California Proposition 41, Veterans Housing And Homeless Prevention Bond (June 2014)

California Proposition 41
Election date June 3, 2014
Topic Bond issues and Veterans
Status a Approved
Type Bond issue	Origin State Legislature

California Proposition 41 was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on June 3, 2014. It was approved.

Election results[edit]

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview[edit]

Proposition 41:^[1]

• Amended the Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008 to reduce the amount of authorized bonds from $900 million to $300 million.
• Enacted the Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act of 2014 to authorize $600 million in bonds to provide multifamily housing, such as apartment complexes, to low-income veterans and supportive housing for homeless veterans.
• Authorized the legislature to amend the bond act by majority vote.
• Imposed reporting requirements on the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate any program established by the VHHPA.
• Authorized the Department of Housing and Community Development to provide specified assistance to veterans.

The measure authorized the state to provide local governments, nonprofit organizations and private developers with financial assistance, such as low-interest loans, so that they may construct, renovate and acquire affordable multifamily housing for low-income veterans and their families. “Low-income” was here defined as “those who earn less than 80 percent of average family income, as adjusted by family size and county.” At least one-half of the funds shall be used to build supportive housing for homeless veterans.

The allocation from the general tax revenues are to average about $50 million annually for 15 years following the measure's approval. The amount spent on these programs are estimated to be less than one-tenth of one percent of the state budget each year for those 15 years.

The measure was sponsored in the California Legislature by House Speaker John Pérez (D-53).

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 41 was as follows:

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement:^[2]

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

"Increased state bond costs averaging about $50 million annually over 15 years."

Support[edit]

Coalition for Veterans Housing led the campaign in support of the proposition.^[3]

Supporters[edit]

Officials[edit]

Former officials[edit]

• Former US Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta (D)^[5]

Organizations[edit]

Arguments[edit]

The following argument in favor - signed by Asm. John A. Pérez, Leon E. Panetta and Stephen Peck - and rebuttal to argument against - signed by Ed Ford, Peter Cameron and Joseph Garcia - were found in the state's voter guide:^[9]

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

• “This is a fiscally responsible ballot measure that will help thousands of homeless veterans get a roof over their heads. This act doesn’t create new taxes or add new debt to California. In fact, this act will save taxpayer dollars in healthcare and public safety by getting veterans off the streets and into safe, affordable housing.”
• “By voting YES on Proposition 41, we can act to make sure homeless veterans have access to quality, affordable housing and give at-risk veterans the opportunity to find the job training, counseling and rehabilitation services they need - and since this Act uses money that has already been approved, but not spent, we can honor their service without adding to the debt or raising taxes.”
• “As our conflicts overseas draw to a close, up to 45,000 young veterans will be returning home to California. They have sacrificed so much for our country, and some will be coming home with no jobs or homes waiting for them. We cannot allow these men and women who have served our country be left on their own.”

The League of Women Voters of California listed the following two points as supporting arguments in their voter guide:^[10]

• "This is a fiscally responsible proposition that will help thousands of homeless California veterans get a roof over their heads."
• "By using previously approved but unsold bond funds, Proposition 41 doesn’t create new taxes or add new debt to California."

Other supporting arguments included:

• SCANPH argued in the proposition's favor, saying, "The greatest drivers of homelessness among veterans are the high cost of housing in California and low incomes among veterans. We cannot end homelessness among veterans without affordable housing for veterans living in poverty. Giving veterans a safe, decent, affordable place to live dramatically reduces local and state costs including health care, incarceration, and other crisis services. Also, by building apartments for veterans in need we are creating jobs and generating revenue for the state coffers."^[7]

• Asm. John Pérez (D-53), who sponsored the measure in the legislature, said, "We know we have a huge problem, where veterans come home from Iraq and Afghanistan are finding themselves in homelessness at a faster rate than even their Vietnam-era counterparts."^[11]

Donors[edit]

Total campaign cash as of June 3, 2014
Support:	$632,326
Opposition:	$0

The following were the donors who contributed $10,000 or more to the campaign supporting Proposition 41:^[12]

Opposition[edit]

Opponents[edit]

• Green Party of California^[13]
• California Tea Party Groups (CTPG)^[14]
• California Federation of Republican Women^[15]

Arguments[edit]

The Green Party of California stated that the proposition "should be re-written by the state legislature and brought back in November 2014." The Green Party opposed the measure for the following reasons:^[13]

• "[Bonds] disproportionately burden the common woman and man. Bonds are predominately purchased by institutions and the “one percent.” As they are paid off, there is an upward transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich. Therefore bonds should be used sparingly."
• "We believe helping homeless veterans off the street is the humane and responsible thing for society to do... But its a cruel irony to fund such services through a regressive tax, considering how often war is fought to defend the self-interests of the fossil-fuel industry and other multi-national/resource-extracting corporations (who also often pay little or no taxes) -- while a majority of the tax dollars that working families pay, go to fund the military-industrial-national security complex... Socialize the costs, privatize the gains."

