Santa Clara County approves $950 million housing bond for November ballot

There will be too many tax measures on the November ballot for any of them to get two-thirds support. The wasteful, unaccountable VTA already placed its money grab on that ballot.

Is this how the county will fund the eminent domain of Buena Vista?

Buena Vista is already funded, and in my opinion, is the best way to spend money earmarked for affordable housing, by preventing displacement of longtime residents threatened with the loss of their homes because of market and development pressures.

What worries me after what we've gone through in this town is that developers seem to have figured out how to use affordable housing for their own development interests, in ways that woukd otherwise be illegal, for goid reason. Both the developers and affordable housing advocates feel like they don't have to care about anything but what they want. I fear this funding will be used like a bludgeon, and in the end, will not do enough for affordable housing. The inevitable and growing and inevitable backlash could hurt affordable housing for years to come. I would personally prefer to see public money go into helping to defray the costs of ownership, so that poor people can invest and make something from their property, too, amd eventually get iff of public assistance, and the public investment also gets repaid/goes on to help others. Let people find housing that is their own and integrate into their communities rather than feeling like they are in projects.

The bigger picture is that if we (royal we) do nothing to respond to the bigger trend of urbanization worldwide in this century, we will be making unliveable cities from which people will eventually flee, only after quality if life gets worse and worse. Geography researchers point out that the modern trend of people moving into cities all over the world and emptying less urban areas is kind of unprecedented. People want to services and jobs. Our country, unlike so many smaller countries around the world, has so much potential to respond by investing in creating more, desirable urban centers.

If a few cities being impacted by overdevelopment got together and put out an RFP to smaller municipalities with the potential to be magnets, offering development dollars for civic amenities in exchange for development rights, coupled with incentives for some companies to move, the increase in the number of desirable places/options, would take the pressure off. That ultimately provides far better conditions for good low-income housing, among much else. It would be a positive and proactive response to the urbanization trend, rather than this reactionary one.

Not long ago, I would never have said no to any ask like this. But now I will vote No, because I fear with good reason that it's just a giveaway to big developers and a cudgel for advocates who see any opposition for things like children's safety as nimbyism, and aren't afraid to steamroll over even the most reasonable disagreement.

Will there be an exemption for seniors? We are having trouble making ends meet. Our taxes keep going up, and at some point we will not be able to stay in our home.

Bond measures always have senior exemptions; otherwise they'd never pass.