Housing Bonds Issue

The housing bond story illustrates how disproportionate the allocation of state bond funds can be. In this instance, Southern California once again is hosed by Northern California, with a 45%-45% split between the two regions for Proposition 1C Affordable Housing money. This circumstance is perennially true, mainly because Southern California legislators are routinely outmaneuvered by their Northern California colleagues when guidelines are established. With more than a third of all Assembly members coming from Los Angeles County alone, all Karen Bass can say is that “it is a challenge to convince” her colleagues that Los Angeles needs more money? MRT has been mute when it comes to the equitable allocation of state bond monies. As his colleagues from the North get their way time after time on bond issue after bond issue, he looks the other way.

• Here's What Bernard Parks Financial Principles And Objectives says about this issue

State Bond Money Allocations

In examining the allocation of funds for previous state bond measures, I find that allocations between Northern California and Southern California are more often than not skewed to the North and that allocations within the County are based more often than not on noise rather than need. Very good examples of both can be found in the allocation of water bond and park monies over the past ten years. As Supervisor, I will be especially alert to the allocation of Flood Control, Housing, Water and Transportation funding under measures approved by the voters in 2006 and will insist on an equitable allocation by geographic region of the State and an equitable allocation based on need within the County.