As a former member and president of the Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education and a current member of the Financial Oversight and Intercultural committees, I believe that I have demonstrated my commitment to the children and schools of our community. I have always been supportive of increases in both local and state school funding measures, whether by bonds, parcel tax initiatives or increasing financial help from the Cities of Santa Monica and Malibu.
I am also a board member of Community Corporation because I feel strongly about providing affordable housing to low-income families. All of our children benefit from living in a diverse community. That is why I am dismayed to see the mistaken beliefs and divisive tactics of a few people who use the mantle of education to undermine our city's commitment to affordable housing. A productive dialogue must be reality based. Please allow me to explain.
The City of Santa Monica supports affordable housing from several restricted funds. Most of the money may not be transferred to pay for other expenses. From federal government subsidies, the city receives HOME funds, restricted to housing only and CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) funds, restricted to low-income assistance and primarily for capital projects. From state subsidies, the city receives nothing except project-based assistance secured by housing developers in a competitive process. From local sources, the city receives housing mitigation fees assessed on commercial development projects and housing inclusionary fees on market-rate residential projects. Both funds are legally restricted to affordable housing through a complicated nexus between the projects and the subsequent increase in low-wage jobs and housing demand. Also from the city, TORCA condo conversion fees are assessed and legally restricted by city charter to assist tenants in purchasing their unit or to use generally for affordable housing. The last source of affordable housing funds comes from redevelopment revenues, generated locally but restricted in its use by state legislation. At least twenty percent of such revenues must be set-aside for affordable housing.
The truth is that the city does not provide any discretionary general fund to affordable housing. Instead of pitting one worthwhile program, education against another, affordable housing, I encourage all of us to examine the root cause of our troubles, Proposition 13. While we Californians enjoy one of the lowest property tax assessments in the country, we are watching all our infrastructures disintegrate in front of our eyes. That includes our schools, healthcare, affordable housing, and transportation systems, everything that we depend on for our future well-being. Today, schools operate on inadequate state funding. Cities get less than twenty percent of the property taxes they generate, the rest is taken by the state. We must work together to reform our state and municipal finance systems, and together support our schools and increase our affordable housing stock.