Government & Regulations

Talk About Money: Benefits of Measure A worth the cost in taxes

Posted on Updated on

Measure A will authorize the Scotts Valley School District to borrow $35 million for safety upgrades and to build a new middle school.
By Mark Rosenberg
http://www.pressbanner.com/view/full_story/25113609/article-Talk-About-Money–Benefits-of-Measure-A-worth-the-cost-in-taxes?instance=home_community

Thursday, May 15, 2014 – “If you could find a major city that actually had a functioning, good public school system, you should buy all the real estate.” – Sam Zell. It is beyond the means of readers of this column to buy all the real estate in Scotts Valley, but that doesn’t make the advice of the multi-billionaire real estate developer any less valid. I wasn’t able to reach Zell to ask his opinion on Measure A, which, if approved by 55 percent of voters on June 3, will authorize the Scotts Valley School District to borrow $35 million for safety upgrades and to build a new middle school.

Property owners would pay $57 per $100,000 of assessed value every year until the loan is paid off in about 25 years. Last month, I looked at the numbers. This month, I planned to ask local Realtors if they think Measure A is a good deal for property owners, even if they have no kids who will attend the new school.

But I’ve had second thoughts. Local realtors might be reluctant to say anything negative about the plan because they don’t want to upset anyone in education-obsessed Scotts Valley. Being anti-schools in Scotts Valley is like being anti-garlic in Gilroy. So I spoke with Realtors outside the city, who are less worried about ruffling local feathers.

“I can see both sides,” said Frank O’Mahony, a Realtor in Santa Fe, N.M., home to many retirees. “Why pay a few hundred dollars a year extra to educate someone else’s kids?” In his previous job, O’Mahony worked for the state of New Mexico, recruiting companies to the state. “We lost several relocation opportunities because the companies thought the quality of schools in New Mexico was not what they needed,” he said. “Quality schools are part of the infrastructure that attracts people willing to pay more for your property,” he said. “You have to invest in streetlights, cops on the beat, roads and good schools. The cost is minimal compared to the investment in quality of life.”

Closer to home, Barbara Stewart is a realty broker in Los Gatos who recently handled a sale of a home in the Cupertino School District, where test scores are the highest in the region. The house was listed at $925,000, drew 56 offers and sold for $1.33 million. Stewart said the exact same home three blocks away — which would be outside the Cupertino district — would have sold for about $1 million. She said she sees a similar situation in Los Gatos, where schools also have high test scores. A few hundred dollars a year, Stewart said, is little to pay compared with the cost of sending a child to private school, where tuition can run $25,000 to $50,000 a year.

Even closer to home, Wayne Shaffer is a broker in Santa Cruz who owns property in Scotts Valley: a nine-unit apartment building, an office building and some commercial land with total assessed value of about $3 million. He won’t have kids attending Scotts Valley schools, but he’ll be paying an extra $1,700 a year if Measure A passes. “It’s a negative,” Shaffer said. “But having great schools makes Scotts Valley a safer community.” He said he doesn’t plan to raise rents to offset his higher costs. High vacancy rates prevent him from raising office rents, and he doesn’t like to raise rents on families. But, if one of his apartment tenants moves out, the new tenant will pay more rent, he said.

Personally, as a Scotts Valley homeowner, I’m not thrilled about being on the hook for hundreds of dollars a year in extra taxes to pay for a school my kids will be too old to attend. But a new school will support property values and help keep Scotts Valley a safe and thriving place, so I’m voting yes.

– Mark Rosenberg is a financial adviser with Financial West Group in Scotts Valley, a member of FINRA and SIPC. He can be reached at 831-439-9910 or mrosenberg@fwg.com.

Santa Cruz County passenger rail feasibility to be studied

Posted on Updated on

The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission voted on Thursday to spend $180,000 on a feasibility study for a passenger rail line spanning the county.
By Jason Hoppin
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_25679260/santa-cruz-county-passenger-rail-feasibility-be-studied

Thursday, Mar. 1, 2014 – Primarily funded through a Caltrans grant, the study should go a long way to determine the fate of a hotly debated issue — whether regular passenger rail could be a viable piece of the county’s transportation puzzle.

“The intent is to understand if it’s feasible,” Commission senior planner Karena Pushnik said. “If it’s feasible in the short term with kind of a low-cost outlay, can we do this on a shoestring in the short-term?

“And if it’s not feasible until certain land use is changed – more densification, more mixed-use around the rail line and stations occurs – then we’d like to know what that is and when the tipping point would be for feasibility,” Pushnik added.

Shmuel Thaler/Sentinel file The railroad tracks pass by some of the most scenic real estate in the county as they wind down the coast from Davenport.
Shmuel Thaler/Sentinel file The railroad tracks pass by some of the most scenic real estate in the county as they wind down the coast from Davenport.
The study will look at both ridership potential and cost. The track would run along the existing 32-mile Branch Rail Line, which the county acquired in 2012.
Rail is highly sought by some who see it as an environmentally friendly alternative to Highway 1 congestion. The county isn’t the only one weighing added rail service — Monterey County is also studying extending the Capitol Corridor, which runs between Sacramento and San Jose, down to Salinas.

But rail has numerous skeptics, including those who argue local land-use rules inhibit the kind of mass transit success seen in bigger cities. Two commissioners voted against the study, saying the county already has looked at the issue, most recently in 1998.

