• 0
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

Shopping Cart

GPAM
  • Home
  • About Us
  • What We Do

California voters set to reject easing of developer fees

Voters look set to reject California’s Prop 13
Voters look set to reject California’s Prop 13

Another day, another defeat for incentivising multifamily apartment developments in California.

Voters who went to the polls Tuesday look poised to reject Proposition 13, a bond measure about school funding but one that also includes a provision to wipe out one-time fees for developers who build multifamily apartments near transit stops.

The measure had 55.9 percent “no” votes and 44.1 percent “yes” votes as of this morning, according to the California Secretary of State’s office, with all the state’s precincts reporting but ballot counts ongoing.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Prop 13 actually has a majority “yes” votes so far in Los Angeles County, which would be one of the area’s most affected by the measure’s developer component.

Written by Patrick O’Donnell, a Long Beach Democrat and state assembly member, Prop 13 has nothing to do with the famous anti-tax measure California voters passed in 1978 that freezes all commercial and residential property taxes at one percent yearly increases unless the parcel changes hands.

Instead, Prop 13 proposed that the state of California borrow $15 billion from the bond market, and use that money to improve school facilities including elementary schools, high schools, community colleges, and four-year universities. The state fiscal analyst’s office anticipated that paying back lenders with interest would cost taxpayers $26 billion.

Also part of Part 13 was a clause that school districts “would be prohibited from assessing developer fees on multifamily residential developments (such as apartment complexes) located within a half-mile of a major transit stop (such as a light rail station).”

The measure would additionally reduce fees for all multifamily residential developments by 20 percent.

According to the legislative analyst’s office, 90 percent of all California school districts used these fees at least once since 2002, and the fees generated $10 billion toward state schools in that time.

Prop 13’s likely defeat comes one month after state legislators narrowly rejected Senate Bill 50, a landmark attempt to allow multifamily apartments near transit stops even in instances where those developments don’t conform with city zoning laws.

It also comes amid heated debate on the federal, state, and local level on how to address California’s housing shortage and homelessness epidemic.

Housing and homelessness took centerstage in the race for an open seat on the powerful five-person Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which dictates the budget of county housing services among other powers.

Herb Wesson, the outgoing Los Angeles City Council president, and State Sen. Holly Mitchell look headed for a run-off in that race, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Wesson’s housing track record includes a push for affordable housing units in all forthcoming L.A. developments. Mitchell’s record includes opposition to SB 50.

The post California voters set to reject easing of developer fees appeared first on The Real Deal Los Angeles.

Powered by WPeMatico

  • 04 March 2020
  • The Real Deal
  • Uncategorized
  •  Like
Thank you, Ken Griffin? Alexander Team cleans up at The Ellies →← Mamo pays $67M to take control of Long Beach shopping center
  • Recent Posts

    • Pasadena Office Tower loses more than half its value in a decade, worth less than debt tied to it July 12, 2025
    • Newsom: Eaton Fire utility lawsuits could stretch already “stressed” California Wildfire Fund July 12, 2025
    • DTLA’s One California Plaza value plummets 74%, lands in foreclosure July 11, 2025
    • Los Angeles city planners give blessing to DTLA mixed-use complex July 11, 2025
    • Residential Movers & Shakers: Brian Sperry shuffles from Coldwell Banker to Compass July 11, 2025
  • Recent Comments

    • Archives

      • July 2025
      • June 2025
      • May 2025
      • April 2025
      • March 2025
      • February 2025
      • January 2025
      • December 2024
      • November 2024
      • October 2024
      • September 2024
      • August 2024
      • July 2024
      • June 2024
      • May 2024
      • April 2024
      • March 2024
      • February 2024
      • January 2024
      • December 2023
      • February 2023
      • January 2023
      • December 2022
      • November 2022
      • October 2022
      • September 2022
      • August 2022
      • July 2022
      • June 2022
      • May 2022
      • April 2022
      • March 2022
      • February 2022
      • January 2022
      • December 2021
      • November 2021
      • October 2021
      • September 2021
      • August 2021
      • July 2021
      • June 2021
      • May 2021
      • April 2021
      • March 2021
      • February 2021
      • January 2021
      • December 2020
      • November 2020
      • October 2020
      • September 2020
      • August 2020
      • July 2020
      • June 2020
      • May 2020
      • April 2020
      • March 2020
      • February 2020
      • January 2020
      • December 2019
      • November 2019
      • October 2019
      • September 2019
      • August 2019
      • July 2019
      • June 2019
      • May 2019
      • April 2019
      • March 2019
      • February 2019
      • January 2019
      • December 2018
      • November 2018
      • October 2018
      • September 2018
      • August 2018
      • July 2018
      • June 2018
      • May 2018
      • April 2018
      • March 2018
      • February 2018
      • January 2018
      • December 2017
    • Global Property and Asset Mangement, Inc.
      137 North Larchmont
      Los Angeles, California 90010
      +1 213-427-1127

    © 2025 GPAM