Reposted from University of Miami Office of Civic and Community Engagement
Last November Amendment 1 passed
with resounding support, with 75% approval by voters. The amendment created a
dedicated source of funding for environmental conservation by setting aside 33%
of doc stamp taxes on real estate transactions. As one conservation organization
put it, this “great
bipartisan victory reflects the understanding of Florida voters that
protecting our natural resources protects our economy.”
But a new bill in the state legislature to implement Amendment 1 may end up undermining conservation goals. The bill would significantly reduce the amount of funding going to the Housing Trust Fund, which also receives funding from doc stamp collections. Under
the 1992 Sadowski Act 16% of doc stamp collections are set aside for housing
programs such as homeownership assistance and affordable rental housing
construction and rehabilitation, sorely needed in a state with quickly rising
housing costs and large affordability gaps. But SB 586 would take the percentage of doc
stamp collections for Amendment 1 before
the percentage for housing programs, effectively reducing the amount going to
the Housing Trust Fund.
This year the reduction would be about $110 million, a huge
chunk of the estimated $267 million that should be going to housing programs. This
is a blow after years of decreased funding due the recession and to the
legislature sweeping the funds away from housing to be used for general
revenue. Moreover, the change would be permanent, a permanent reduction of
funds available for housing.
The need for affordable housing in the state is much greater
than what has ever been funded. In urban areas of the state residents spend far
more on housing than the national average, such as Miami-Dade where households
spend an average of 58% of their income
on housing and transportation cost. Federal dollars for housing have been
shrinking for decades, and so states and localities have had to find new
sources of revenue. Florida’s Sadowski Act makes sense for a state where
housing is comparatively inexpensive for out-of-state and international buyers,
but where wages are comparatively low and low-wage industries are a major
source of employment.
In an ideal world environmentalists and housing advocates
would not be pitted against each other, and the state government would
recognize the importance of adequate funding for both. But that is far from the
reality in Florida where the conventional wisdom is that top priority should be
a “business-friendly climate” and that means keeping taxes low. Research
shows however that low taxes are not as important for businesses as quality
of life and a skilled workforce (which are supported by quality housing and
public services).
It’s important for environmentalists and housing advocates
to work together and press their cause together and not be maneuvered into
conflict over pieces of a pie that’s too small. Housing and the environment
are closely tied together in Florida, as the demand for low cost housing pushes
sprawl further into undeveloped areas. This
has been used as an argument
in Miami-Dade for expanding the Urban Development Boundary, and during the late
2000’s housing was constructed on formerly undeveloped land in south Dade as
the central city areas became unaffordable. Pushing moderate and lower income
households out to the urban fringe is a disastrous pattern for both the
environment and for communities who would have even less access to jobs and
face increased commute times and transportation costs.
Conflict between environmental and urban needs is by no
means new in Florida, but as our state’s population continues to grow, urban
areas expand and climate change impacts increase, these conflicts
are likely to become more acute. There is no time like the present to address
the need to conserve natural areas and to address our housing challenges
together. Reduced funding for affordable housing programs will only be
counter-productive for our environment in the long run.
No comments:
Post a Comment