The next time a developer or a legislator tries to claim more inclusionary zoning will drive up housing costs, or that developers are overtaxed, hand 'em a copy of this article from today's LA Times Click on the link for the full article.... the chart at the end is mind boggling.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-karatz17dec17,1,148471,full.story
How KB Home CEO's Pay Went Through the Roof
KB Home may be the fifth-largest U.S. home builder, but it was No. 1 when it came to pay for its chief executive.Over the last three years, former CEO Bruce Karatz made $232.6 million in compensation. That's nearly three times what the chief executives earned at Pulte Homes Inc. and Centex Corp., which are bigger and more profitable.Among the nation's 12 largest builders, Karatz's closest competition came from Robert Toll, the CEO of Toll Bros. Inc. He pulled in $138.7 million over three years — a sum that Karatz outdid by nearly 70%.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Housing developers can (and should) provide a
percentage of units affordable to lower income
households. A condominium developer in Mendocino
County has agreed to set aside 20% of the units in
his project for lower income, plus another 20% for
moderate income. Click here for details
percentage of units affordable to lower income
households. A condominium developer in Mendocino
County has agreed to set aside 20% of the units in
his project for lower income, plus another 20% for
moderate income. Click here for details
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Prop 1-C Vote Analysis
Prop 1-C, the statewide housing bond, was approved by voters by a comfortable margin in the November election. It will provide $2.8 billion for "housing for persons in need" including low income housing, shelters, supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and housing for farmworkers. Here's a new analysis of who voted for and against the bond.
Although 17 counties still have not completed their counts from the November election, turnout is now up to 8.8 million ballots cast, which represents 55.6% of all registered voters.
Prop. 1C's support is up to 57.8%, with 4,766,514 votes for 1C and 3,484,122 votes against it.
The Public Policy Institute of California today released a statewide survey of voters that breaks down the areas of support for Prop. 1C and other measures and analyzes the reasons for its support. The full poll is available at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1106MBS.pdf
Key findings include:
Democrats supported 1C by a margin of 69-31%.
Independents supported 1C by 57-43%
Republicans opposed 1C, with 40% voting for 1C and 60% voting "no."
When asked to assess the level of state funding for affordable housing now that 1C has passed,
53% said state funding for affordable housing is still "not enough"
14% said it is "more than enough"
20% said it is "just enough"
and 13% expressed no opinion.
Among those who voted yes on 1C,
56% said not enough
6% said more than enough
26% said just enough and
12 % didn't know,
Even among those who voted no on 1C, "not enough" led "more than enough" by almost 2-1:
49% said not enough
27% said more than enough,
14% said just enough and
10% didn't know.
This appears to be good news for the prospects for a permanent source campaign -- most voters think state funding for affordable housing is still insufficient and even those who opposed 1C think funding is too low. It suggests that many who voted no on 1c could be persuaded to vote yes on another housing measure if it is designed well enough to convince them the funds are spent properly.
When 1C supporters were asked why they voted yes, the top answer was
"it's a good cause/people in those circumstances need help" (35%), followed by
important to the future of CA/needed/good idea (27%).
Other reasons included:
Cost of housing is too high (12%)
Emergency shelters are needed (9%)
Endorsed by group or public figure I trust (2%)
Supported by governor/legislature (2%)
Smallest amount of all the bonds (1%)
friends and/or family supported it (1%)
Other reason (6%)
Don't know (5%)
This suggests that our disciplined focus on shelter and those in need was correct. 71% of 1C supporters cited either those in need, the need for shelter or the importance of 1C to the future of California. Only 12% cited the overall lack of affordability in CA, and only 1% cited the relatively small size of the bond.
When 1C opponents were asked why they voted no, the top answer was
bond amount is too much (18%), followed by
state spends too much already (16%)
Other answers included:
won't fix the problem (10%)
I vote no on all bonds (9%)
bond debt is too high already (8%)
state should not subsidize housing (6%)
housing should be pay-as-you-go (4%)
friends/family opposed it (1%)
no need for more shelters (1%)
other (21%) and don't know (6%).
Once again, I find this encouraging for a permanent source campaign because it indicates that relatively low numbers of voters believe the the state should not subsidize housing or there is no need for more shelter. Large portions of "no" voters disagreed with the specifics of 1C, not with the principle of state support for shelter and affordable housing. Thses voters may be willing to support future housing measures if they are satisfied that the amount of funds is correct and the way they are used is proper.
