`AFFORDABLE HOUSING' IS A MISNOMER LOCAL VIEW.

Byline: Victor N. Viereck

``AFFORDABLE housing'' can sound so good, until you get into the details.

As a Realtor, I became a member of the Los Angeles Affordable Housing Crisis Task Force in November 1999.

After an initial session at which task force members were informed of the scarcity of ``affordable'' apartments, and how the quoted current rent level (above many rents I was aware of) relates to the hourly pay of the low-income tenants, we were taken on a tour of several impressive nonprofit affordable housing buildings.

Many of these buildings (particularly the masonry buildings) were previously not profitable in the private sector. Now the public is paying the difference.

Major sources of funding for these projects are mitigation fees, inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees, low-income housing tax credits and Community Redevelopment Agency tax increment bond proceeds.

These fees increase the cost of housing for all tenants living in other buildings.

The tax credits help large syndicated projects, but are useless for the many thousands of local mom-and-pop owners of small, older buildings which are in desperate need of rehabilitation.

Due to the nature and extravagant administration of the Community Redevelopment Agency tax increments, homeowners of all income levels are being overtaxed to subsidize ``affordable housing.''

The public is not even allowed to vote on CRA bonds.

Generally, nonprofit affordable housing apartment buildings are exempt from payment of property taxes. While all of the occupants of the nonprofits benefit from a variety of public services (education, police, libraries, etc.), the costs of those services are paid for by homeowners and other property owners.

After the tour, the task force split into six subcommittees. The funding subcommittee discussed and recommended a variety of sources to provide about $95 million annually for an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Those sources included taking a portion of current and increased transiency (on hotels and motels) fees, assessing inclusionary and linkage fees on new residential and commercial developments respectively, taking $10 million of the expected $30 million savings from elimination of the Central Business District Community Redevelopment Agency, levying fees on water usage above a certain level, and using a portion of citywide property tax growth.

Until the cause of the affordable housing crisis is eliminated, all of the additional fees, taxes and inclusionary requirements will only exacerbate the problem.

The Rent Stabilization Ordinance, commencing in 1979, followed by confiscatory capital improvement pass-through restrictions and relocation assistance requirements, started the downward spiral by eliminating the ability of many owners to maintain their older property.

The federal Tax Reform Act of 1986 replaced tax incentives for investment in apartments with a variety of restrictions.

Subject to the availability of water, energy and transportation, if investors are allowed the incentives they used to have, the affordable housing crisis would disappear without using a dime of taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Otherwise, in spite of growing unmet needs of the public, investors will invest elsewhere, and the taxpayers will be victimized again.

Know how eager the candidates are to waste your money when you vote on June 5.