My issue is with their competency to get things done. On paper, this is an easy yes I’d be willing to pay for. But as my local government has shown, they don’t know how to appropriate funds and get projects promised done. So this is a no for me
@ 100%. If they had a positive track record of doing what they say it would be a different story. They're just now fixing a road in my area that was voted on when I was first ever old enough to vote like 10 years ago. It's ridiculous
Thanks for these videos! I’m a young professional in the bay and I often procrastinate 🤪 but I realize how important my vote is and not only by reading the the voter guide but these videos help!
I heard that prop 5 has nothing to do with affordable housing but actually just makes it easier to raise property taxes which could increase homelessness raising the demand for affordable housing. Does anybody know if this is true?
For what it's worth, it is interesting to see who are the fat cats who oppose: $29.7 million TOTAL CONTRIBUTORS $19.0 million CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS $5.00 million NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS $3.00 million CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC $1.73 million CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE ISSUES PAC Meanwhile, Facebook CEO is the only big supporter: $5.00 million CONTRIBUTORS CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE ADVOCACY -- YES ON 5 (NONPROFIT 501(C)(4)) $2.50 million CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE, LLC (MARK ZUCKERBERG)
Funny how the salaries paid to each of the principals of these so-called "non-profit" advocacy groups cost more than it would to just have a private developer build a 2 BR rental unit.
Note that the people voting yes are not property owners and the people voting no are the property owners. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner… that’s what this expression of democracy amounts to.
They said that the local bond failed in Berkeley to borrow $650 mi to fund affordable houses because even though they got 59% approval, they needed 2/3 (~66,7%) in CA. This proposition reduces the state threshold to 55%, but if such local propositions pass, the property taxes on these places would increase.
@@IanMahaffeySee that’s objectively good, but local and state government has done jack with all the money we gave them in terms of tax and loans. They are too incompetent to get things done. Maybe it’s just my city though and yours is different 🤷🏽♂️
This is an oversimplification. This will allow the State of CA to easily pass legislation that will eliminate our protections under Prop 13, and our property taxes will be readjusted yearly without a cap. Many Californians will be paying significantly more in property taxes, which will cause rent prices to rise, and cause severe financial difficulties for all Californians.
Leave it to the government in this state to try and go into debt over something they can't even tell you how it happened in the first place. Without addressing what caused the crises, you'll never fix the crisis. NO amount of taxing us, will ever change that.
2/3rd which is a majority, which is fair. Prop 5 is a scam to blindsight voters! Shame on CA government to try to tax is more. NO on 5. Tell everyone you know - don’t be fooled.
If it's fix like the Avenal Cut Off Rd then it should be a no. They close down the road for 2 months and only fixed part of the road. I want to know was there any money left in the initiative and if there was where did it go?
The American Society of Civil Engineers found that every dollar invested in public infrastructure returns $3.70 in economic output Voting yes would allow for more economomic growth. So I say yes.
LOL, you know that in many of these programs supposedly intended for "affordable housing", the costs of such housing actually winds up being MORE than if equivalent housing were built by private sector developers? Learn something about how the real world rolls before falling to all this BS.
I'm new to this but In LA county seems like housing is being built now everywhere and it's just getting expensive, I guess I'm asking you this since you would say yes. I can see if it was more industrial or infrastructure, but if it's just housing that would only cost more and rents being high what would be the point? Also would you happen to know if there would be more public infrastructure than just housing ?
...what? That's not what this bill does at all. It makes it easier for voters to approve bonds, but it doesn't give the government any more or less of a limit on how much debt can be issued.
@@IanMahaffey not sure what you mean by that, but working class doesn’t receive government assistance food stamps or section 8 housing. If you’re referencing Robert Kiyosaki about middle class then I can agree with you on that.
@@supraonduecesif the working class doesn’t receive food stamps how come Walmart is one of the top companies whose employees rely on SNAP? Are Walmart workers not part of the working class?
