Proposition HHH is improperly funded legislation
Lily Vaughan | Daily Trojan
Los Angeles has a homelessness problem. A looming public health issue for both the city and the state at large, the crisis has ballooned to epidemic proportions. Los Angeles’ Proposition HHH looks to many like a shining beacon signaling the final end to Los Angeles’ homeless issues — or at least a sign of progress. However, like so many other government interventions, the promises once made seem to lack fruition down the road. These are Band-Aid solutions from California’s insulated career politicians, who love these kind of self-entitling public relations boosting bills. L.A. residents must detect the failures of the city hall’s status quo in this election and vote accordingly.
By and large, the sane among the voting public don’t like to burn money as a recreational hobby — this bill begs to differ. Ultimately it fails to solve the roots of the problem: Housing stock capacity in Los Angeles. The bill proposes a $1.2 billion dollar bond-funded initiative to create housing for 8,000-10,000 homeless residents, conveniently ignoring the fact that over 40,000 homeless residents currently occupy L.A. County.
In the end, homelessness is a result of, in the most obvious terms, the lack of a home. Many ask why there aren’t enough homes — the answer? The same reason that there is a Proposition HHH in the first place: Government oversight. The city of Los Angeles and the state of California suffer from some of the most restrictive development regulations in the United States, when both the Los Angeles municipal code and the state California Environmental Quality Act are taken into consideration. Los Angeles continues to be counterproductive with efforts to restrain development with the proposed “Neighborhood Integrity” Initiative on the ballot, a side effect of Not In My Backyard (residential resistance to development) across the city. California, however, is beginning to take constructive approaches to solve housing availability issues and alleviate burdensome development regulations. Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent “by right” development standards aim to fast track developments if they meet local zoning requirements and provide a set quota of affordable units. However, as it stands, demand outstrips supply, causing prices to skyrocket and housing accessibility to plummet.
HHH also incentivizes homeless citizens to migrate from cities with few homeless housing programs to the city of Los Angeles. With incentive comes a growth of demand. Free programs attract more homeless residents and do little to help the homeless population that already resides in Los Angeles. Transient populations will travel from neighboring cities and even neighboring states to use any new homeless housing services, making the local problem even worse. There need to be larger solutions working on a larger scale at the root of the problem to make a lasting solution and not an expensive temporary stop gap.
Even if one were to argue that HHH will make a dent in homelessness in Los Angeles (and a dent if anything is all HHH will do) there is still the issue of poor financing of HHH. Taxes to fund Proposition HHH will come from widely considered improper sources, if one were to believe in a tax increase in the first place. Tax revenues from property taxes will be mostly based on Proposition 13 reassessments, unfairly putting a large portion of the tax burden on new homeowners, and individuals who have improved their homes resulting in a county assessor value reassessment. Los Angeles is also home to restrictive rent control laws and thus restrictive tenant cash flow. With an increase in property taxes, landlords alone will be responsible for creating the extra capital to pay for any tax increase as landlords can’t pass tax increases onto renters, even if said renters are wealthy residents. A faulty destination for the increased tax funding to be created by HHH would be specifically directed to the construction of homeless housing. More emphasis needs to be placed upon more important initiatives such as counseling services and homeless shelters already under operation.
When voters hit the polls on Nov. 8, they must consider the facts, and not just the politicians’ empty promises. There are much better solutions both to help the root causes of homelessness and to allocate funds toward homeless support causes in Los Angeles.
Chad – appreciate you writing in, but you should consider the facts. 1) The band-aid solutions and status quo would be doing what we’re doing right now, which is funding emergency services without a destination for those being served – that’s like leaving airplanes stranded on the tarmac without giving them a gate to land in. 2) This is a City proposition, and the units built would address 100% of the 9,000 chronically homeless households in the City. 3) Any time there’s been a real investment in this approach – whether with veterans in LA or with the broader population in Utah, the population has decreased 50-90% – the “if you build it they will come” fear is a fallacy. 4) This is a 0.01% tax on property – seems like a microscopic charge and small benefit for this payoff.