Best Kind of Housing : Yes on Los Angeles Measure K; no on Measure A
Two local measures deal with housing--one for low-income families and one for prisoners. The Times supports one and opposes the other.
PROPOSITION K: In a major earthquake, there are thousands of substandard brick apartment buildings that will shake like mad. Bricks will fall and floors will pancake. About 15,000 working-class families and poor senior citizens live in these unsafe apartments and single-room-occupancy hotels in Los Angeles.
Proposition K, a $100-million general obligation bond on the Nov. 6 ballot, would provide low-interest loans to nonprofit developers to buy and reinforce the seismically unsafe buildings and preserve the very low rents. It deserves a yes vote.
Homeless families would also benefit from $10 million allocated for transitional housing, an important bridge from a homeless shelter to independence. Another $10 million would open the door of homeownership to first-time buyers who earn $30,00 or less. They would get low-interest second mortgages to provide “gap” financing that modest-income families need in this pricey market.
Proposition K also would provide a boost to the local economy. There is a multiplier effect to housing that translates into jobs and purchases. The measure is endorsed by realtors, tenants, homeless advocates and 250 downtown businesses located near Skid Row. Red Cross officials and paramedics who would respond to a major earthquake also strongly support Proposition K.
The local bond issue would have no impact on the city’s overall credit rating, according to Keith Comrie, the city administrative officer. The average homeowner would pay about $5, less than two pennies a day--a small price to pay to save lives and homes.
Proposition K (near the bottom of the ballot) requires a two-thirds vote. A yes vote will improve public safety and preserve much-needed affordable housing.
PROPOSITON A: Overcrowding in Los County’s jails and juvenile detention facilities is a serious problem that is growing worse. Proposition A on the Nov. 6 ballot is a well-intentioned attempt to address the situation. Unfortunately, both the solution it proposes (a program of jail construction) and the method it would use to finance it (an increase in the sales tax) are unsuitable to the task.
For those reasons, voters should reject Proposition A.
The gloomy statistical outlines of the problem suggest the frustration that drove the measure’s sponsors to propose it. Over the past decade, the cost of housing the county’s prisoners has risen from $76 million per year to $348 million, a 458% increase. The county’s jails, which were built to house 15,592 inmates, now hold 25,592, and the number grows with each passing year.
Proposition A proposes to solve this problem by spending $423 million per year for the next 30 years to build 12 new jails to house an inmate population estimated at a staggering 42,230. The money for all this would come from a special half-cent increase in the sales tax, the proceeds of which will be disbursed at the complete discretion of a five-member board consisting of the sheriff and four supervisorial appointees.
Supporters of the measure say that some of the funds will go for crime prevention and community organizing and counseling programs, though nothing in the measure specifies any amount or program.
In fact, given the political and legal pressures for additional jail space, it is doubtful any significant amount will go for anything else. Worse, even the measure’s supporters concede that the new facilities will be overcrowded by the time they are built and that no sites for them are currently available.
What this measure proposes, then, is the continuation of an costly crime-fighting strategy whose inadequacy already is clear. Further, it proposes to finance it with a regressive tax, which, because of state limits on the amount of sales tax counties can impose, would eliminate half of the critical and productive funds for public transit sought in Proposition C.
