U.S. Census Bureau reports California’s population Start growing again Last year, after three years of unprecedented decline. But don’t let modesty, the 0.6% rebound tricks you: California is in a new era of slow population growth. The growth of actions the state has long been accustomed to hasn’t come back anytime soon.
Listen to many Californians who continue to grow and oppose further development in the state, you would think that this reversal will solve all of our problems. But the truth is that even slow or ungrown communities in the country effectively give everything they can to grow. If the California community will thrive in the future without more people, then we will have to figure out how to get rid of this idea. This is not easy.
Since the state’s voters passed by a proposal to limit property tax rates about half a century ago, California has embraced the idea that growth must be paid for itself. However, “growth must pay for itself” often ends, which means “growth must also pay for us.” So when population growth stops, everyone has to pay more.
The general expectation is that when a community grows, its existing residents should be at no cost. That’s why the “impact fee” (the impact fee imposed on developers in most parts of the state) Through the roofin some jurisdictions, reaching $100,000 per home, and at least $1 billion per year across the state.
Furthermore, due to the uniqueness of California “Development Agreement” Act. The state allows cities and counties to allow developers to build new housing and retail industries in exchange for agreements to pay for infrastructure such as roads, sewers and water pipes, which is usually not related to their projects. In other words, the reactions of developers to population growth—and the new residents they sell to, are helping pay for the bills of infrastructure that cities need but fail to consistently finance, build and maintain.
So, now that California isn’t adding a lot of people to the community, what happens?
Even if our population is not growing much, we still have some real estate developments. We can also start making up for 30 years of housing production for our existing population, which drives disproportionate housing prices and homelessness. However, recent history has not inspired us to be confident that we will be willing: Housing production in California remains Stubborn low Despite a series of legislative efforts to encourage development.
And the stagnant population does not eliminate the need for new infrastructure and community facilities. Roads, schools and parks will wear out and need repairs, replacements or renewals. The needs and desires of the public will change. (Think of the kimchi court and the dog park.)
However, we no longer rely on new home buyers to pay anything. California has already bleed due to high housing prices and rents. It is unclear whether the new development will be able to pay for itself, let alone pay for improvement and maintenance needs of existing communities and residents. Sacramento lawmakers face great pressure reduce Impact fee Helps reduce housing costs.
So, how can California communities fund their infrastructure and the public in an era of slow or no population growth?
This problem stems mainly from the proposed structure 13. Abolishing or major reforms is unlikely, but there are no major revision steps that can help California undermine its addiction to growth.
Proposal 13 prevents communities from raising property taxes to pay for required infrastructure repairs and replacements unless two-thirds of voters approve it. By contrast, the increase in property taxes for similar programs in similar schools requires only 55% approval. This is backward in a world where school enrollment is rapidly declining and demand for an aging population is growing rapidly. The community should be able to raise property taxes to pay the same 55% majority of infrastructure.
That was the purpose of Proposal 5 that failed last fall. However, the measure will reduce voting requirements for affordable housing and infrastructure bonds. Affordable housing is certainly a much-needed housing in California, but the results may vary if the two purposes are presented to voters separately in separate measures.
The state can also significantly increase funding for local infrastructure. This can be achieved by putting local local infrastructure bond proposals (perhaps $100 billion) in a statewide vote. Otherwise the state could create a dedicated fund in years of high income tax revenue to increase local infrastructure.
These ideas don’t have easy time in Sacramento. The capitals of cities and counties do not have much influence compared to teachers, public employees, unions and other political heavyweights.
Still, lawmakers will have to do something. Most of their voters live in communities that pay for the basic infrastructure that makes everyday life possible. Unless it proves that California is more difficult to change, growth will no longer pay for it.
William Fulton is the editor and publisher of California Program and Development Report. He previously served as Mayor of Ventura and Director of Programs in San Diego.
