Proposition 1: California Veteran and Housing Assistance Programs Bond Measure

Prop 1 would deliver the funding to build about 45,000 subsidized homes (https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/news/nearly-45000-affordable-homes-california-stalled-without-additional-funding) that are already fully designed, permitted, and ready to break ground.

Bonds are required to fund this construction because California shut down ongoing funding in 2012 when the Legislature dissolved local redevelopment agencies. Prior to 2012, more than $1B per year (https://www.novoco.com/periodicals/articles/rdas-closure-shuts-door-affordable-housing-development) was available to build low-income housing, but ever since it has been paid for by one-time bonds that voters are required to approve: $2.1B in 2002, $2.85B in 2006, $4B in 2018 (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2018). Each bond gets fully committed to projects across the state, and then the pipeline freezes until the next voter-approved bond. That is a terrible way to fund something you need every year, and it is fair for voters to be annoyed by it.

But the good news is that these bonds work. Averaged across past bonds, every $100,000 of state money turns into a home for a low-income family trying to make ends meet. As of June 2024, the 2018 bond delivered or funded 22,735 homes with the $2.34B awarded so far (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/policy-and-research/plan-report/annual-report-23-24.pdf). Note, however, that not all have been built; those homes are at every stage from just-funded to fully-occupied.

Unfortunately, costs have risen from about $100,000 per home to about $250,000, so we estimate this $11B bond will fund about 40,000 homes (https://housingca.org/news-media/statements/sb-417-approved-by-senate-housing-committee/).

We want to note that California is particularly expensive because of high labor costs and expensive design rules that the government requires for these projects. RAND found (https://www.rand.org/news/press/2025/04/cost-to-build-multifamily-housing-in-california-more.html) that California builds subsidized housing at 1.5 times the cost of market-rate housing here, and four times the Texas average.

Voters must choose between funding a program that's expensive but works, or waiting for regulators to fix their self-imposed high construction costs. We think voters should authorize the bond and push for better cost controls. Every year a permitted project waits, its costs climb and its financing has to be rebuilt (https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/blog/reducing-the-complexity-in-californias-affordable-housing-finance-system/), so a delay itself burns public money. Vote Yes on Prop 1 to build the homes California has already approved.

Source (https://growsf.org/voter-guide/san-francisco-voter-guide-november-2026-election#prop-1)

Prop 1 would refill the state’s coffers for affordable housing to the tune of $11.25 billion doll-hairs! Most of that would go to building and renovating affordable apartments, with smaller amounts going to programs that support veterans, farmworkers, students, Native American tribal members, renters, and other Californians struggling to afford housing. In general, bonds are a good way to cover priorities with a high price tag (and goddess knows building in CA ain’t cheap!).  We especially like that Prop 1 tackles the “3 P’s” of affordable housing: production of new housing, preservation of existing units, and protections against displacement. As with all bonds, this one needs ⅔ of the vote to pass so let’s vote Hell Yes on Prop 1!

Source (https://www.theleaguesf.org/#Prop1)

This fall, California voters will vote on an $11.25 billion bond measure, Proposition 1, to fund housing programs, including Affordable Housing construction. California YIMBY recommends a “yes” vote on Prop 1. This analysis is intended to explain what Affordable Housing is, how Prop 1 dollars will be used, and what effect the measure will have. What Does “Affordable Housing” Mean And How Is It Different From Housing Affordability? When most people talk about “affordable housing” in casual conversation, they are referring to market rate housing that fits within their personal budget or homes that middle class people can afford. That is not how policymakers use this phrase. In housing policy conversations, “Affordable Housing” is a technical term that refers to price-regulated housing for people making specified incomes (more on this in a moment).

SPUR's Recommendation

California’s housing affordability crisis continues to worsen, largely because of a supply shortage and inadequate funding to build more. Even with lower construction costs, affordable housing construction and preservation would still require significant, consistent government subsidies. Thousands of approved affordable housing projects have stalled because of a lack of financing.

