Council puts housing issue on June ballot
Sorry to sound a wee bit cynical, but I wasn’t surprised City Council chose a primary election over a general election with wider voter participation, when setting a date for residents to vote on measures detailing possible locations for affordable housing.
Council’s decision places two measures calling for “yes” or “no” votes on allowing 11 properties to be rezoned for up to 30 units per acre and serve as potential sites for low-income, multi-family housing on the June 5 primary election ballot.
Putting the measures on the June ballot will cost a bit more than waiting until the Nov. 6 general election, and voter turnout for the June primary might be about 30 percent less than for a November ballot, based on numbers from the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.
A perceived difference in primary and general election voting populations appeared to be one reason for choosing a June over a November date, with Mayor Mark Schwing noting a primary voter “is probably a more informed voter and understands the issues.”
In 2010, the June primary drew 37.5 percent of city voters and the November election, absent a presidential contest, 65.3 percent. In 2008, the November presidential election drew 81.6 percent, the June primary 23.3 percent and the February presidential primary 56.4 percent.
Council should have put the measures on the November ballot to allow participation by a larger portion of the electorate primed for the presidential contest. In fact, the city had asked the state to extend a deadline to permit a November 2012 vote.
Originally, state officials conditioned certification of the city’s current Housing Element on a June 2012 election, but a delay to November was granted due to the higher costs for a June versus a November vote.
Costs for a November ballot for three council seats and two measures would range from $70,000 to $85,000, while a June ballot on just the measures would range from $85,000 to $104,000.
Of course, a June ballot neatly separates the issue from November’s council contest, in which Schwing will seek a fifth term and Nancy Rikel a second. Jim Winder is termed-out after 12 years.
To reserve the June ballot date, council must adopt a resolution by Feb. 13. The pro and con arguments to be mailed with sample ballots are due March 9 and rebuttals March 19. The city attorney will write an “impartial analysis.”
Based on council comments and last year’s 3-2 vote identifying 14 properties for possible low-income housing units, John Anderson, Tom Lindsey and Winder might pen the “pro” arguments. Rikel and Schwing opposed the identifications but aren’t expected to fight the measures.
Eleven of the 14 properties will be on the ballot, since three increasing density to only 10 units per acre meet current rules. Of the 11, nine on the westside will be bundled into one measure, while two Savi Ranch parcels will be grouped for a second measure.
As noted in past columns, defeat of one or both measures could put the city’s housing plan “out of compliance” with state law, resulting in such consequences as the loss of local land-use authority, court sanctions and litigation by low-cost housing advocates.
Council’s decision places two measures calling for “yes” or “no” votes on allowing 11 properties to be rezoned for up to 30 units per acre and serve as potential sites for low-income, multi-family housing on the June 5 primary election ballot.
Putting the measures on the June ballot will cost a bit more than waiting until the Nov. 6 general election, and voter turnout for the June primary might be about 30 percent less than for a November ballot, based on numbers from the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.
A perceived difference in primary and general election voting populations appeared to be one reason for choosing a June over a November date, with Mayor Mark Schwing noting a primary voter “is probably a more informed voter and understands the issues.”
In 2010, the June primary drew 37.5 percent of city voters and the November election, absent a presidential contest, 65.3 percent. In 2008, the November presidential election drew 81.6 percent, the June primary 23.3 percent and the February presidential primary 56.4 percent.
Council should have put the measures on the November ballot to allow participation by a larger portion of the electorate primed for the presidential contest. In fact, the city had asked the state to extend a deadline to permit a November 2012 vote.
Originally, state officials conditioned certification of the city’s current Housing Element on a June 2012 election, but a delay to November was granted due to the higher costs for a June versus a November vote.
Costs for a November ballot for three council seats and two measures would range from $70,000 to $85,000, while a June ballot on just the measures would range from $85,000 to $104,000.
Of course, a June ballot neatly separates the issue from November’s council contest, in which Schwing will seek a fifth term and Nancy Rikel a second. Jim Winder is termed-out after 12 years.
To reserve the June ballot date, council must adopt a resolution by Feb. 13. The pro and con arguments to be mailed with sample ballots are due March 9 and rebuttals March 19. The city attorney will write an “impartial analysis.”
Based on council comments and last year’s 3-2 vote identifying 14 properties for possible low-income housing units, John Anderson, Tom Lindsey and Winder might pen the “pro” arguments. Rikel and Schwing opposed the identifications but aren’t expected to fight the measures.
Eleven of the 14 properties will be on the ballot, since three increasing density to only 10 units per acre meet current rules. Of the 11, nine on the westside will be bundled into one measure, while two Savi Ranch parcels will be grouped for a second measure.
As noted in past columns, defeat of one or both measures could put the city’s housing plan “out of compliance” with state law, resulting in such consequences as the loss of local land-use authority, court sanctions and litigation by low-cost housing advocates.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home