“It sounds like we keep asking the same question expecting a different answer,” Capitola City Councilmember Mike Termini said.

That study looked at a Monterey-to-Santa Cruz line, concluding that it would require significant financial resources. Pushnik said the scope of this project is different, county demographics have changed and better ridership projections are available.

“The conditions have changed pretty dramatically,” Pushnik said.
The RTC selected San Francisco-based Fehr and Peers for the study, which has been working with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments on a regional growth plan.

The commission also took comments on its long-range transportation plan, which prioritizes billions in expected transportation spending over the next two decades in a way that encourages people to get out of their cars more often.

Commissioners and the public generally were supportive of the plan, with quibbles only around the edges. Amelia Conlen, of the bicycle advocacy group People Power, advocated more spending on bicycle projects, hoping to complete the proposed Sanctuary Scenic Trail by 2035.

“We want to see you guys take the lead on this and continue to prioritize this project so that we can see it happen,” Conlen said.

Bill seeks to ease California’s affordability housing crisis

Posted on

SB 391 would fund more than 10,000 subsidized homes a year through a new fee on recording real estate documents. Critics say it unfairly saddles homeowners and businesses with added costs.
April 15, 2014 – By Andrew Khouri, LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-affordable-housing-20140416,0,6854937.story#ixzz2z9vBK8jA

The state’s affordability crisis has worsened since the recession, as soaring home prices and rents outpace job and income growth. Meanwhile, government funds to combat the problem have evaporated.

Local redevelopment agencies once generated roughly $1 billion annually for below-market housing across California, but the roughly 400 agencies closed in 2012 to ease a state budget crisis. In addition, almost $5 billion from state below-market housing bonds, approved by voters last decade, is nearly gone.

A state bill seeks to replace some of those funds and create more than 10,000 low- and moderate-income homes annually through a $75 fee for recording real estate documents. But the proposal has drawn criticism from some in the real estate industry who say it unfairly saddles homeowners and businesses with added costs.

“It disproportionally burdens one segment of the society with something that should be borne by the entire population,” said lobbyist Alexander Creel of the California Assn. of Realtors.

The bill, SB 391, would replace a portion of lost funds, $300 million to $720 million annually, depending how many documents are recorded. Those involved in a sale are exempt from the $75 fee.

State and federal funding for below-market housing in California has plummeted 79% over the last five years, according to a recent study from the California Housing Partnership, which supports the bill. California’s median inflation-adjusted rent, meanwhile, jumped more than 20% to $1,209 from 2000 to ’12, according to census data.

Housing costs in California have risen so high that they hurt recruitment, business groups say. Above, a home for sale in Venice in March. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times / April 15, 2014)
Housing costs in California have risen so high that they hurt recruitment, business groups say. Above, a home for sale in Venice in March. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times / April 15, 2014)
According to another recent study, from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, more than half of California renters can’t reasonably afford their homes.

“We have a real crisis on our hands,” said state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord), who introduced the California Homes and Jobs Act last year.

With declining government support, planned below-market housing developments have stalled, advocates say.

“No one is sure when they can move forward with their projects,” said Matt Schwartz, president of the California Housing Partnership Corp., a state-created nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving low-income units.

About a year ago, Meta Housing Corp. opened a below-market senior housing development in Long Beach, but the 123-unit second phase has ground to a halt. Groundbreaking on an empty lot is nowhere in sight.

“It really depends when we can cobble together the cash,” said Aaron Wooler of Century Housing, a financier for low-income projects that is working on the development.

Meanwhile, demand for existing units is crushing. The waiting list for the first 200 units reached 1,200 households when the development opened, Wooler said. The waiting list has since dropped to 354 households.

Despite heavy demand, low-income projects don’t pencil out for most developers. Making money building apartments in California — where land and construction costs are high — requires charging high rents. The government subsidies enable developers to offer affordable rents for low- to moderate-income households, advocates say.

“The fact that the redevelopment agencies went away was a major hit,” Wooler said.

Critics of the agencies accused them of wasteful spending, making them politically vulnerable to Gov. Jerry Brown’s bid to close their doors. A 2010 Times investigation found that dozens of cities spent hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for below-market housing without building a single such unit.

SB 391 places a $75 fee on recorded real estate documents, such as those required for a refinance, mechanic’s lien and foreclosure, among others. The Senate passed the bill during last year’s session, and it is now in the Assembly.

The bill faces opposition from the politically powerful California Assn. of Realtors, as well as credit unions that say struggling homeowners may shy away from refinancing. Creel, the Realtors group lobbyist, noted that the fee applies to each document recorded, and many transactions require more than one.

In most cases, two or three documents are filed for a refinance, and the borrower pays the fees, said Richard T. Cirelli, a Laguna Beach mortgage broker.

Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics said the bill doesn’t create nearly enough low-income units or tackle the root causes that have depressed new housing of all types and made units that do open extremely expensive. A far more efficient tack, Thornberg said, is to limit the ability of neighbors to challenge projects, which can delay development for years, even decades.

“Until you deal with those … problems, housing is going to be extremely expensive in California,” he said.

But the bill serves as an important tool to combat the affordability crisis, supporters say. It has drawn backing from labor groups, developers, homeless advocates and mental health organizations. Business groups have also lent support, saying housing costs have soared so high that they hurt recruitment.

“It sometimes becomes a real challenge to find employees that are close enough that they want to come to work for you,” said Gary L. Toebben, president of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.