The Voters Pamphlet will be mailed out the first week in October. A copy can be accessed here:
Page 12 explains Proposition No. 1 – Extending Conservation Area Real Estate Excise Tax. Page 13 presents advocacy arguments. In the argument for, first paragraph, last sentence, it states:
Your Yes vote also preserves the Home Fund for Affordable Housing!
The above sentence is misleading and contrary to statements made by director of the Land Bank in a LB meeting on March 15. The sentence suggests voting No on Proposition No. 1 would discontinue the home fund for affordable housing. The following link is video of that meeting is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhhsbntxXD0
Beginning at 1:19:46 on the meeting clock the following questions are posed: “If we do not get reauthorized, the housing REET can continue until the end of their period of time which I think is the end of 2030, correct? So they don’t go away immediately? They get to go to the end? ” Director Lincoln Bormann replies “I think that’s up for debate, certainly it would end at 2030, but whether it ends before that is an open question?” Bormann’s reply does not correspond with the noted “argument for” sentence. Voting for Proposition 1 will NOT preserve the Home Fund for Affordable Housing.
Both the LB REET and affordable housing REET are authorized through 2026. Nothing changes until the end of 2026. The noted underlined sentence above conveniently omits a relevant timeline. Voting Yes or No on Proposition No 1 will have NO EFFECT on the LB REET or the affordable housing REET until the end of 2026.
The noted sentence in the argument for is an attempt to coerce voters into believing the affordable housing REET could be lost by voting no on Proposition No. 1 on Nov. 5. The LB is using the Affordable Housing REET as a hook to sustain the Land Bank REET. The Land Bank REET and the Affordable Housing REET should be reckoned separately on their own merit.
Ron Whalen,
San Juan Island