The League of Women Voters of California listed the following two points as opposing arguments in their voter guide:^[10]

• "This program will be paid for by the taxpayers instead of by the veterans who paid for it under the original Cal-Vet program."
• "If the funding does not go directly to the intended beneficiaries, there is risk of possible mismanagement and waste."

Media editorial positions[edit]

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2014

Support[edit]

• The Bakersfield Californian: "The saying "support our troops" shouldn't come with an expiration date. Service to this country should earn our veterans a little extra consideration."^[16]
• Chico Enterprise-Record: "Usually we're not fond of bond financing in a state smothered in long-term debt, but the amount is small by state bond standards, the state's financial picture has improved a bit, and the recent news about the mistreatment of veterans demands whatever solutions our government can provide."^[17]
• Hanford Sentinel: "This support is especially important in light of the federal government’s failure to provide for these people who stepped up to serve their country."^[18]
• Lompoc Record: "And we’ll give you our quick and simple answer — it absolutely is a good use of taxpayers’ money."^[19]
• Los Angeles Times: "By reducing the number of homeless veterans and connecting more of them to the rehabilitation and mental health services they need, the bonds could help the state avoid some of the healthcare and social service costs it faces today. They also could lead to more homeless veterans rejoining the workforce. Granted, $25 million a year is a sizable sum. Yet it's clear that Proposition 12 missed the mark in terms of meeting the needs of the state's returning veterans. Voters should have the chance to rethink it."^[20]
• Los Angeles Daily News: "Too many military men and women who have represented the United States in troubled times, in hostile situations and with families waiting back home, are in need of new beginnings. This would be the governor’s salute to them."^[21]
• Marin Independent Journal: "These men and women have served our nation and that service should not be forgotten, especially at a time when thousands of veterans from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan re-enter civilian life. Having a home often is a first and vital step out of the downward spiral of homelessness."^[22]
• Merced Sun-Star: "Sheltering and caring for homeless vets has indirect payback to our communities dealing with homeless encampments and public safety issues. Aside from the good it might do for veterans, it will also be good for us. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do."^[23]
• The McClatchy Company, owner of The Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee: "Sheltering and caring for homeless vets has indirect payback to our communities dealing with homeless encampments and public safety issues. And it directly benefits our societal psyche because it is the right thing to do."^[24][25]
• Palm Springs Desert Sun: "Proposition 41 will be a powerful tool to help many veterans. Voting for it can be your way of saying thank you for their service."^[26]
• San Diego City Beat: "We can't think of a reason not to support this one. Vote Yes on Prop. 41."^[27]
• San Diego Union-Tribune: "But what about when they come home after their service? Many need help. They battle unemployment, traumatic stress and homelessness. Californians will have a chance to offer that help by approving Proposition 41 on the June 3 ballot."^[28]
• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This would cost Californians $50 million a year, which, as proponents remind us, is one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget. Why let hundreds of millions of dollars languish unused? We need to reprioritize this money to make good on our unfulfilled promises to homeless veterans."^[29]
• San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 41 would address the problem by expanding the types of veterans housing that would be eligible for the bond program."^[30]
• San Mateo Daily Journal: "Proposition 41 is a common-sense approach to housing our veterans and to provide revenue for local governments looking to provide a basic service to those who need it."^[31]
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "A cold winter this year focused the public on the plight of the homeless. In listening to service agencies, we heard that the biggest need is affordable housing. Proposition 41 is an opportunity to begin addressing the need. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote."^[32]
• Woodland Daily Democrat: "The recent scandal swirling around our nation's VA hospitals only confirms the need for Prop. 41, which would ensure that California veterans most in need of help actually get it."^[33]

Opposition[edit]

• Orange County Register: "Addressing the issue of roughly 19,000 homeless veterans in California is a serious matter, but Proposition 41 is not the answer. If the Cal-Vet program is failing, it is best to cut our losses and save taxpayers’ money."^[34]

Background[edit]

The Cal-Vet Home Loan Program was established in 1921. Starting with Proposition 1 of 1922, Californians have approved all 27 Cal-Vet bond measures.^[35]

In 2008, Californians passed Proposition 12, which authorized the issuance of $900 million in bonds to create a fund to assist veterans who wanted to purchase farms, homes and mobile home properties. Proposition 41 would replace $600 million of the $900 million authorized by Proposition 12 with a different bond.

