Ballot Measures
Establishes A $6 Billion Bond Program To Finance Affordable Housing Development And Homelessness Prevention Programs Statewide
Election
November 2026 California General Election
(Nov 3, 2026)
Jurisdiction
State • California
Election Type
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Source Disclaimer
Source Disclaimer
The information on this page — including summaries, "what your vote means" explanations, and arguments for and against each measure — is drawn directly from official State, County, or City election materials, such as the Official Voter Information Guide and county election offices, and is presented here for informational purposes only. Any opinions expressed on this site are clearly marked as Editorial and are distinct from this official source material. Links to outside websites are provided solely as a convenience for further research; SAJ Studios does not create, edit, or verify that third-party content, and each linked source is solely responsible for the accuracy and views expressed on its own site. We encourage voters to consult their official county elections office or the Secretary of State for the most current and authoritative information before voting.
Summary
Authorizes $6 billion in general obligation bonds to finance construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, first-time homebuyer assistance programs, and emergency shelter and supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness.
Fiscal Impact
State cost of approximately $390 million per year over 30 years, around $11.7 billion total including interest, repaid from the General Fund.
What Your Vote Means
A YES vote authorizes the state to sell $6 billion in general obligation bonds to fund construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, first-time homebuyer assistance, and emergency shelter and supportive housing programs.
A NO vote rejects this bond authorization. The state would not borrow these funds, and current levels of state funding for affordable housing and homelessness programs would continue without this additional investment.
Arguments
Supporters say California's housing costs and homelessness crisis require sustained capital investment, and that this measure creates thousands of affordable units and expands proven shelter and rapid-rehousing programs.
Opponents contend prior housing bonds have been slow to produce units, that per-unit construction costs remain too high, and that reforms to permitting and zoning would be more effective than additional borrowing.
Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
Editorial Note
SAJ Studios Editorial
I am going to include some of my own thoughts about the proposition here. Will it show up on the page?
This note reflects the analysis and opinion of SAJ Studios and is separate from the official summary, arguments, and legal text above.
Full Legal Text
Waiting for text...
Further Reading
No additional links at this time.
Election Results
No Results Yet