The city is right to be concerned about the legality of its plan
to help public employees purchase homes in Gilroy.
The city is right to be concerned about the legality of its plan to help public employees purchase homes in Gilroy.
The city has $1.47 million in a fund earmarked for housing assistance for public employees that’s been frozen because of worry about potential housing discrimination lawsuits if the money is distributed based on the applicant’s type of employer.
And if even if it’s legal, we’re not convinced it’s right.
We concerned because we don’t like separating people into categories based on their employer – public agencies. We’re not sure it’s fair, right or legal to ask taxpayers to help fund the housing purchases of teachers, city planners, police officers or firefighters in a way that is not available to janitors, store clerks and gardeners, for example, who happen to work for private employers.
We understand that it’s beneficial to the city and the school district if public employees live in the communities they serve. The shortened commute of working and living in the same community can improve employee morale. The problem is this: Both concepts apply equally to private sector employees.
We believe that any housing assistance offered by the City of Gilroy should be based on household size and income, not on job description or employer.
Currently a family of four earning less than $53,050 is considered very low income, while a family of four earning less than $84,900 is considered low income.
Buying a home in Gilroy is going to be difficult for anyone in those income categories, regardless of whether they are employed by the Gilroy Fire Department, the Gilroy Unified School District, Wal-Mart or themselves. Why give a leg up to someone just because his or her employer is a public agency? Why exclude someone who works in the private sector? We can’t think of a good reason.
We’re also concerned because most – if not all – of these public employees targeted by the frozen housing fund are represented by unions that work hard to get the best compensation packages for their members.
Out of respect for taxpayers and the collective bargaining system, any housing assistance offered to public employees ought to be part of the collective bargaining process, not outside of it.
Let’s keep any city-funded housing programs on the wide side of legal and fair by basing eligibility on household size and income alone.