Related measures[edit]

• California Proposition 12, Bonds for Veterans (2008) a

Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Authorizing bonds in California

As mandated by Section 1 of Article XVI of the California Constitution, the California Legislature was required to pass the bond act by a two-thirds vote of all the members in both legislative chambers. The measure was unanimously approved in both chambers.^[36]

The timeline for the enactment of Assembly Bill #639 was:^[36]

• February 20, 2013: Introduced into the California State Assembly
• May 29, 2013: Adopted in California State Assembly
• September 10, 2013: Adopted, with added amendments, in California State Senate
• September 11, 2013: Adopted, with senate amendments, in California State Assembly
• October 10, 2013: Approved by California Governor
• October 10, 2013: Filed with California Secretary of State

Senate vote[edit]

September 10, 2013 Senate vote

California AB 639 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		36	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

Assembly vote[edit]

September 11, 2013 Assembly vote

California AB 639 Assembly Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		78	100.00%
No		0	0.00%

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Economic Roundtable[edit]

Economic Roundtable, underwritten by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, published a report titled “Where We Sleep: Costs when Homeless and Housed in Los Angeles” in 2009. Economic Roundtable examined the public costs associated with people in supportive housing versus similar people that are homeless. They concluded that the approximate public cost for someone in supportive housing is a monthly $605. The public costs for homeless persons is a monthly $2,897 or five-times greater than those in supportive housing. However, the public costs for homeless persons ranged from $406 to $5,038 depending on age, physical and mental health and employment history. The report stated: "This remarkable finding shows that practical, tangible public benefits result from providing supportive housing for vulnerable homeless individuals. The stabilizing effect of housing plus supportive care is demonstrated by a 79 percent reduction in public costs for these residents."^[37]

The study illustrated the demographics of the county's homeless population who received public assistance in 2007:^[37]

• About 92% speak English vs. 82% of the county
• About 71% are men vs. 50% of the county
• About 52% are African-American vs. 9% of the county
• About 37% have a documented disability vs. 10% of the county
• About 10% worked in the past year vs. 84% of the county
• About 3% were born in Mexico or Central America vs. 28% of the county
• About 27% are veterans vs. 4% of the county

Economic Roundtable’s report studied 10,193 homeless persons in Los Angeles County, California, including 1,007 who entered supportive housing.^[37]

HUD[edit]

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued an “Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress” in 2013.
They found the following about homelessness in California in 2013:^[38]

• About 22% of the nation’s homeless population lived in California in 2013. The next closest state was New York at 13%.
• California was one of six states in which more homeless people were living in unsheltered locations than shelters.
• California saw a decline in the homeless population between 2007 and 2013, with 22,906 fewer homeless people in 2013 than 2007. However, between 2012 and 2013, the number increased by 5,928.
• Los Angeles, California had the highest population of chronically homeless people in the country. In Los Angeles, 14,840 people were chronically homeless in 2013 versus 4,328 in New York.

The department found the following about homeless veterans in California in 2013:^[38]

• California had the highest number of homeless veterans. Approximately 15,179 veterans were homeless on any given night.
• California was one of seven states in which more homeless veterans were living in unsheltered locations than shelters. About 68% were unsheltered in 2013.
• California saw a decline in homeless veterans between 2007 and 2013, with 1,282 fewer homeless veterans in 2013 than 2007. Between 2012 and 2013, the number decreased by 841.
• The top five major cities with the highest rate of unsheltered veterans were all located in California. San Jose was 81% in 2013. Los Angeles was 77%. Fresno was 76%. Oakland was 72%. San Francisco, at number five, was 59%.

Suggest a link

See also

External links[edit]

Basic information[edit]

• Assembly Bill 639
• California Department of Veterans Affairs
• Official Voter Information Guide for June 3, 2014 Statewide Primary Election
• Text of Proposition 41

Support[edit]

• Yes on Proposition 41 campaign website

Footnotes[edit]

v • e 2014 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • North Dakota • New Mexico • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Texas • Virginia • Wisconsin • West Virginia Political topics Abortion • Admin of gov't • Alcohol • Banking • Bond issues • Budgets • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Direct democracy • Divorce and custody • Education • Elections and campaigns • Environment • Federal constitutional issues • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • History, culture and the arts • Hunting and fishing • Immigration • Insurance • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Property • Redistricting measures • State budget • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Term limits • Trials • Transportation • Utilities • Veterans • Water Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2014 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy