Bill Would Punish Areas With Growth and Rent Controls

SACRAMENTO —  Legislation that could deny state housing subsidies to cities and counties that have slow-growth or rent-control ordinances breezed through an Assembly committee Monday despite opposition from local government officials and advocates of low-income housing.

The bill, by Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), was approved by the Housing and Community Development Committee on a bipartisan 7-0 vote and sent to the Ways and Means Committee, from where it may be sent directly to the Assembly floor.

Seymour’s measure would allow the state to deny housing funds to communities with policies that are found to have a “demonstrable and significant adverse impact” on the supply of housing for low-income people.

Specific housing policies would be evaluated to determine whether they fit within that category by a three-person committee whose members would be appointed by the governor. The bill would affect the distribution of about $63 million in state funds next year, and another $420 million could hang in the balance if voters approve bond measures for housing in 1988 and 1990.

Funds earmarked for the homeless, handicapped persons and mobile home owners would be exempted from the effects of the bill.

Orange County’s housing funds could be imperiled under the bill if voters approve Measure A, the slow-growth initiative on the countywide June 7 ballot, and if it later is determined to restrict or discourage the construction of low-income housing.

Seymour said his bill would send a simple message to cities and counties:

“If you want no-growth, if you want rent control, if you want five-acre estate homes only, go ahead and do that. But don’t come to the state and ask us to resolve your low-income housing problem, your affordable housing problem, when in fact you were the ones who drove out of your city that affordable housing and low-income housing.”

The bill was supported by the California Housing Council and the California Assn. of Realtors. Seymour is a former realtor who has long been an advocate for the industry and for low-income housing.

Opponents of the Seymour bill included the League of California Cities, the County Supervisors Assn. of California, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Monica and Berkeley.

Opponents contend that the measure is too vague because it does not define what a “significant and adverse impact” might be. They said such language could be interpreted differently by Republican and Democratic administrations.

And they argue that it is unfair to allow the state to deny housing funds on the basis of a single city or county policy without taking into account everything a community was doing to provide housing for poor people.

“We believe that if you looked at housing policies taken as a whole and had some objective criteria, this bill would not pose the political threat that we see,” said Lenny Goldberg, a lobbyist for the city of West Hollywood.

Seymour said after the vote that he would probably amend the bill to include all city or county housing policies if opponents would agree to support the measure. The bill is expected to face rougher treatment if it reaches the Senate, which traditionally has been more supportive of rent control than the Assembly.