3 on Council See Prop. 13 Breach in Low-Income Housing Fund Plan

Three San Diego City Council members who oppose creation of a $54-million fund to provide housing for the poor contended Wednesday that new fees and taxes intended to finance the program violate at least the “spirit” of Proposition 13 and called for a public vote.

Council members Ron Roberts, Bruce Henderson and Judy McCarty held a news conference outside federal bankruptcy court to dramatize their belief that devoting $54 million to housing is poor decision-making by the council, which next month will begin its examination of how to finance more than $1 billion in other needs.

The three said they want the “housing trust fund” discussed on equal footing with the $90 million needed for a new central library, the $3 million needed for a new jail, the $30 million to update the police communications center and other pressing city needs.

Does “our new ‘affordable housing’ crisis mean that we solved the drug and crime crisis?” McCarty asked. “That we found $34 million and were well on our way to locking up criminals and moving drug cases swiftly through our judicial system? The answer is no.”

The council, by a 5-3 vote Dec. 11, set aside the $54 million for the trust fund, which would funnel the money primarily to low-income renters in the form of subsidies or creation of low-cost housing. Roberts, Henderson and McCarty, who supported the concept of a trust fund, were on the losing side of the vote to establish the funding ceiling.

Council members Abbe Wolfsheimer, John Hartley, Wes Pratt, Linda Bernhardt and Bob Filner approved the measure. Mayor Maureen O’Connor was absent.

Wednesday, Pratt, who led support for the trust fund, maintained that establishment of new fees and taxes to finance the program is legal under Proposition 13. And he noted that, because the council will not formally establish the funding level or procedures creating the ordinance for another 90 days, it will have ample time to decide its spending priorities.

As proposed, revenues for the trust fund would come from a variety of taxes and fees on business and commercial ventures. They include a $280 average annual business tax that would generate $17 million in 1990 and more in subsequent years; $12 million in fees on commercial, industrial hotel and retail space; $12.1 million in yearly utility users’ taxes and $5.36 million in hotel taxes.

“I think (the press conference) is simply a political maneuver to slow the imposition of the trust fund,” Pratt said. “They’re just using it as an effort to confuse the issue and inflame the public.”

Indeed, the three appeared to be attempting to go over the majority’s heads to address their constituents. They repeatedly emphasized that the trust fund would not benefit wage earners or the middle class and might hinder the council’s ability to hire more police and provide more jail space.

Henderson claimed that the public’s top priority is the provision of more jail space, and that its second priority is the addition of police officers. Even for the very low-income renters who would be the primary beneficiaries of the trust fund, Henderson contended, the most pressing need is “safe streets” and “a decent education for their kids.”

McCarty called for public hearings on the issue in each of the city’s eight council districts.