Affordable Surge Housing scores on ballots.
Democrats weren’t the only big winners last November. Affordable housing, an issue with which Democrats are often sympathetic, also came up big at the polls.
In California, voters approved the $2.85 billion Proposition 1C affordable housing measure that will authorize funds to finance housing programs, capital for infill development, brownfield cleanup, and housing-related parks. In New Mexico, voters approved Amendment No. 4, which will allow the state to use funds to buy land and pay for the cost of building or restoring affordable housing. Finally, Rhode Island voters decided to issue general obligation bonds, refunding bonds, and temporary notes for affordable housing.
Many cities also saw their housing bonds pass. In Austin, Texas, voters approved Proposition 5, a $55 million affordable housing bond for both rental housing and homeownership. Voters in Dallas supported two affordable housing measures, Propositions 7 and 8. Proposition 7 provides $1.5 million to purchase derelict property for the city’s land bank, while Proposition 8 provides $41 million for economic development and housing.
That’s not to say that all housing bills passed. Measures in Los Angeles and Louisiana that required two-thirds votes failed. Still, housing advocates were optimistic about the election results. “[Voters] look at housing costs in California going up,” says Tim O’Connell, senior director for programs and policy for Century Housing in Culver City, Calif. “In some areas of California, we’ve had a 25 percent increase in house prices. Rents weren’t going up as fast, but now we’re seeing them catch up. People realize their income hasn’t gone up, but their expenses have gone up.”
Kelo Backlash Voters boost property rights in many states.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the side of New London, Conn., in a landmark 2005 eminent domain case, pundits predicted a wave of state legislation that would curtail the openings for property seizure created by the decision. Now that the 2006 elections are over, these pundits look pretty smart.
Last November, voters in nine states passed measures that would hinder local governments’ ability to use eminent domain to seize property for private development. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, and South Carolina limited eminent domain, while California, Idaho, and Washington rejected constraints. So far, 34 states have taken steps to restrict eminent domain after the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to Larry Morandi, director of state policy research for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“This is an issue that had strong bipartisan support,” Morandi says. “If you’re a property owner, you want to make sure your place isn’t being condemned so that a mall can go up.”
Details of the new measures vary. For example, in Florida and Georgia, elected city councils have to approve eminent domain takings so the councils will be held accountable. New Mexico and New Hampshire passed short legislation that bans seizing property and transferring it to a private entity. “The measures were all over the board,” Morandi says. “Some of those were very short and will need to be figured out by state courts to determine how restrictive they are.”
Although John McIlwain, senior resident fellow for the ULI/J. Ronald Terwilliger chair for housing at the Urban Land Institute, thinks eminent domain is a good last resort, he worries some of this legislation may be going too far. “Anyone who uses an airport or train station or government parks is using eminent domain,” McIlwain says. “These are things we have taken for granted, but wouldn’t have had otherwise.” —L.S.