4 Overlooked Propositions Add Up to Dollars and Cents : Election: Lost in the din over school vouchers and the sales tax are measures affecting the state budget process, affordable housing, disaster rebuilding and the American Dream of home ownership.

They are the forgotten initiatives on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot.

Overshadowed by the impassioned debates over the state propositions on school vouchers, school bond elections, and the permanent extension of a sales tax, little attention has been paid to the four remaining state ballot measures that voters will be deciding in the special election.

But if you’re a taxpayer, if you’re concerned about housing for low- and middle-income residents, if you wonder why the state Legislature can’t seem to pass a budget on time each year, if you lost your home or business in a recent mudslide or earthquake--or fear you could be the next victim, or if you don’t even own a home because you can’t afford the initial investment, then read on.

Despite their relatively low profiles in the pre-election campaigning, ardent backers and opponents of the propositions are arguing their importance.

“Nobody is really passionate about them,” said Doy Henley, president of the conservative Lincoln Club of Orange County. “I think it’s unfortunate. They are truly significant.”

Of the lesser-known ballot measures, one of the most contentious is Proposition 168, which would eliminate a major hurdle to development of low-rent housing.

Under current law, state and local governments must submit a project to a vote of the public before proceeding with a housing development that relies on public money for at least half of its support. This proposition would eliminate the requirement for the election.

The agency proposing the project would still have to give public notice, and citizens could collect signatures on a petition calling for an election.

Supporters claim it will help the economy by making it easier for public and private agencies to build housing for the elderly, disabled veterans and families who cannot afford non-subsidized quarters, and thus create jobs in the stagnant construction industry. Opponents argue it will take away the automatic voting rights of citizens, and lead to the creation of public housing units that will eventually become “graffiti-covered slums.”

The current law requiring an election was passed in 1950, “a reaction at that time to what people perceived as really bad public housing projects,” said David Levy, a member of the Orange County Homeless Issues Task Force.

But having realized the mistakes of the past, Levy added, affordable housing advocates now support “scattered site” housing, where low- to middle-income residents are mixed into middle-class neighborhoods or projects with mixed income levels.

Task Force Chairwoman Lee Podolak said a change in the law would not lead to a dramatic surge in the low-income housing stock in Orange County, where an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 residents are homeless. But it may make it easier for local politicians to at least consider the developments.

Among its backers are the League of Women Voters of California, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Federation of Labor.

Opponents include Richard L. Gann, president of Paul Gann’s Citizens Committee, the Libertarian Party, the Lincoln Club, and Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach).

Despite efforts by affordable-housing advocates to improve the image of public housing, Ferguson said citizens are even more fearful now about low-income housing because they do not trust the government’s ability to manage the housing developments properly.

“I don’t think anyone can blame the general public for feeling that way. You have a drive-by shooting in Mission Viejo and then you tell (residents) you want to move in low-income people?” Ferguson said. “It’s not a matter of race or income either, because low-income black communities don’t want low-income housing built in their communities either, because of past experiences with that.”

The assemblyman also said the proposition redefines “low-rent housing” and would exempt many projects from strict public review.

Another ballot measure, Proposition 169, has become a political insiders’ battle over tactics employed by politicians to block timely approval of the state budget.

Democrats, who control the Legislature, say the proposition would end “gridlock” because it would prevent special interests from “holding hostage” the budget in order to win concessions on pet issues. But Republicans--fearing they would lose an advantage in last-minute budget negotiations--claim it will make it easier for the state to raise taxes.

Currently, the state Constitution does not allow a bill to cover more than one subject. So, in order to implement a new budget, a series of “trailer bills” must be passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor to modify laws that would be affected by the budget changes.

The last state budget required about 20 such bills, and the previous year’s budget was delayed by more than two months because of political maneuvering.

Proposition 169 would let the Legislature cover more than one subject in a single budget implementation bill. The governor could still veto individual law changes without rejecting the entire budget bill, and the Legislature could override the governor’s vetoes.

If the proposition is approved, the budget approval process would return to the way it was before 1987, when the state Supreme Court ordered multiple bills because of a technical flaw in the Constitution.

Critics claim it will be more difficult for the public to keep track of tax increases because the budget bill would be more complex.

The Lincoln Club also argues that single bills with multiple subjects give a “slight but real” political advantage to the party that controls the Legislature. In recommending a “no” vote on the proposition, the conservative group said voters should consider “the status of the Republican Party in the Legislature . . . (and) the possibility of a governor from another party.”

But the author of the measure, former state Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene (D-Ukiah), said it was “silly” to suggest it would be more difficult to track tax increases under one bill. He also noted that two-thirds of the Assembly and Senate approved placing the proposition on the ballot.

“If you have 22 or 24 different trailer bills being heard at the same time in different places, how do you keep track of that?” Keen said. “If it’s been harder since 1987 to raise taxes, why did the largest tax increase in California history happen in 1991?”

There is no organized opposition to Proposition 171, which would modify a tax law concerning property that has been damaged in a disaster.

Currently, property damaged in a disaster can be rebuilt to the same condition or replaced with comparable property within the same county without an increase in its assessed value. Proposition 171 would let the property owner transfer the assessed value to another county, but only if the other county has agreed to participate in the program.

The property must be replaced within three years of the disaster, so the tax relief would apply to victims of the 1991 Oakland-Berkeley fire, the 1992 Landers-Big Bear earthquake and last year’s winter storms.

Prospective homeowners would receive assistance under Proposition 173, which authorizes the state to sell $185 million in housing bonds to provide mortgage insurance for low- and moderate-income first-time home buyers. With the mortgage insurance, home buyers would then be able to get mortgage loans with a down payment as low as 3%.

On a $200,000 home without mortgage insurance, for example, a home buyer must put down 20% or $40,000. If the proposition passes, a buyer with mortgage insurance could purchase the same home with $6,000 down.

The bonds are left over from a bond program originally approved by voters in 1982. The state legislative analyst estimates it will help 5,000 to 10,000 first-time home buyers each year.

Proponents claim there are many families who can afford monthly mortgage payments but do not have the 10% to 20% down payment required to enter the housing market. Supporters claim the demand for housing also will create more than 37,000 new jobs.

However, opponents doubt the program would create that many new jobs, and criticize the program because it is intended for low- and moderate-income people, possibly leading to default of the loans guaranteed by the government.