California Proposition 173, Housing Bond Act (1993)
Proposition 173 would have replaced the First-Time Home Buyers Act of 1982 with a new mortgage insurance program for first-time home buyers. It would have allowed the California government to sell $185 million in authorized, but unsold, bonds remaining under the First-Time Home Buyers Act of 1982 in order to provide funding for the new program.
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
- CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND JOBS INVESTMENT BOND ACT. $185 MILLION LEGISLATIVE BOND ACT.
The ballot summary was:
- This act establishes a comprehensive program to address the severe housing crisis in California by authorizing the issuance of bonds, requires the proceeds of the bonds to be deposited into the California Housing Loan Insurance Fund for the purpose of providing mortgage guaranty insurance for low and moderate income first-time home buyers pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 51600) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, and requires the repayment of General Fund costs from program revenues in excess of required program costs and reserves.
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- The net fiscal effect of this measure on the state is equal to the state's direct cost of paying off the bonds, offset by repayments from the CHFA for the state's debt service costs.
- Direct Cost of Paying Off the Bonds. The cost of paying off the bonds would depend, in part, on whether the interest on the bonds is subject to federal income taxation. If the authorized bonds are sold on a federal income tax-exempt basis at an average interest rate of about 6 percent, the cost would be about $300 million to pay off both the principal ($185 million) and interest ($115 million). The average payment would be about $15 million annually for 20 years. If the bonds are subject to federal taxation, the total cost of paying off the bonds would be somewhat higher.
- Repayment of General Fund Costs. The measure requires the CHFA to set its insurance premiums at a level that will cover its program expenses, including debt repayment. To the extent that the premium rates generate sufficient revenues to offset these costs, then there would be no fiscal effect on the state from adoption of this measure. If not, the state would experience net costs.
Path to the ballot
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 173 on the ballot in Assembly Bill 215 (Statutes of 1993, Chapter 116).
- Official voter pamphlet for the 1993 special election in California
- Hastings California I&R database
- Los Angeles Law Library, 1993 ballot propositions
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |