The cause is noble. Create more housing for low-income families and individuals. But Issue 3, which if passed would require the city to put $50 million into an affordable housing trust fund, is not the right way to go about it.
Affordable housing is a real problem for tens of thousands of city residents. A 2017 study by Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) estimated Cincinnati needs about 28,000 more affordable housing units for poor and working-class families. And the fact that more than 9,200 residents signed a petition to get Issue 3 on Tuesday's primary ballot shows how serious some are about solving the problem.
But just as the need for affordable housing is undeniable, so is the potentially crippling impact of Issue 3 on the city's budget and essential services to the public. City Manager Paula Boggs Muething has called the charter amendment "catastrophic," saying that if it passes, basic services would be dramatically impacted and departments eliminated. Police Chief Eliot Isaac echoed those concerns, fearing an already understaffed police force might be further depleted.
The biggest problem with Issue 3 is that it provides no realistic source to bring in new dollars. For a city that has struggled year after year with multi-million budget deficits and generating new revenue, mandating $50 million annually without a solid funding source could open a Pandora's box of unintended negative consequences. That's not a scare tactic; it's common sense.
Further, the city charter was never intended to be a budgeting tool. The charter establishes the structure of city government. It's not the vehicle to specify the amount for a line item in the city budget. That's the job – for better or worse – for our elected leaders.
Budgets need to adapt to current financial realities and priorities. Dips in revenue require City Council members to balance the budget by making tough decisions on where to cut. Having one line item – albeit an important one – be a sacred cow ties the hands of city leaders who may see the need to protect funding for police, fire and other essential services.
It's true that past city councils have been too passive when it comes to affordable housing. That's why the selection of Cincinnati's next mayor and council is so critical. The best and most reasonable way to affect affordable housing is to elect representatives who will make it a budget priority.
Lastly, the creation of a trust fund oversight committee, appointed by various concerned organizations, should give taxpayers reason to pause. This non-elected board – a shadow government, so to speak – would be responsible for spending tax dollars. Deciding how to spend public dollars needs to be done in a public forum – on the floor of City Council by elected leaders.
This ballot measure has put the city's leadership on notice. The lack of affordable housing in Cincinnati can no longer be ignored. But how you fix a problem is just as, if not more important as making the decision to address it.
Issue 3 is projected to create an average of 500 units of affordable housing each year. With a $50 million minimum investment, that's an average of $100,000 per unit. It's questionable whether that is a good return on investment, especially when cities such as Columbus generate 600-1,000 units of affordable housing each year with far less money.
Ordering $50 million a year in perpetuity for affordable housing sets a bad precedent. What’s the next charter amendment going to be that restricts tax dollars for one line item?
Using the charter as our budgeting process is not wise or sustainable.
Opinion Editor Kevin S. Aldridge writes this on behalf of the editorial board which includes, Editor Beryl Love, Senior News Director for Content Michael Perry, Consumer Marketing Director Denette McCloskey and Editorial Board members Christine Marallen, Gil Spencer and Bonnie Jean Feldkamp.
Source link
