgensen of the Grass Valley Friends Meeting
looked out at familiar, appreciative and interested faces of long-time friends
and new listeners as well as family members. They concluded the evening by weaving
together alternating
reflections on their experiences in the world and FCL history, and sharing ideas
for the future. We heard about work, fellowship, and activities including early
planning meetings over Chinese food, pancake and bazaar fundraisers, issue forums,
autumn gatherings at Hidden Villa at the Duveneck ranch in Los Altos Hills ("fun,
fellowship and money"), insight into the lobbying process, and Friends
Meeting activities supporting FCL.
Mary encouraged attendees to consider bequests to FCL, "the easiest gift
you'll ever make." Russ concluded by proposing that FCL help establish
a facility in Sacramento where state legislators and others concerned with the
legislative process might meet to gain respect for each other and resolve issues
or differences.
We took time to introduce some of those in the audience, including first time
attendees Lee Lawrence of Moraga and Milo Radulovich of Lodi who each brought
special connections and spirit to our gathering. Lee, a Unitarian Universalist
from Moraga, came to learn more about FCL. She has been involved in efforts
to found the California Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, which is
soon expected to officially become a new faith-based lobbying colleague of FCL
at the Capitol.
Milo joined us two weeks after being featured in The Sacramento Bee feature
story ("History Maker," May 18) about his pivotal role in turning
the tide of public opinion against Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early1950s.
As a graduate student and member of the Air Force Reserve, he was interrogated
because of accusations that his Yugoslavian immigrant family had communist ties.
But, he stood his ground. His interview with Edward R. Murrow prompted a large
public response against McCarthy, at a time when there had been little opposition
of this kind.
Milo spoke following a well-received showing of the video about FCL's history
and mission by Carole Lutness of the Orange Grove Friends Meeting. The "Speaking
Truth to Power" video begins with the founding of FCL in response to threats
to civil liberties during the McCarthy era, and concludes by emphasizing that
we must remain vigilant and active in the face of similar challenges in our
time, particularly those that have arisen in response to fears aboutterrorism.
Copies of the video are available to supporters who can help share our message
in different parts of the state.
After expenses, over $7,500 was raised for FCL from contributions by attendees,
sponsors, donors, and auction buyers. Our mini auction, conducted by Sandy Farley
of Palo Alto Friends Meeting, featured a sweater made by long-time FCL benefactor
Helen Grinstead of Walnut Creek and bed and breakfast accommodations offered
by Ellie and Jack Huffman of Monterey.
- Ira Saletan, Development & Outreach Coordinator
Moratorium Day Rallies Activists Both Secular and Spiritual
by Eric Moon, Berkeley Friends Meeting
On May 1, Sacramento witnessed a high-spirited outpouring of opposition to
California's death penalty laws. A crowd of several hundred marched and rallied
at the Capitol to promote a moratorium on executions. The Californians for a
Moratorium on Executions (CME) coalition presented Governor Davis and legislative
leaders with 165,000 individual signatures and names of 350 community groups
endorsing the idea.
Assemblymember Mark Leno (D., San Francisco), Chair of the Assembly Public
Safety Committee, and Senator John Vasconcellos (D., Santa Clara) addressed
the crowd. Leno cited the recent Capitol testimony by former Illinois Governor
George Ryan, who commuted the sentences of 167 death row prisoners before he
left office. High school and junior high school students read contest-winning
essays against capital punishment. Former Oklahoma death row inmate Greg Wilhoit
spoke, as did Nick and Amanda Wilcox of Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation.
Beyond those morally committed to abolition, the moratorium approach appeals
to others, like Ryan, appalled by continuing revelations nationwide of "wrongful
convictions" of death row and other prisoners. While only a few such cases
have thus far been exposed in California, it seems only a matter of time before
the state with the nation's largest population of condemned prisoners (now numbering
622 and counting) makes a terrible mistake. Cases in Illinois were first uncovered
by a journalism class at Northwestern University, and California now has two
"innocence projects" staffed by law school students.
The CME campaign has enlisted a range of activists and groups - ACLU, American
Friends Service Committee,
Amnesty International, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Death Penalty Focus, and a
relative newcomer, California People of Faith Working Against the Death Penalty
(CPF).
California People of Faith
CPF first gathered in 1997, after several faith-based activists had participated
in a nationwide "Religious Organizing Against the Death Penalty" conference
in Washington, D.C. While supporting efforts of secular groups like Amnesty
International and Death Penalty Focus, CPF founders felt that an explicitly
interfaith religious voice was needed, too. They quote Sr. Helen Prejean: "The
deepest message of all faiths is that we are all brothers and sisters. The death
penalty tries to say: 'except for him, except for her.'"
CPF organizers thus developed a mission statement:
"a statewide coalition, we come together to empower California's diverse
faith communities to end the death penalty through advocacy, education, and
prayer." CPF acknowledges that religious congre-gations attract attendees
with differing opinions, but believes that their faith traditions ultimately
arise from values incompatible with cultural practices such as the death penalty.
When executions are scheduled, we hear governors and attorney generals justify
their killing by appeals to moral values such as justice and public safety.
Understanding the false spirituality that underlies such politics, our response
is to assert that faith communities are crucial actors and educators, not
just potential audiences.
CPF has since organized regional conferences in San Francisco and Los Angeles,
and has formed county chapters in Marin, the Mid-Peninsula, Santa Clara, Los
Angeles and San Diego. While assisting with the national death penalty conference
held in San Francisco in November 2001, CPF chartered a statewide steering committee
that meets twice a year. CPF has also embarked on a campaign, modeled on that
of North Carolina's People of Faith, to educate and lobby city councils and
county boards of supervisors for resolutions in favor of a state moratorium.
Fourteen California counties and towns have thus far endorsed such resolutions.
For more information on CPF, assistance in forming a chapter, or to arrange
a presentation for your congregation, contact:
Eric Moon, AFSC Death Penalty Project,
1515 Webster Street, #304, Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 238-8080 ext. 307
<emoon@afsc.org>
|
