City Council Considers Putting Bond or Parcel Tax for Affordable/Workforce Housing on the Ballot

In the first meeting of the new year on January 10, 2022, the Culver City Council picked up the issue of housing with an agenda item to consider a ballot measure on “affordable and workforce housing on a future general municipal election.”  The item was concluded with the council voting four to one for an ad hoc subcommittee to study the proposal. The appointment of Council members Alex Fisch and Yasmine Imani McMorrin moves the item to an unspecified future agenda. 

As with any discussion of housing, public participation was robust. City Clerk Jeremy Green noted that 25 people had requested to speak, and Mayor Dr. Daniel Lee kept the time limit to three minutes, despite the long line; more than an hour later, after everyone from the audience had spoken, the council began their deliberations. 

The proposal from the city focused on raising money for housing by instituting either a a General Obligation Bond, or an additional Parcel Tax. This would raise an approximate $10 million. Data from Culver City’s CFO, Onyx Jones, featured what these options would look like; a bond would deliver an amount as a lump sum, a parcel tax would bring in smaller amounts of money over time. 

Lee read the data collected from a workforce housing survey from the Culver City Unified School District, revealing that only 21% of district employees live in the city, and most employees of the district offered that their commute was within a ten mile radius, and took less than an hour.  Of the respondents, more than 60% said they would be interested in getting rental support to live in the city, and 55% were interested in housing on district property that would be exclusive to district employees.

Council member McMorrin commented that “Folks know that I care deeply about equity…We recognize that our community is our business, our neighbor’s health is our health.  In many of the discussions we have had about housing in 2021, many people commented on the need for affordability, and now whet we are hearing [from the public] is that ‘we don’t want to do it that way.’ We are doing everything we can for our neighbors, from the unhoused all the way up.”

Vice Mayor Albert Vera, Jr. held that that solution could be ‘incentivizing more affordable housing’ via commercial developments already being considered. “I believe housing is our responsibility as well…a lot of residents don’t have [that kind of ] money [as proposed in the parcel tax idea]. Lack of affordable housing is the biggest thing the state is facing. I’m not opposed to studying anything…but what would make more sense is to send it to the FAC (California State Finance Advisory Commission) [rather than expend staff hours]. If this is going to be on the ballot, we need to make sure  it will win.” 

Mayor Lee concluded “I think we should move forward to a ballot measure; I’m inclined more towards the parcel tax option as it provides an ongoing level of funding…I think the complexity of housing and homelessness – and I think we should always speak about those two things together – requires us to have a cache of ready resources that we can deploy each year, and not just once…We do need to do something sooner rather than later.”

As noted by Jones, “Typically, a special tax increase requires a two-thirds vote… the council can put in place today some guidelines on how those funds are to be used going forward.”

The council voted four to one for the ad hoc subcommittee, with Council member Goran Eriksson as the sole no vote. 

Judith Martin-Straw



The Actors' Gang


  1. I believe a lot of residents will be opposed to this measure. I will sell everything and leave Culver City. I’ve had enough!!!7

  2. The council talked about a $10.0M parcel tax, but never mentioned an ending date. Would this be a “Forever Tax?” They also talked about a bond but gave no amount or how it would be spent?
    Candidness: Informing the public will be very important this time around if the council wants to pass these measures. Members should educate the voters—not sell the public–on what is being planned with this tax measure, so voters can make an informed decision on these upcoming measures.
    In the end, the city may decide to pass the $10.0M parcel tax first in order to finance the larger bond’s annual payments. Then, the parcel tax should be tied to the life of the bond.
    The CCUSD has shown interest in piggybacking on the city’s bond measure. But, didn’t our community pass a $106M school bond to fix our crumbling schools in June 2014.
    The estimate at the time for fixing the infrastructure was estimated at $186M. But, the district administration felt the most the board could persuade the public to pass was a $106M bond.
    What about the other $80M worth of upgrading that still needs to be done? If the district is going to try and pass another bond, let it be first to finish the work on our schools before the district moves on to another costly project, such as, building employee housing.
    While on the subject, if district employee housing is now so important to our children’s education success; has the teachers’ union (the CCFT) even mentioned housing–let alone made it tantamount–in their salary negotiations with the district?

    The CCUSD already has $238M (almost a quarter-billion dollars) in long-term liabilities showing on their books. I don’t think now would be a good time for board members to start a wishful-thinking project.
    George Laase

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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