Beverly Hills Liaisons Back $11.25 Billion Housing Bond

Beverly Hills' legislative liaisons recommended supporting Proposition 1 on October 6, backing an $11.25 billion state housing bond while questioning how the money would reach local communities and how borrowing would be repaid.

Councilmembers Friedman and Pynoos expressed support during the City Council Liaison/Legislative/Lobby Committee meeting. Under the process outlined in the agenda packet, their recommendation would go to the full City Council for concurrence.

The proposed bond would fund affordable rental housing, homeownership assistance, housing infrastructure and other programs, including a separate allocation for veterans' home loans.

Pynoos asked whether the funding could help housing projects get off the ground in Beverly Hills. She described the bond as a possible source of support for affordable rental development and asked how funds would be distributed among municipalities.

Lobbyist Andrew Antwih explained that the proposal included funding opportunities administered by state agencies, including competitive programs for which Beverly Hills could apply. He said passage would not promise an allocation to the city.

Antwih also explained that approval of the borrowing would be followed by implementation decisions through the state budget and bond-sale processes. He cautioned that the full amount would not become available immediately and said sales could occur over an extended period.

Friedman asked how allocations would be prioritized when bonds were sold, how loans differed from grants and how general obligation bonds differed from revenue bonds. He expressed reservations about the effect on future taxpayer obligations before recommending support, citing oversight and the need for housing.

The official voter guide's Legislative Analyst analysis distinguishes two repayment arrangements within the proposal. The $10 billion portion for state housing programs would be repaid through the state General Fund. The separate $1.25 billion for veterans' home loans would be repaid through participating veterans' mortgage payments.

The analyst estimates General Fund repayment costs of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years for the $10 billion housing bond. Veterans' loan payments would cover repayment of the separate mortgage bond.

The proposal includes $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily housing, $1.1 billion for homeownership programs and $500 million for housing-related infrastructure. Other allocations address farmworker housing, university student housing, tribal housing and local programs intended to reduce housing costs.

The city's staff memorandum connected the proposal to Beverly Hills' legislative priority favoring state and federal incentives for local action rather than mandates.

The memorandum also noted that the city had previously supported an earlier housing bond bill if amended. At that time, Beverly Hills requested that funding be allowed to flow through qualified regional or local organizations rather than solely through the state's housing department.

Pynoos recommended support based on the need for housing funding and the support of organizations and state leaders working with the city. Friedman followed with the same recommendation after outlining his fiscal concerns.

The discussion established a recommendation to support the statewide bond. It did not announce a Beverly Hills funding award or identify a local project selected to receive money.