"The veto of #AB309 – revenue neutral cost rental social housing on public land which could be built starting next year – while we only commit to study the issue for another 2-3 years is an insult to the millions of housing cost-burdened residents of California."
How is the governor’s office claiming this will cost hundreds of millions while common ground and other proponents describe it as revenue-neutral? Which is it?
Revenue neutral usually means they project it to be neutral over their chosen time and based on their assumptions. It is for sure not free up front and that is money the government has to spend. It MAY eventually be cost neutral, but there is no guarantee it will nor when that will be.
Thanks. With that in mind, while this seems like a great program, I can understand the governor’s perspective. For better or worse CA is required to maintain a balanced budget so these expenses must be considered.
https://x.com/CACommonGround/status/1710751960381657179?s=20
Common Ground have thoughts on that
"The veto of #AB309 – revenue neutral cost rental social housing on public land which could be built starting next year – while we only commit to study the issue for another 2-3 years is an insult to the millions of housing cost-burdened residents of California."
How is the governor’s office claiming this will cost hundreds of millions while common ground and other proponents describe it as revenue-neutral? Which is it?
Revenue neutral usually means they project it to be neutral over their chosen time and based on their assumptions. It is for sure not free up front and that is money the government has to spend. It MAY eventually be cost neutral, but there is no guarantee it will nor when that will be.
Thanks. With that in mind, while this seems like a great program, I can understand the governor’s perspective. For better or worse CA is required to maintain a balanced budget so these expenses must be considered.