@@supraondueces it’s not a career, it’s a source of money. Anyone who works a job regularly is working class. If the job was more luxurious it would be middle class.
Stop with the nonsense. Prop 5 will just raise property taxes for the middle class. You want more affordable housing? It’s supply and demand. Cut government regulations on building more housing. Get rid of government bureaucrats who justify their nonessential existence by creating ever more complicated and counterproductive regulations.
Fact of the matter is, California no longer has: Land cheap enough for affordable housing. Labor cheap enough for affordable housing. Ask yourself: is the rental market saturated or are there not enough tenants?
What would affordable housing even look like (not literally, but logistically)? And who would would qualify for these homes? Assuming the poorest of the poor?
@@theGrouch89literally section 8 housing would be popping up. Millennials are getting priced out of Californias while boomers foot the bill for low income housing
@@theGrouch89 Affordable housing should look like what you're able to pay for out of your own pocket. If your wages aren't enough to pay for your housing in the location where you work, either figure out how to lower your expectations and split cost with friends/family/co-workers, or move to somewhere with available suitable jobs where you can afford to live. I'm all for large-scale private developments where appropriate, but the government needs to stay out of the civilian housing business.
VOTE NO NO NO. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.
Property tax increases may place an unfair financial strain on property owners, particularly long-time residents or retirees. Higher taxes can make it harder for these groups to stay in their homes, leading to displacement. These kind of raises may discourage property ownership or investment. These taxes often fall heavily on local residents rather than spreading the cost across a wider tax base, which some see as unfair. There is an alternative approach; cities and counties can work together with developers to incentivize them. Many experts argue that incentivizing developers is a better solution: By streamlining approval processes, reducing fees, offering tax credits, and easing zoning restrictions, cities can attract developers to build affordable housing. These policies can lead to more housing without directly raising taxes. A question we should all ask is: are increases in property tax (to pay back bonds) the right mechanism to raise money for affordable housing?
Republican Jesus is strong in this comment section. Don't feed the poor, don't shelter them, complain about my tax dollars, don't fund schools, only build single family homes.
No one said only build single family homes just leave mine alone. No one said don't fund the schools just make them be accountable for the billions they already get i.e. what happened to the lotto money for schools? No one said don't shelter the poor but they don't like to follow the rules to be sheltered. Finally we pay far too much in taxes why does this generation always want to pay more taxes?
@@davidsnipes7297 Who said anything about tearing down your single family home??? Nobody ever said that but we get a lot of push back from those who don't want multi-family homes. We talk about funding schools from districts that are not equal to their wealthy counterparts. Where teachers have to drive miles just to get to their jobs. Because the same people show up at public hearings complaining about traffic noise, shadows, and preserving abandoned community gardens. Again not all housing is for the homeless. The majority are section 8 housing for families or what we call social housing. Rinse and repeat instead of saying I don't want poor families in my neighborhood... You guys complain about shadows, traffic, infrastructure can't handle the new apartments, and preserve this community garden that nobody cared about for decades anyways. You guys make Jesus proud everyday. Especially with the gaslighting. You know and we all know the games you guys play at those public hearings. Just stop it. **Edit many of these condos and apartments are market rate housing. But we get pushback once the phrase affordable housing will be included in this project.
@@erictaylor3897 I said nothing about tearing down my home. Those complaints are born of the choices people make. Long drive to work? Change either were you live or where you work. Housing to costly where you are looking then look where you can afford. Idk what shadows means, but I don’t think it’s fair to tear down a single family home in a community of like homes and put up a multi-story multi-family unit just because that’s been allowed to try to solve a housing issue. No one appreciates the crowded neighborhood. No one appreciates the loss of privacy those bring. No one appreciates the extra traffic and noise either. Why can’t you people just move somewhere you can afford and somewhere that provides you the density you seek? Just stop it.
