No on Prop 41: The State of California Can’t Be Trusted

Brian Brady Brian Brady 5 Comments


Proposition 41 seeks to address the problem of homlessness among veterans and that is a noble pursuit.  It authorizes $600 million of already approved (but unissued) housing bonds to be issued, with the proceeds to be repurposed for the construction of multi-family housing units for low-income and homeless veterans and their families.  It is endorsed by by both political parties, The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and most major dailies including the UT-San Diego.

I recommend that this proposition be defeated because I asked this question:

Should we trust the same people who gave us the crazy train with this task? 

The State of California is a horrible steward of public monies.  It rarely comes in on budget, belittles and defames its critics, and operates with impunity for the citizens.  In my opinion, this $600 million project will turn into a $2 billion project and those who would ask for accountability will be demagogued.

This project is less than $20 per California citizen.  Public spending is money which is forcibly taken from free people for a common goal.  The question is not whether this goal is a legitimate role of government; it is.  Providing for the men and women who serve to protect this nation is one of the few roles we delegate to our government but this government, specifically the State of California, has proven to squander public monies.

If the proposal was to issue these bonds and give the proceeds to the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, I’d get behind it in a heartbeat.  Both organizations would watch those public funds like hawks and execute the mission flawlessly.  But those organizations are laser-focused to achieve objectives– the bureaucracy just sees another boondoggle and jobs patronage for its supporters.

I recommend NO on PROPOSITION 41.  The State of California can’t be trusted to get the job done.


Comments 5

  1. Totally agree. The State of California would get their hands on the money and it would disappear. I bet a dime to a dollar the money would be used on the train from hell project or some other stupid use and not be used to help the homeless vets.

  2. The Veterans and downtown Homeless tents will be closing on June 30, 2014 due to a lack of identified funding.

    The Federal goal of ending chronic and Veterans homeless by 2015, in a year and a half cannot be met without Proposition 41.

    Toni Atkins wrote the bill. Previously voters already approved by more than 2/3 over a Billion for Veterans Homeownership, Farm Ownership, and Mobile Home Ownership. With only 50% passing, Proposition 41would allow a majority of the existing approved bonds to be used for Affordable Housing including homeless, supportive housing, and multi-family housing.

    The previous bonds for Veterans Homeownership were never used because the Federal Department of Veterans Affairs had better terms for Veterans, then the unused State program.

    State Politicians would have used the money illegally, if they could. But the Housing Bill does not allow for slight of hand.

  3. Mayor Kevin Faulconer stated that the City of San Diego will come up with shovel-ready projects when Proposition 41 passes in less than 3 weeks.

    See Page 9 for our 2010 recommendations include the following:

    Acquire the 26-acre Midway Post Office as a Veterans Campus. Additional multi-family residential units can be built on the 10+ acres of asphalt parking. Veterans Homeless could be ended in San Diego County immediately. Modeled after the nearby Veterans Village of San Diego.

    • 500 Units/Beds at Father Joe’s Village with Chelsea Development, located at 1402 Commercial Street in the East Village on property owned by St. Vincent de Paul- Construction cost $43 Million.

    • Acquisition and conversion of the 225-bed Sharp Cabrillo Hospital in the Midway area for long-term Medical care and a Hospital specifically for the Homeless and indigent Veteran related communities.

    • Two rural ranches in the backcountry of San Diego County to allow multiple siblings to stay together, under one roof. Owned by St. Vincent de Paul. The 118-acre Flying A Ranch near Lake Morena and the 600-acre Promise Land Ranch in Campo, California.

    The solution for the Affordable Housing Linkage Fees should be part of FY-2015 Budget to take back all Successor Agency assets from City staff, a redirect neighborhoods.

  4. Brian, I agree with you — opposing Prop 41. Let me add some additional reasons:

    Most people and groups support this measure. Even taxpayer groups. But most supporters (even taxpayer groups) think that it’s like the previous veterans bonds in that it’s self-funding (the previous veteran MORTGAGE bonds were paid for by the vets).

    But this measure is a labor union and nonprofit boondoggle that will spend a lot of money for doubtful value and zero taxpayer reimbursement. Redundant veterans’ programs will have fat budgets and zero performance requirements.

    The building of veterans’ housing will be incredibly overpriced “affordable” housing – built with “prevailing wage” labor union requirements. The cost per assisted vet will be absurdly high.

    Moreover, we don’t think it’s the job of the STATE governments to take care of military veterans – there are numerous federal programs, plus many nonprofits and charities helping vets.

    Finally, the $50 million annual bond payment is a NEW expenditure and ongoing obligation. To gain SD Tax Fighters’ support, we’d like to see a CUT in some other program spending (or public employee compensation) to make the prop revenue neutral.

    Prop 41 is a “feel good” measure that will pass with overwhelming majorities, but sadly few understand this very different veterans’ bond measure than the self-funded mortgage bonds of years past – it’s a sop to the labor unions at taxpayer expense.

  5. Instead of trying to redistribute monies not spent, why not give it back to the people? Apparently the original bond, Prop 12 (from 5 years ago) wasn’t well thought out and the remainder needs to be given back. What a concept, huh? But we can never expect the state of California to ever think that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.