The month of June is when your City Council wraps up the budget season, representing some of the most consequential work we do all year.
This past Thursday, an op-ed penned by affordable housing advocates appeared in the Independent, urging an extraordinary use of taxpayer funds in the name of affordable housing. As stated in the article, Measure I was passed by the voters to maintain essential public safety services and to invest in the newly formed “Santa Barbara Local Housing Trust Fund,” among other General Fund-provided services and amenities. The passage of the measure allows the city to fill Police Department positions that were formerly held vacant due to budget cuts, as well as the restoration of library hours both in the Main Branch and Eastside Library.
The housing fund is intended for organizations such as the Santa Barbara Housing Authority as well as Habitat for Humanity. In addition, a like portion is proposed to be put into “Homeless Services,” dollars that could potentially also be utilized for housing, for a total of around 22 percent of the new fund source.
These housing and homeless funds are to be distributed to leverage other available funding as well to attract philanthropic additions to the funds, but they were not intended to be depleted in one fiscal session and started anew in the next.
In addition, some advocates are calling for a reduction in our fiscal reserves to be dedicated to housing production. These reserves act as the city’s savings account and have been relied upon heavily in our recent past for natural disasters, the pandemic, and sudden economic downturns. Council policy maintains these reserves at 25 percent, representing three months of safety-net funding.
Currently more than 1 in 7 of all housing units in our city are affordable through deed restriction or subsidy. Of course, the demand for more remains persistent. Our City Housing Authority is a high-functioning organization that provides quality-of-life housing for low- and very-low-income folks and manages those units well.
Our real deficit, however, is in the production of “work-force” or “middle-income” tiers, which don’t usually qualify for the tax credit financing that is referenced in the article. It would be fantastic if we could find a consistent revenue stream to dedicate to all tiers of subsidized housing, but that has been elusive since the demise of the Redevelopment Agency and is simply out of reach for the General Fund.
The article begins with “moral and ethical obligations” to satisfy this particular piece of funding request, but I’m not sure the argument should be couched in the context of “morality.” In terms of “ethics,” however, I will strongly advocate for our ethical standards which include our duty to provide the essential services and public safety that benefit all levels of income in our city.
Depleting our reserves for the sole use of one type of fund, no matter the passionate advocacy, seems irresponsible for us to consider, given all other demands on the budget.
Funding is created primarily through the activities of our business community and residential properties. Sales tax, property tax, and hotel bed tax all serve to create and maintain our General Fund, which allows the city to provide homeless services and some housing investment, along with overall services.
A healthy business and residential community which is safe, clean, and vibrant would be the surest path toward sustainable fund contributions dedicated to helping those who require more affordable housing.