General obligation bonds are needed periodically to replenish funding for the state’s main affordable housing finance programs. Prop. 1’s proposed bond funds pair with state and federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits to finance affordable housing developments. This measure is critical to expanding affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents across California through new construction, preservation, and homebuyer assistance. Funds would be distributed through well-established state programs with a proven track record of success.

What Prop. 1 Would Do

According to the California Housing Partnership, Proposition 1 will help finance more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable rental homes and help 20,000 California households attain homeownership. The bond proceeds would replenish key long-standing state affordable housing financing programs and be allocated as follows:

$5.10 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program. At least 10% of units in each development receiving these funds must be affordable to extremely low-income households.

$1.25 billion in self-supporting revenue bonds for the CalVet Home Loan Program to help veterans and military families buy a home. These bonds are repaid entirely through mortgage payments and do not rely on taxpayer funding.

$1.15 billion for supportive housing administered through the Multifamily Housing Program. The program requires funding to create a reserve account to cover operating deficits for developments receiving funding.

$750 million for the Portfolio Reinvestment Program to rehabilitate and extend the long-term affordability of state-funded multifamily rental housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.

$600 million for the CalHOME Program for new construction of affordable ownership homes.

$500 million for the My Home down payment assistance program for lower- and moderate-income households.

$500 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019 for grants supporting infrastructure needed to support developing affordable and mixed-income housing in infill locations.

$450 million to the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Program to fund grants or loans for the construction or rehabilitation of housing for agricultural employees and their families.

$350 million for new affordable student housing projects split evenly between the University of California and California State University systems.

$200 million for the Tribal Housing Grant Program to finance housing and housing-related activities enabling tribes to rebuild and reconstitute their communities.

$200 million for a program to be created by the Legislature that funds acquisition and rehabilitation of unrestricted housing units (i.e., unsubsidized housing that may naturally be affordable) and the attachment of long-term affordability restrictions to the units.

$200 million to the Local Housing Trust Fund Program to fund competitive grants and loans to local housing trust funds that develop, own, lend, or create or preserve affordable housing.

The Backstory

The state has historically used voter-approved general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing programs. In 2018, voters approved Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, which provided $4 billion in funding, including $1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs program and $3 billion for various affordable housing programs. As of fiscal year 2023–24, when the 2018 Prop. 1 bond funding ran out, 22,735 units of housing had been produced.

Enterprise Community Partners’ 2026 California Affordable Housing Production Pipeline report, released in March, found that nearly 40,000 approved affordable housing units are frozen due to a lack of funding and could be built with this new financing source.

The proposed bond has undergone a rigorous process and has broad support. Over the past four years, the Legislature has introduced various affordable housing bond measures, including bills by Assemblymember Wicks and Senator Cabaldon. Those bills have moved through the legislative process over the past year and a half, giving the members of the Legislature multiple opportunities to negotiate the terms. Governor Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Limón, and Assembly Speaker Rivas negotiated final amendments for the authorizing legislation, SB 417, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. The State Legislature voted with supermajorities in each house to place the proposition on the November 2026 ballot.

Legislative analyses of the measure find the total cost to pay off the bonds would be approximately $17.39 billion in principal and interest. Average annual debt service payments from the State’s General Fund are estimated at approximately $580 million when all bonds are sold, assuming an interest rate of 4.02% and a 30-year maturity. This amount of annual debt service represents about 0.26% of the State’s General Fund budget.

According to the State of California Debt Affordability Report issued by the state treasurer in October 2025, California’s ratio of General Fund-supported debt service to General Fund revenues was 3.59% in fiscal year 2024–25 and was estimated to be 3.95% in fiscal year 2025–26*.* This ratio is in line with the 4% historical average for bonded indebtedness.

A simple majority (50% plus one vote) of California voters is required to pass Prop. 1.