Other findings from the poll:
1C was supported by about 70% of those who voted for Angelides, and by 49% of those who voted for Schwarzenegger.
Support for 1C was higher among women (60%) than men (53%), and higher among Latinos (67%) than among whites (54%).
Not surprisingly, support for 1c was also higher among renters (75%) than homeowners (51%) and among those earning less than $40,000 (64%) than amomg those earning more than $80,000 (51%).
Finally, opinions on whether future funding for housing is sufficient breaks down as follows: 22% of Republicans said funding is more than enough, while 59% of Dems deem it insufficient. 56% of Bay Area voters say funding is too low. 55% of Los Angeles residents agree, as do 47% of Central Valley residents. 58% of renters and 52% of homeowners.
Although 17 counties still have not completed their counts from the November election, turnout is now up to 8.8 million ballots cast, which represents 55.6% of all registered voters.
Prop. 1C's support is up to 57.8%, with 4,766,514 votes for 1C and 3,484,122 votes against it.
The Public Policy Institute of California today released a statewide survey of voters that breaks down the areas of support for Prop. 1C and other measures and analyzes the reasons for its support. The full poll is available at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_1106MBS.pdf
Key findings include:
Democrats supported 1C by a margin of 69-31%.
Independents supported 1C by 57-43%
Republicans opposed 1C, with 40% voting for 1C and 60% voting "no."
When asked to assess the level of state funding for affordable housing now that 1C has passed,
53% said state funding for affordable housing is still "not enough"
14% said it is "more than enough"
20% said it is "just enough"
and 13% expressed no opinion.
Among those who voted yes on 1C,
56% said not enough
6% said more than enough
26% said just enough and
12 % didn't know,
Even among those who voted no on 1C, "not enough" led "more than enough" by almost 2-1:
49% said not enough
27% said more than enough,
14% said just enough and
10% didn't know.
This appears to be good news for the prospects for a permanent source campaign -- most voters think state funding for affordable housing is still insufficient and even those who opposed 1C think funding is too low. It suggests that many who voted no on 1c could be persuaded to vote yes on another housing measure if it is designed well enough to convince them the funds are spent properly.
When 1C supporters were asked why they voted yes, the top answer was
"it's a good cause/people in those circumstances need help" (35%), followed by
important to the future of CA/needed/good idea (27%).
Other reasons included:
Cost of housing is too high (12%)
Emergency shelters are needed (9%)
Endorsed by group or public figure I trust (2%)
Supported by governor/legislature (2%)
Smallest amount of all the bonds (1%)
friends and/or family supported it (1%)
Other reason (6%)
Don't know (5%)
This suggests that our disciplined focus on shelter and those in need was correct. 71% of 1C supporters cited either those in need, the need for shelter or the importance of 1C to the future of California. Only 12% cited the overall lack of affordability in CA, and only 1% cited the relatively small size of the bond.
When 1C opponents were asked why they voted no, the top answer was
bond amount is too much (18%), followed by
state spends too much already (16%)
Other answers included:
won't fix the problem (10%)
I vote no on all bonds (9%)
bond debt is too high already (8%)
state should not subsidize housing (6%)
housing should be pay-as-you-go (4%)
friends/family opposed it (1%)
no need for more shelters (1%)
other (21%) and don't know (6%).
Once again, I find this encouraging for a permanent source campaign because it indicates that relatively low numbers of voters believe the the state should not subsidize housing or there is no need for more shelter. Large portions of "no" voters disagreed with the specifics of 1C, not with the principle of state support for shelter and affordable housing. Thses voters may be willing to support future housing measures if they are satisfied that the amount of funds is correct and the way they are used is proper.
Other findings from the poll:
1C was supported by about 70% of those who voted for Angelides, and by 49% of those who voted for Schwarzenegger.
Support for 1C was higher among women (60%) than men (53%), and higher among Latinos (67%) than among whites (54%).
Not surprisingly, support for 1c was also higher among renters (75%) than homeowners (51%) and among those earning less than $40,000 (64%) than amomg those earning more than $80,000 (51%).
Finally, opinions on whether future funding for housing is sufficient breaks down as follows: 22% of Republicans said funding is more than enough, while 59% of Dems deem it insufficient. 56% of Bay Area voters say funding is too low. 55% of Los Angeles residents agree, as do 47% of Central Valley residents. 58% of renters and 52% of homeowners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
