Yes on Proposition 41 – The Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014
A yes vote authorizes the sale of $600 million in general obligation bonds by the state to pay for construction, renovation and the purchase of multifamily housing, such as apartment buildings, to provide affordable rental housing for California’s large population of low-income veterans and their families.
In 2008, voters approved the sale of $900 million in bonds for the CalVet Farm and Home program but those funds have not have been utilized to help veterans buy farms or homes under the loan program. Proposition 41 would allow $600 million of those funds to be shifted to affordable, supportive and transitional housing for homeless and near-homeless veterans.
As many as 45,000 young veterans are expected to return to California in the next few years when their deployment ends. We believe less than 1 percent of the state budget, about $50 million for 15 years, is well worth spending to meet our obligation to those who fought for our safety and freedoms.
We are no strangers to what happens to many of our veterans who lack supportive services and housing, we only need to look at Skid Row to be reminded.
No on Proposition 42 – Public Records, Open Meetings, State Reimbursement to Local Agencies, Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
On the heels of revelations alleging scandal and corruption by elected officials in small cities, law enforcement agencies, and the state capital, we now have state officials pushing legislation to decrease transparency in government – and asking voters to say its okay under the guise of saving money.
Our state constitution requires that all meetings of governing bodies, such as counties, cities, community colleges, school districts and special districts, such as fire and water districts, which make decisions about programs, services, taxes or operations are to be open to the public. It also requires public notice of those meetings and public access to records of those entities and their decision makers.
The state is currently required to pay cities for the costs they incur complying with these obligations. Proposition 42 would transfer the costs of public access through the Public Records Act and the Brown Act, and all future public access requirements to local government, relieving the state of its responsibility to pay for its mandates.
We believe such a change will burden local governments already struggling to meet their obligation, and will endanger transparency and the public’s right to know.
The publics’ right to know is one of the hallmarks of a free society and cutting funding to support that right is misguided.Adding another cost to local government is unwise as far as we are concerned.
We don’t want public access to be in any way curtailed by excuses, either from the state or local government bodies straining to meet their budget obligations.
Paying to maintain the publics’ legitimate right to access government information is not a major cost in the state’s budget, but would be to local agencies and the public.
Does anyone remember Bell?
We urge a No vote on Prop 41.Posted - Copyright © 2022 Eastern Group Publications, Inc.