Equity Impacts

The Bay Area Equity Atlas finds that all nine Bay Area counties struggle to come anywhere close to meeting their state-mandated share of new housing construction. In 2023 and 2024, the Bay Area permitted just 9% of its required units, including only 5% of required very-low-income units and 10% of required low-income units.

This lack of affordable housing options increases displacement pressures on lower-income households and households of color. The Bay Area Equity Atlas’s Black Communities and the Bay Area's Housing Crisis report, published in April 2025, found the Bay Area lost more than 5,000 Black-owned households during the 2010s, with significant declines in historic Black communities in the East Bay, San Francisco, and Solano County, while the number of Black renter households increased by just 300.

Sufficient funding to create below-market-rate rental and homeownership opportunities will help address the affordability challenges and displacement pressures faced by lower-income households, Black households, and other households of color.

Pros

• The state faces a chronic affordable housing crisis that cannot be addressed without significant ongoing public investment to lower housing costs for lower-income households.
• The bond would make the most of recent federal changes to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program that allow California to nearly double its affordable housing production: if the state invests $4.1 billion annually, it can leverage $6.7 billion in available federal funding.
• The funding would be distributed through existing state programs with a proven track record of producing affordable housing options for lower-income residents.
• The Bay Area is well positioned to use the funds effectively, given the number of highly effective nonprofit affordable housing developers here.

Con

• The bond would contribute to the state’s debt burden, with debt service on the bond representing 0.26% of the overall State General Fund budget.

Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-1-affordable-housing-bond)

No on Prop 1: Borrows $11.25 Billion for Costly Housing Projects

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.

Source (https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/san-diego)

NO on Prop. 1

Called the “Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026,” this is $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds with only $1.25 billion allocated to benefit veterans. The rest will finance other housing assistance programs. Bonds are borrowed money. Like all general obligation bonds, the actual cost to taxpayers will be roughly double the advertised amount due to interest that must be paid to investors. Bonds are the most expensive way to pay for anything, and when used to pay for programs instead of capital projects, it’s a much greater burden on taxpayers than just paying for these programs from the budget.

Vote NO on 1.

Source (https://www.hjta.org/2026votingguide#Ballot-Measure-Recommendations)

Prop 1 - Authorizes Bonds for Housing

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 1

Housing affordability? Sounds appealing. Increases in costs ranging from $500 to 600 million annually for 25 years? Not so much — when taxpayers are on the hook. This already was a failed 2024 ballot measure. And is another slush fund for insiders.

Vote NO on Proposition 1

Source (https://www.connectedsf.com/2026-voter-guide#prop-1)

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.

Bond to fund private housing for veterans

Source (https://www.sfgreenparty.org/endorsements/123-november-2026-endorsements)

Endorsement: NO on Proposition 1

Housing affordability? Sounds appealing. Increases in costs ranging from $500 to 600 million annually for 25 years? Not so much — when taxpayers are on the hook. This already was a failed 2024 ballot measure. And is another slush fund for insiders.

Vote NO on Proposition 1

Is the answer to California’s housing crisis more bonds and more debt? Of course not. 

Yet that’s what’s being pitched with Proposition 1. 

Placed on the ballot by the California Legislature via Senate Bill 417 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB417), Prop. 1 asks voters to approve (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2026) $11.25 billion in bonds to help finance various programs, including a $500 million down payment assistance program. 

One bond – $1.25 billion – will go toward the Department of Veteran Affairs (CalVet) Home Loan Program. Participants in the program will repay this portion of Prop. 1. 

The other $10 billion bond will be paid out of the state’s General Fund, and will go toward various  programs. Most of it will go toward subsidized housing for low-income residents, while other funds will go toward programs aimed at student housing, tribes and farmworkers. 

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 1 “would provide subsidies for up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, as well as about 2,500 units for farmworkers and about 1,200 beds for university students.” 

Proponents say Prop. 1 is worth the cost given the state’s high rate of homelessness and the high proportion of renters who struggle with high housing costs. In backing the measure, California YIMBY argues that, “Publicly-funded housing subsidies for low-income Californians who cannot afford market-rate rents are a good thing, and they should be more widely available.”

