Press Democrat Poll shows tight race for Sonoma County housing bond

A majority of Sonoma County voters support the $300 million housing bond that county supervisors plan to place on the ballot this fall, but that support will need to grow between now and November for the proposal to pass, according to The Press Democrat Poll.

A bond measure to boost production of affordable housing in the county was supported by 62 percent of respondents in the poll. The figure is 4 points short of the 66.6 percent required for approval in November, a gap almost equal to the poll’s 4.4 percent margin of error.

The results are a sign that supporters have work to do if they hope to succeed, said David Binder, whose San Francisco firm conducted the poll for The Press Democrat.

“I would be concerned more than encouraged if I was someone trying to pass this,” said Binder. “It’s tight.”

Advocates say their polling shows stronger public support for the measure, which they contend is the fastest, most effective way to help resolve a housing crisis that only deepened after the October wildfires destroyed 5,283 homes in Sonoma County.

Sonoma County supervisors, who have called for the construction of 30,000 units over the next five years, have supported putting what is being called a “Housing Recovery Bond” on the November ballot. A formal vote is expected this summer.

The Press Democrat Poll found 37 percent of voters strongly support the idea and 25 percent somewhat support it. When combined, the results indicate 62 percent of voters favor the housing bond.

Conducted May 2 to May 7, the poll connected with 500 Sonoma County voters by landline and cellphone.

It targeted voters who had cast ballots in the November 2016 election and at least one other election since November 2012.

The 4 percent gap may seem easy to overcome, especially with so much time before the election, Binder said. But the level of opposition should concern advocates, he said.

The poll found 31 percent of voters were against the measure. It includes 23 percent who strongly opposed it and 8 percent who said they somewhat opposed it. Such high opposition is “dicey,” Binder said.

“You only need one third to kill it,” he said.

Only 7 percent of the respondents said they didn’t know how they felt about it, which is pretty low, he said.

“There is not a lot of swing (voters) to go after if you’re trying to pass this,” Binder said. “It’s certainly winnable, but there is not a lot of room for error.”

Supporters of the measure have taken two polls, one last year and one earlier this year, the latest one showing significantly stronger support than indicated in The Press Democrat Poll.

A poll of 1,200 people conducted in January by EMC Research showed 66 percent of people would vote yes on such a measure and 5 percent were leaning toward voting yes, for total support of 71 percent.

‘Incredibly misleading’

Santa Rosa City Councilman Jack Tibbetts, an advocate for the housing bond, said the description of the housing bond in The Press Democrat Poll was “incredibly misleading” and resulted in higher levels of opposition.

The Press Democrat Poll asked voters: “Would you support or oppose the Sonoma County Supervisors proposal of a $300 million dollar bond measure to help subsidize the construction of tens of thousands of new homes in the region including many affordable housing units?”

Tibbetts said the phrasing of the question, especially the “tens of thousands of new homes,” immediately conjures up images of urban sprawl, traffic and single-family home subdivisions gobbling up open space.

“There are huge negatives embedded in that question,” Tibbetts said.

The question mentions affordable housing almost as an afterthought, when in fact the measure would support only affordable units for low- and moderate-income families in infill areas near transit, he said.

The EMC poll includes far more details about who the measure would help and how. It asks if people would support a measure “up to $370 million” to acquire property “to provide affordable local housing for vulnerable people and families, including low- and middle-income families, veterans, seniors and persons with disabilities, provide supportive housing for the homeless that includes mental health and substance abuse services; and help low- and middle-income households purchase homes in their communities.”

Tibbetts said the size of the poll and the track record of EMC Research in communities where housing bonds have passed, like San Francisco and Alameda counties, convince him that local support is strong.

Opposing viewpoints

Healdsburg resident Jake Rutherford strongly supports the measure, with a few caveats.

“It’s long overdue,” said Rutherford, a 76-year-old retired physician.

Rutherford used to live in Key West, Florida, and he saw firsthand how the failure to produce workforce housing caused a crisis that forced businesses to bring in workers from Miami.

Local governments relying on “sugar daddy” developers to include a few affordable units in their market-rate projects hasn’t worked, at least in Healdsburg, Rutherford said. He thinks 100 percent of the money should be used for people who make below median income, and that they should get an ownership stake in the property as an incentive, he said.

“We want to have workers who stay here,” he said.

But other folks are concerned about the scale of the endeavor.

Susan Kegley believes more housing is needed in Sonoma County but thinks the call for 25,000 new units is overkill. The 61-year-old owner of a Santa Rosa flower farm said she can’t turn left out of her Petaluma Hill Road driveway at rush hour as it is.

“We don’t have the infrastructure to support that kind of population,” Kegley said.

Her opposition softened somewhat, however, when she was informed that much of the housing was envisioned for infill areas near transit. Even so she said she’d rather see a smaller bond measure, perhaps a quarter of the size of what’s being proposed.

Supporters say the bond will provide matching funds that can be used to leverage additional state, federal and private dollars, magnifying the impact of the bond and boosting the local economy in the process.

They say 75 percent of the money, or $225 million, would go toward a variety of affordable housing types, including rental housing, supportive housing for people who were formerly homeless, mobile home parks and farmworker housing.

The remaining 25 percent, or $75 million, would focus on homeownership, including helping low- and middle-income victims of the October wildfires rebuild their homes, down payment assistance and nontraditional approaches to homeownership, including rent-to-own.

Property owners would be responsible for repaying the bonds over 26 years. It would cost property owners about $19.53 annually per $100,000 of assessed value - or about $97 per year for a half-million dollar home - to pay off the bonds, which are expected to have an interest rate of 4.56 percent.

Demographic differences

The poll results showed significant differences between supporters and opponents, especially in age and political affiliation.

Nearly 75 percent of residents under the age of 45 supported the measure, while just 56 percent over 45 did so.

The strongest support of any age group came from millennials (ages 18 to 37), 79 percent of whom supported the measure. Younger voters may tend to believe the bond will help them afford to live in Sonoma County or purchase a home here, while older adults who already own their homes might not feel the measure benefits them, Binder said.

There was also sharply different support between registered Democrats and Republicans.

The bond measure was supported by 73 percent of people identifying as liberal Democrats and 66 percent of progressive Democrats. In contrast, only 35 percent of conservative Republicans and 56 percent of moderate Republicans supported the measure.

There was also a noticeable difference between renters, 73 percent of whom supported the bond, and homeowners, 54 percent of whom supported it.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 707-521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.