How to fight SB 35

SB 35, SB2, and SB3 to stop SB35, according to form Sausalito Councilmember Linda Pfeifer of Marin. Study and decide how your feel about this:
 
 
 
See explanation below: What you need to know about SB 35: 

This is former Sausalito Councilmember Linda Pfeifer with an important update on SB 35, the senate bill that would gut local control. 


The Good News: THANK YOU to all who called Assemblymember Marc Levine to oppose SB 35. Your voices were heard last week and SB 35 WAS POSTPONED. 

The Bad News: SB 35 hasn’t died. SB 35 has now been “packaged” with two other bills, SB 2 and SB 3, which would hit the middle class hard (see details further below). The assembly vote is anticipated sometime during the week of Sept. 5th.



The Really Important Part:    

It’s my understanding that to kill SB 35, either SB 2 or SB 3 must die on the assembly floor.  Why? Because Gov. Brown wants to sign a complete package — SB 35, SB 2, and SB 3. 
 
 
I’ve learned that SB 35 only needs a simple majority to pass assembly, but SB 2 and SB 3 need a 2/3 majority to pass assembly, requiring every single Democratic assembly member’s “yes” vote.
 
In other words, it’s my understanding that if Assembly member Marc Levine
votes NO on SB 2 or SB 3, the entire package  — including SB 35 — will not go forward.   


Action!

Please contact Assembly member Marc Levine (or your rep – contacts)  between now and TUESDAY 9/5/17 and urge him to vote NO on SB 35, SB 2, and SB 3.  Your voice matters.
Your efforts worked last week.  We need to do it again!  Levine’s email: assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.govLevine‘s Marin Office 415.479.4920Levine’s Sacramento Office 916.319.2010
Explanation of Bills: 

SB-35 would Gut Local Control:

What is SB 35? It is a senate bill that removes public review
(e.g., public notice, full CEQA, Planning Commission, etc.) and instead allows “ministerial” review (city staff approval) for new multi-unit housing proposals with a minimum of 10% affordable housing (or the percentage specified by a jurisdiction’s inclusionary ordinance) if your city’s RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) number of units has not been built. A City Watch article noted, “Since almost no local jurisdiction in the State of California meets 100% of its market rate RHNA goal on a sustained basis, this bill essentially ensures by-right approval for market-rate projects simply by complying with a local inclusionary requirement  [for affordable housing] or by building 10% affordable units.”  (Source: SB 35 info HERE 


SB-2 “Fee” Would Hurt the Middle Class,
Making Housing Less – not more – Affordable:

 
What is SB 2? During every real estate deal, SB 2 would charge a $75 fee “per each single
transaction per single parcel of real property.” Where would the funds go?  “….The bill would, upon appropriation by the Legislature, require that 20% of the moneys in the fund be expended for affordable owner-occupied workforce housing and 10% of the moneys for housing purposes related to agricultural workers and their families, and would authorize the remainder of the moneys in the fund to be expended to support affordable housing, home ownership opportunities, and other housing-related programs, as specified.”   In other words, according to Marin Post’s Bob Silvestri, “70% of SB 2 revenues will be at the complete discretion of something called the  ‘Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund Governing Board’ (politically appointed special interests) and HCD
to distribute, with minimal oversight.” (Source:

 

SB-3 would Burden the Middle Class with $4B in More Debt:

What is SB 3? In this 2017 session alone, one concerned senator observed that certain senators are pushing over $10 Billion Dollars in new bond proposals, which would mean taxpayers would have to pay $1 BILLION a year in tax service for THIRTY  YEARS.  One of those bond proposals is SB 3, which would, “…place a $4 billion general obligation bond on the 2018 ballot to fund existing affordable housing programs in California.”  SB 3 piles more debt on the middle class. By the way, last Friday 8/30, SB-3 was increased from a $3B bond to $4B. Just like that. Before a labor day vacation weekend. Clearly, Sacramento thinks we’re not watching the ball. Hopefully enough people learn about this and take action.  (Source: http://stone.cssrc.us/content/senator-stone-opposed-sb-3-which-will-add-even-more-debt-californias-taxpayers

Please forward this email to friends. Please post and distribute.    

 Sincerely, 

Linda Pfeifer  
Former Sausalito City Councilmember 
Advertisements