@@davidsnipes7297What is this "No one said only build single family homes just leave mine alone" I work in finance and own a beautiful single family home. I guess you can say I actually possess this thing called empathy. I hear nobody in the YIMBY and urbanist circles talk about tearing down single family homes or taking it away from people. Just build less of them because not everyone needs a single family home. Especially those who don't have families. You know those very people you're telling to go find another job or live somewhere else?? Those are the people who clean our streets and buildings. The people who work at the grocery store while all the kids are in school, the woman fixing your hamburgers while the kids are also in school. The mail carrier, the Amazon driver, the Doordash, the pizza guy at the shop, your barber 💈. The list goes on. In many cases even nurses, firefighters, and police officers are getting priced out. If you truly wish all of these people who provide services for us everyday to just simply move far away. Well let's make that happen. You'll have to drive closer to where they live.... That would be a nice road trip now wouldn't?
"Bonds tend to get paid back through higher taxes on property owners". This is a back-door attack on Proposition 13's cap on property taxes. Vote HELL NO.
There are too many damn people!!!. We're living in a sea of pollution we can't keep up with we can't get anywhere gridlock traffic starts in the San Fernando Valley at 3:00 p.m. now which never happened in my history of 53 years on this Earth living here. There's not enough water there's not enough electricity. They tell us we're going to have to have brown outs and adjust our thermostats and do our laundry at a certain hours. Then they tell us we're going to eventually have to drink our own sewage water😢 are children can't get a proper education because there are too many children in the classrooms and not enough teachers schools classrooms. Explain to me why we need more people??
@@erictaylor3897 it’s not a bad thing. I have a problem with HOW it’s being done. It’s a false equivalency to say I’m against people having shelter if I’m against this proposition. If people give money towards the cause, it should be done by them willingly and freely, not through force
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians middle class versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
For true journalism, check out: The Nation, Democracy Now, Mother Jones, Salon, A More Perfect Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, Greg Palast, Lee Fang, David Cay Johnston, ZNetwork, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes Show, Rick Smith Show, Robert Reich,David Packman Show, Professor Richard Wolff, ProPublica, Project Censored, Freespeech TV.
Truely biased listing of rich people wanting to control the masses. There are rich people behind all those organizations convincing the weak of who is bad... Learn to think for yourself in a way that promotes the freedom of the people vs the control of the rich.
Didn’t they just admit they had no idea where the money for housing went last time…
You think CalMatters and the rest of these "Public Interest" groups care? They blindly support whatever nonsense the Democraps peddle.🙄
Agree! This video is entirely biased!
$24 billion to solve homelessness. That's the big mystery
That was the State Government
This is for Local Governments
@@KariIsaeffhow is this bias? He’s just explaining what the measure is, not whether or not they know how to spend the money they loan.
Reading the comments have been very helpful thank you. Voting no on this one
HARD NO on Prop 5 - this opens the doors for higher taxes thus pushing more people OUT of CA!
Any prop that mentions taxes is a hard NO for me dawg. Unless it has the word “lower” in it
Then how does all the infrastructure get paid for?
@@ZoneZero-sm9jvThe fed just presses print easy as that!
My issue is with their competency to get things done. On paper, this is an easy yes I’d be willing to pay for. But as my local government has shown, they don’t know how to appropriate funds and get projects promised done. So this is a no for me
@ 100%. If they had a positive track record of doing what they say it would be a different story. They're just now fixing a road in my area that was voted on when I was first ever old enough to vote like 10 years ago. It's ridiculous
Thanks for these videos! I’m a young professional in the bay and I often procrastinate 🤪 but I realize how important my vote is and not only by reading the the voter guide but these videos help!
That is a big NO.
Vote NO - Stop Raising Property Taxes
I heard that prop 5 has nothing to do with affordable housing but actually just makes it easier to raise property taxes which could increase homelessness raising the demand for affordable housing. Does anybody know if this is true?
That's exactly what it does... makes it easier for taxes to raise ANY taxes, including prop 13 that keeps property taxes low.
