Affordable housing isn’t causing Culver City’s budget woes
Culver City is in a fiscal crisis. That much is true. But Jubilo Village — the affordable housing development with 93 apartments for low income families — isn’t the financial disaster that affordable housing opponents claim it to be.
First we need to understand some budget basics. The city’s structural deficit — where our yearly spending exceeds what we collect in taxes and fees — is the real long-term threat to our financial stability. We're losing $14 million every year.
Unless the deficit is addressed, the city's reserves (think of them like an emergency fund) will be gone in the next 5 years whether or not the city cancels this affordable housing development.
Much of the funding for Jubilo Village comes from restricted housing funds that cannot be used for general city operations like parks, police, or fire. A sizable portion also comes from the city’s reserves, but even after this allocation, our reserves would still sit above 20% — higher than neighboring cities like Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Manhattan Beach.
The city has a higher self-imposed 30% reserve policy, but because of other spending, we would fall short of that requirement even without funding Jubilo Village.
And this isn’t the first time we’ve fallen short of the self-imposed reserve policy. It’s just the first time someone’s tried to use the 30% reserve policy as an excuse to kill an affordable housing development.
The deficit is the real problem because it’s going to deplete our reserves in a few years. So how does Jubilo Village impact the yearly general fund deficit? Well, because nearly all of the money for Jubilo Village comes from restricted funds and reserves, less than $500,000 from the general fund is going to Jubilo Village in fiscal year 2025-2026 — a drop in the bucket compared to the broader budget.
Affordable housing opponents are framing Jubilo Village as the problem while ignoring the real issue: how the city budget is built and who has a say in it. The city manager — who is not elected — drafts the budget largely behind closed doors. The City Council gets less than a month to review it, with no ability to make major changes, and residents have almost no meaningful input.
If the city manager is truly worried about depleting our reserves, why didn't he propose a budget that attempts to close the deficit? Why did he push back when city council members asked to be included in any conversation on potential cuts?
It’s no wonder so many in our community feel the current budget doesn’t reflect the priorities of the community. If and when there are cuts made and the budget deficit is closed, should the cuts reflect the preferences of an unelected official who was appointed decades ago, or the preferences of the residents of Culver City today?
Jubilo Village itself is a priority for the residents of Culver City today. For years, we’ve heard our neighbors demanding more affordable housing. And when it seemed like the city funding for Jubilo Village wouldn’t come through, hundreds of residents emailed the city and rallied at the City Council meeting demanding they find the funds to get this housing built.
The affordable housing opponents claim their opposition is about “fiscal responsibility,” but they're giving you a false choice. We can be fiscally responsible and invest in our community’s future. To do that, we need a budget process that’s transparent, inclusive, and actually reflects the values of Culver City’s residents.
And look at the graph above. If you wanted to reduce the deficit, what would you cut? Wouldn't it be nice if the city took into account what you think about it?