Yeah, no. 

Taxpayer-subsidized housing in California is incredibly expensive to build. As a RAND Corp. report (https://backtobasicssj.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/RAND_RRA3743-1.pdf) from last year points out, publicly-subsidized “affordable” housing in California costs 1.5 times that of market rate housing “and more than four times the cost of market-rate housing in Texas.” 

There are myriad reasons for this, of course. As much progress as California has made in loosening zoning laws, the state’s land-use policies remain restrictive. Permitting processes in major cities are often incredibly slow (https://x.com/esoltas/status/2098162675989565925/photo/1). Reprieves from the California Environmental Quality Act always come with costly strings attached, including labor mandates. 

Throwing more money into housing that’s slow and expensive to build simply won’t accomplish very much, because it can’t.

California YIMBY, to its credit, also points out some of the less desirable features of the measure. The down payment assistance program, for example, might be nice for those who benefit from it, but given the low supply of housing, it could end up contributing to higher home prices. 

Then there’s the total bill for all of this. The $10 billion general obligation bond will, after interest, cost far more than that and further crowd-out other spending in the state budget. According to the LAO, the state will be spending $500 million to $600 million a year for 25 years to pay off the bond. 

This, in turn, will only put further pressure on the perpetually precarious state budget and increase the risk of the Legislature approving or seeking new and higher taxes. This is no idle threat considering state lawmakers contemplated hundreds of billions of dollars (https://www.caltax.org/foundation/reports/20260611_Tax_and_Fee_Report.pdf) in new taxes this legislative session. 

Eight years ago, in opposing the very similar Proposition 1 in 2018, we wrote (https://www.dailynews.com/2018/09/18/proposition-1-is-not-the-answer-to-our-housing-crisis-vote-no/), “If California’s leaders are serious about making California a more affordable place to live, they should concentrate their efforts on curtailing onerous regulations and restrictive land-use policies and making it easier for homebuilders to build. And if they insist on subsidizing housing, they should do so directly, rather than wasting taxpayer money on interest payments.”

We stand by that, though we’d emphasize the need for California to stop fiddling and burdening reforms with mandates. There are those who argue California can both subsidize housing and loosen regulations, but the reality that we’re still having this discussion underscores that state and local leaders are dragging their feet and not deregulating fast enough. 

California needs more housing, yes, but it doesn’t need Prop. 1. 

Prop. 1 squanders billions into expensive housing and other gimmicks to buy political support. 

Vote no and demand better housing policies.

Source (https://www.dailynews.com/2026/09/23/endorsement-no-on-prop-1-more-debt-wont-fix-californias-housing-shortage/)

A BIG FAT NO, for lots of reasons:

1. MAIN REASON: PROP 1 is a “BOND”. That means, CA will BORROW (here, $11.25 BILLION) to fund this effort. CA is already “swimming in debt”, currently over $124 BILLION. CA cannot afford MORE debt, and cannot afford the interest on current debt. A bond is the most EXPENSIVE way to obtain funds DUE TO PAYING INTEREST. Just like you and me, CA “needs to live within our means”, and NOT BORROW. Our children, grands should NOT have to payoff this loan in 30 yrs for twice the amt borrowed. “NO” ON THIS BOND, and ALL BONDS.

2. DECEPTIVE PROP TITLING, throwing in “veterans” in title, to “soften hearts”, when in fact, VETERANS get only a small fraction.

3. PROP 1 won’t help w/ affordable housing. In fact, may increase prices bc developers (who will get rich w/this bond) would be required to use higher-priced union workers (85% of construction workers are non-union) making construction even MORE expensive. AND, nothing is in PROP 1 to stop “Red Tape” or regulations (which IS needed and WOULD help!).

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.

Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Prop 1 does nothing to make housing more affordable. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 MILLION per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 1.