For what it's worth, it is interesting to see who are the fat cats who oppose:
$29.7 million TOTAL CONTRIBUTORS
$19.0 million CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
$5.00 million NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
$3.00 million CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ISSUES MOBILIZATION PAC
$1.73 million CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE ISSUES PAC
Meanwhile, Facebook CEO is the only big supporter: $5.00 million CONTRIBUTORS
CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE ADVOCACY -- YES ON 5 (NONPROFIT 501(C)(4))
$2.50 million
CHAN ZUCKERBERG INITIATIVE, LLC (MARK ZUCKERBERG)
Yes please tell everyone you know, NO on 5 1:37 - this is clearly a government SCAM on Californians.
You will be homeless too if you can't pay your property tax
Voting No- for the sake of my dwindling pocket.
Homeless industrial complex asking for more money to line the playmakers’ pockets.
honestly f em tbh. They do nothing for solving homelessness, not even a bandaid. Its money laundering their own citizens.
Funny how the salaries paid to each of the principals of these so-called "non-profit" advocacy groups cost more than it would to just have a private developer build a 2 BR rental unit.
Hell No! We don’t need more debt and our property taxes going up! We already have too much debt in this state. Plus, what have we got to show for it?!
Note that the people voting yes are not property owners and the people voting no are the property owners.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner… that’s what this expression of democracy amounts to.
They said that the local bond failed in Berkeley to borrow $650 mi to fund affordable houses because even though they got 59% approval, they needed 2/3 (~66,7%) in CA. This proposition reduces the state threshold to 55%, but if such local propositions pass, the property taxes on these places would increase.
NO.
Stop stealing my money and giving it to someone else.
Building infrastructure isn't giving it to someone else, it's giving it to you.
@@IanMahaffeySee that’s objectively good, but local and state government has done jack with all the money we gave them in terms of tax and loans. They are too incompetent to get things done. Maybe it’s just my city though and yours is different 🤷🏽♂️
This is an oversimplification. This will allow the State of CA to easily pass legislation that will eliminate our protections under Prop 13, and our property taxes will be readjusted yearly without a cap. Many Californians will be paying significantly more in property taxes, which will cause rent prices to rise, and cause severe financial difficulties for all Californians.
Ty for leaving this comment!
No
Leave it to the government in this state to try and go into debt over something they can't even tell you how it happened in the first place. Without addressing what caused the crises, you'll never fix the crisis. NO amount of taxing us, will ever change that.
What’s the current percentage? It says moving down to 55 but what is it now?
2/3rd which is a majority, which is fair. Prop 5 is a scam to blindsight voters! Shame on CA government to try to tax is more. NO on 5. Tell everyone you know - don’t be fooled.
2/3rds...66%
@@saugusbball21thanks
NO.
Nope, just want to move the goal post.
No no no on 5 👎
If it's fix like the Avenal Cut Off Rd then it should be a no. They close down the road for 2 months and only fixed part of the road. I want to know was there any money left in the initiative and if there was where did it go?
The American Society of Civil Engineers found that every dollar invested in public infrastructure returns $3.70 in economic output
Voting yes would allow for more economomic growth. So I say yes.
LOL, you know that in many of these programs supposedly intended for "affordable housing", the costs of such housing actually winds up being MORE than if equivalent housing were built by private sector developers? Learn something about how the real world rolls before falling to all this BS.
I'm new to this but In LA county seems like housing is being built now everywhere and it's just getting expensive, I guess I'm asking you this since you would say yes. I can see if it was more industrial or infrastructure, but if it's just housing that would only cost more and rents being high what would be the point? Also would you happen to know if there would be more public infrastructure than just housing ?
Voting NO
Maybe if it was 60%
55% is too low. Basically half oppose a new tax...
LOL so you want us to vote to legalize UNLIMITED debt issuance by state and local governments? NO THANKS.
...what? That's not what this bill does at all. It makes it easier for voters to approve bonds, but it doesn't give the government any more or less of a limit on how much debt can be issued.
No on prop 5 makes our rent increase while others pay half
This is an attack on Proposition 13, vote no.
