HOUSING PROTECTION

Supporters of state-subsidized housing tried several well-reasoned arguments for protecting its portion of the real estate transfer tax during recent legislative sessions, but the state’s Housing Opportunities for Maine Fund gets raided regularly anyway. That leaves the recently passed LD 936, which simply prohibits by statute further diversion of funds.

That is a fine sentiment and well worth stating, but statutes remain in effect only as long as 51 percent of the Legislature says they do. The latest budget that passed, with diverted money from the HOME Fund, got more than 66 percent of the vote.

If subsidized housing is going to continue to make a major difference in Maine, it will do so with lawmakers and the public appreciating the well-reasoned arguments. A few of those are that the $7.5 million annual HOME funding leverages more than $52 million in additional funding, creating 570 jobs and paying back one-third of the transfer tax to the state General Fund. Providing housing to homeless families brings stability to children’s lives and increases their safety. Grants for making homes accessible for people with disabilities means that residents can remain at home longer, which often is better for their health and better for the state’s purse. A home gives families a stake in their communities and lets them build equity.

Maine has a relatively high rate of home ownership but a lot of substandard homes. It has an older population whose homes may need to be made accessible. It has housing shortages in its service centers, where jobs are available for people who can get to them. It has potential first-time homebuyers who need a small amount of temporary help for longtime gains.

Lawmakers who take even 15 minutes to look into this fund would find it makes good, practical sense for Maine, but in budget after budget, they have overridden the language of the law that directs the transfer tax to this valuable endeavor and used the money to fill the holes in other programs. In fairness to lawmakers, those programs often are valuable, too. But a final reason for protecting this important program is that lawmakers not only said they would, but also dedicated a tax to supporting it.

To take that tax money for other purposes breaks faith with those who paid it. Even more than well-reasoned arguments, legislators take notice of unhappy taxpayers.