Measure H: Voo Doo Economics For L.A.
The proponents of Measure H blithely claim that it "will cost the average homeowner less than $50 a year, only about $4 a month."
However, when you ask them how they arrived at that number, you know what they say?
Nothing. They have no idea how that figure was concocted. Nor can one find the math on their "yes on H" website, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Is there any provision in Measure H itself limiting homeowners' liability to $50 per year? Of course not. Is there any provision in Measure H putting a cap on the amount, or even the rate, of interest on the bonds that will be issued during the next 10 years if it passes? Nope.
You should therefore give no weight whatsoever to the "$50 per year per homeowner" claim.
You should, moreover, ask the proponents how much government expenditures will have to rise to accomodate the new occupants of the construction Measure H would fund. For example, how many children do they expect to move into the new units, and how much per year will we taxpayers have to spend to educate them? How many of the new, supposedly low-income occupants will be using local emergency rooms as their "free" health plan? How many, statistically speaking, are likely to fill up our jails and courtrooms?
Nor do the proponents of Measure H ever mention how much the owners of real estate other than houses would have to pay to carry the billion-dollars-plus-interest debt -- or from whom those property owners would get the money. Landlords will presumably "pass along" the cost to tenants, thereby driving up the price of housing. Retailers will try to pass along the price to customers, who will either bear the burden or shop in neighboring cities whose merchants will not have to fund the billion-dollar bond. Query how much the City's sales tax revenues will drop as smart shoppers go to, say, Culver City, to avoid the higher prices.
Increased density has a price. There's no reason to believe that price will be just $50 per year.