No. Opportunities for increasing corruption
NO! Working Middle Class can’t afford to get houses yet they’ll take from the working class to build houses for low income VOTE NO
Low income IS the Working Class.
@@IanMahaffey not sure what you mean by that, but working class doesn’t receive government assistance food stamps or section 8 housing. If you’re referencing Robert Kiyosaki about middle class then I can agree with you on that.
@@supraonduecesif the working class doesn’t receive food stamps how come Walmart is one of the top companies whose employees rely on SNAP? Are Walmart workers not part of the working class?
@@Petrichorus- They aren't, people who think Walmart and McDonalds is a career is fucked.
@@supraondueces it’s not a career, it’s a source of money. Anyone who works a job regularly is working class. If the job was more luxurious it would be middle class.
No more bonds or raising taxes...my property tax keeps going up..live w in your means like I have to.
Stop with the nonsense. Prop 5 will just raise property taxes for the middle class. You want more affordable housing? It’s supply and demand. Cut government regulations on building more housing. Get rid of government bureaucrats who justify their nonessential existence by creating ever more complicated and counterproductive regulations.
Ive come to learn people who say taxes are bad are right wingers
Sounds like money laundering to me. Less government involved with tax payer money the better.
No double down. Why would i wanna pay for someone eles free living.
Whos to say this isn't going to end up related to free homes for homeless druggies
Fact of the matter is, California no longer has:
Land cheap enough for affordable housing.
Labor cheap enough for affordable housing.
Ask yourself: is the rental market saturated or are there not enough tenants?
What would affordable housing even look like (not literally, but logistically)? And who would would qualify for these homes? Assuming the poorest of the poor?
@@theGrouch89literally section 8 housing would be popping up. Millennials are getting priced out of Californias while boomers foot the bill for low income housing
@@theGrouch89 Affordable housing should look like what you're able to pay for out of your own pocket. If your wages aren't enough to pay for your housing in the location where you work, either figure out how to lower your expectations and split cost with friends/family/co-workers, or move to somewhere with available suitable jobs where you can afford to live. I'm all for large-scale private developments where appropriate, but the government needs to stay out of the civilian housing business.
No one should own property and like it.
This is so fucked. This measure is awe full.
Make affordable housing by making it easier to tax the homeowners ????
Hard pass
Higher taxes for property owners means rent goes up. lol NO!
No on prop 5
VOTE NO NO NO. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.
Property tax increases may place an unfair financial strain on property owners, particularly long-time residents or retirees. Higher taxes can make it harder for these groups to stay in their homes, leading to displacement. These kind of raises may discourage property ownership or investment. These taxes often fall heavily on local residents rather than spreading the cost across a wider tax base, which some see as unfair.
There is an alternative approach; cities and counties can work together with developers to incentivize them. Many experts argue that incentivizing developers is a better solution:
By streamlining approval processes, reducing fees, offering tax credits, and easing zoning restrictions, cities can attract developers to build affordable housing. These policies can lead to more housing without directly raising taxes.
A question we should all ask is: are increases in property tax (to pay back bonds) the right mechanism to raise money for affordable housing?
NO just NO
Republican Jesus is strong in this comment section. Don't feed the poor, don't shelter them, complain about my tax dollars, don't fund schools, only build single family homes.
Taxation is theft.
No one said only build single family homes just leave mine alone. No one said don't fund the schools just make them be accountable for the billions they already get i.e. what happened to the lotto money for schools? No one said don't shelter the poor but they don't like to follow the rules to be sheltered. Finally we pay far too much in taxes why does this generation always want to pay more taxes?
@@davidsnipes7297 Who said anything about tearing down your single family home??? Nobody ever said that but we get a lot of push back from those who don't want multi-family homes.
We talk about funding schools from districts that are not equal to their wealthy counterparts. Where teachers have to drive miles just to get to their jobs. Because the same people show up at public hearings complaining about traffic noise, shadows, and preserving abandoned community gardens.
Again not all housing is for the homeless. The majority are section 8 housing for families or what we call social housing. Rinse and repeat instead of saying I don't want poor families in my neighborhood... You guys complain about shadows, traffic, infrastructure can't handle the new apartments, and preserve this community garden that nobody cared about for decades anyways.
You guys make Jesus proud everyday. Especially with the gaslighting. You know and we all know the games you guys play at those public hearings. Just stop it.
**Edit many of these condos and apartments are market rate housing. But we get pushback once the phrase affordable housing will be included in this project.
@@erictaylor3897 I said nothing about tearing down my home.
Those complaints are born of the choices people make. Long drive to work? Change either were you live or where you work. Housing to costly where you are looking then look where you can afford. Idk what shadows means, but I don’t think it’s fair to tear down a single family home in a community of like homes and put up a multi-story multi-family unit just because that’s been allowed to try to solve a housing issue. No one appreciates the crowded neighborhood. No one appreciates the loss of privacy those bring. No one appreciates the extra traffic and noise either. Why can’t you people just move somewhere you can afford and somewhere that provides you the density you seek? Just stop it.
@@davidsnipes7297What is this "No one said only build single family homes just leave mine alone"
I work in finance and own a beautiful single family home. I guess you can say I actually possess this thing called empathy. I hear nobody in the YIMBY and urbanist circles talk about tearing down single family homes or taking it away from people. Just build less of them because not everyone needs a single family home. Especially those who don't have families.
You know those very people you're telling to go find another job or live somewhere else??
Those are the people who clean our streets and buildings. The people who work at the grocery store while all the kids are in school, the woman fixing your hamburgers while the kids are also in school. The mail carrier, the Amazon driver, the Doordash, the pizza guy at the shop, your barber 💈. The list goes on. In many cases even nurses, firefighters, and police officers are getting priced out.
If you truly wish all of these people who provide services for us everyday to just simply move far away. Well let's make that happen. You'll have to drive closer to where they live.... That would be a nice road trip now wouldn't?
Voted no, guys.
"Bonds tend to get paid back through higher taxes on property owners". This is a back-door attack on Proposition 13's cap on property taxes. Vote HELL NO.
Borrow money= Higher taxes..😏no thanks 👍
No 👎👎
There are too many damn people!!!. We're living in a sea of pollution we can't keep up with we can't get anywhere gridlock traffic starts in the San Fernando Valley at 3:00 p.m. now which never happened in my history of 53 years on this Earth living here. There's not enough water there's not enough electricity. They tell us we're going to have to have brown outs and adjust our thermostats and do our laundry at a certain hours. Then they tell us we're going to eventually have to drink our own sewage water😢 are children can't get a proper education because there are too many children in the classrooms and not enough teachers schools classrooms. Explain to me why we need more people??
NO NO NO 👎🏽
Vote YES!
To essentially make it easier for the government to come in and FORCE taxpayers to pay for other people’s stuff? In this case, homes
@@adventuresofnategabeandzoeYes, fuck you homeowners making life hell for renters
@@adventuresofnategabeandzoeWhy would giving someone shelter be a bad thing? We're not talking about wants but needs.
@@erictaylor3897 it’s not a bad thing. I have a problem with HOW it’s being done. It’s a false equivalency to say I’m against people having shelter if I’m against this proposition. If people give money towards the cause, it should be done by them willingly and freely, not through force
voting no
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians middle class versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
For true journalism, check out: The Nation, Democracy Now, Mother Jones, Salon, A More Perfect Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, Greg Palast, Lee Fang, David Cay Johnston, ZNetwork, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes Show, Rick Smith Show, Robert Reich,David Packman Show, Professor Richard Wolff, ProPublica, Project Censored, Freespeech TV.
Southern poverty law center 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
💩
@@jnick2698 you forgot your straight jacket.
@@christmassnow1972
You're a true racist
Truely biased listing of rich people wanting to control the masses. There are rich people behind all those organizations convincing the weak of who is bad... Learn to think for yourself in a way that promotes the freedom of the people vs the control of the rich.
No