SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday an agreement to place an $11.25 billion affordable housing and homeownership bond before voters in November 2026, a proposal supporters say would represent one of the largest housing investments in state history and help address the state’s persistent housing affordability crisis.
The proposed Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 would fund the construction, preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing, expand homeownership opportunities, support veterans’ housing programs and provide resources for a range of state housing initiatives.
If approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor in the coming days, the measure will appear on the statewide ballot in November 2026.
The announcement comes as California continues to confront a severe housing shortage that state officials say has developed over decades of underproduction. According to a legislative analysis of Senate Bill 417, authored by Christopher Cabaldon, California needs approximately 2.5 million additional housing units, including 1.2 million units for lower-income households. The analysis estimates the state needs about 180,000 new homes annually to keep pace with demand but has produced fewer than 100,000 units per year over the last decade.
Supporters of the bond say the proposal is designed not only to increase housing production but also to preserve existing affordable housing and create pathways to homeownership for working families and veterans.
“The agreement reached today is the reflection of the hard work done in the Legislature to address and respond to the critical housing needs that Californians are facing across the state,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón.
“The Legislature continues to prioritize access to housing in the Golden State for everyone,” Limón added. “Thank you to leaders in both the Senate and Assembly, as well as Speaker Rivas and Governor Newsom, for working together to deliver billions of dollars to support needed housing.”
According to legislative leaders, the proposal would direct $5.1 billion to the state’s Multifamily Housing Program, California’s primary affordable housing development program. Projects receiving funding would be required to reserve at least 10 percent of units for extremely low-income households.
The bond would also invest $1.25 billion in the CalVet Home Loan Program, which provides low-cost mortgages to veterans and military families.
Newsom described the agreement as part of a broader effort to reverse decades of housing underproduction and increase opportunities for Californians seeking stable housing.
“Today’s agreement builds on our work with the Legislature to expand opportunity and make homeownership and affordable housing more attainable for Californians,” Newsom said.
“For far too long, our state failed to build enough housing to meet the needs of growing families and communities,” he continued. “We’re once again turning the page on decades of inaction and making bold investments needed to tackle one of our state’s greatest challenges.”
Newsom said the state’s long-term economic future depends on whether residents can afford to remain in California.
“California’s future depends on whether people can afford to put down roots, raise a family, and build a life here,” Newsom said. “Through this historic bond, we’re giving voters the opportunity to help more Californians achieve homeownership, expand access to affordable housing, and give more families a real shot at the California Dream.”
The governor’s remarks reflect a growing consensus among state leaders that housing affordability has become one of California’s defining policy challenges. State housing officials and advocates have repeatedly linked the housing shortage to rising homelessness, increasing rents and declining homeownership rates among younger Californians.
According to the legislative analysis of SB 417, more than 2 million extremely low-income and very low-income renter households currently compete for roughly 750,000 affordable rental units statewide. The analysis further notes that more than three-quarters of extremely low-income households spend more than half their income on housing costs.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said the bond proposal builds upon recent legislative efforts to accelerate housing construction and reduce barriers to development.
“California has been building toward this moment,” Rivas said. “We’ve cut red tape, fast-tracked construction, protected renters.”
“And now, we’re going bigger: $11.25 billion for affordable housing to expand homeownership for veterans and working families, drive down costs and prove that the door to opportunity is open to everyone,” Rivas continued. “This is California delivering.”
The proposal expands on SB 417, which originally authorized a $10 billion affordable housing bond. According to the Assembly Floor Analysis, the legislation would provide billions of dollars for affordable multifamily housing, supportive housing for individuals experiencing homelessness, tribal housing initiatives, farmworker housing programs, homeownership assistance and preservation of existing affordable housing developments.
The measure also seeks to capitalize on recent federal changes that housing advocates say could significantly increase affordable housing production if California provides sufficient matching funds. Legislative analysts noted that federal financing changes enacted in 2025 may allow affordable housing developers to leverage substantially more federal tax credits and bond financing than previously possible.
Cabaldon, whose district includes Yolo County, said the proposal would have broad impacts across multiple housing sectors.
“With one vote, California will build tens of thousands of new homes, prevent existing affordable housing from disappearing, and help Californians who need a hand to buy a home or partner with organizations like Habitat for Humanity,” Cabaldon said.
“The legislation builds rooftops for homeless and foster youth, students, and farmworkers, and supports our veterans with the largest-ever investment in the CalVet home loan program,” he added.
Housing advocates have argued that preserving existing affordable housing is as important as constructing new units. The legislative analysis notes that many affordable housing developments financed decades ago face potential conversion to market-rate housing unless additional resources are made available to maintain affordability restrictions.
The bond proposal would also fund supportive housing developments that combine affordable housing with services for individuals experiencing homelessness or behavioral health challenges. State lawmakers have increasingly emphasized supportive housing as a key component of efforts to reduce chronic homelessness.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks said lawmakers must match their stated priorities with financial commitments.
“We all know the stats in California—two thirds of lower-income renters are rent-burdened, 170,000 people are unsheltered, and we are 1.2 million units short of the affordable housing we need,” Wicks said.
“But what gets lost when we’re counting housing units and debating dollars and cents is that we’re really talking about families who need a roof over their heads,” she continued.
Wicks argued that the state can no longer delay major housing investments.
“Time and time again, we say that housing affordability and homelessness are top priorities, so it’s incumbent on us to put our money where our mouth is and invest in housing programs that have proven their ability to deliver real results,” Wicks said. “What we can’t afford is to wait.”
The legislative analysis estimates that the original $10 billion bond proposal would result in approximately $17.4 billion in total repayment costs over 30 years, including interest, with annual General Fund debt-service payments estimated at roughly $580 million when all bonds are sold. Actual costs would depend on future interest rates and the timing of bond issuances.
Supporters contend those costs are justified by the scale of California’s housing shortage and by the potential to leverage billions of dollars in additional federal and private investment.
The coalition supporting SB 417 argued in legislative filings that California has historically relied on voter-approved bonds to finance affordable housing construction and that funding authorized by the state’s 2018 housing bond has already been fully allocated. According to supporters, new state funding is necessary to take advantage of available federal housing resources and expand affordable housing production statewide.
The Legislature is expected to take final action on the measure in the coming days. If approved and signed into law, California voters will decide in November 2026 whether to authorize the $11.25 billion investment.
Supporters say the measure offers an opportunity to make a generational investment in affordable housing, homelessness prevention and homeownership at a time when housing costs continue to outpace incomes in many parts of the state.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
From CBS on Senate passage of housing bill:
“Speaking from the Senate floor last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, outlined some of the bill’s more than 45 housing provisions. The legislation would remove some regulatory barriers and streamline environmental reviews to increase development of affordable housing; update chassis requirements for manufactured housing; create an innovation fund for communities increasing housing supply; and support housing opportunities for veterans, among other things.”
Of course we will never know if the sixteen acres of dedicated Affordable housing at Village Farms would have ever been built but as I predicted the naysayers assumption that it wouldn’t was premature.
Does the federal bill by bipartisan support with more than 60 votes in the Senate?
Passed the Senate 85 – 5.
https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/us-senate-passes-chairman-scotts-21st-century-road-to-housing-act-advancing-major-housing-affordability-win
Combined new Federal and State Affordable housing appropriations put the lie to the nonsense that the 16 acres of Affordable housing at Village Farms was never going to get built. Sadly however the pessimists manifested the reality of it not getting built by turning down Measure V at the polls. And most egregious of all I’m sure they will remain in denial of what was lost for people in need of decent housing.
From article: “California lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday an agreement to place an $11.25 billion affordable housing and homeownership bond before voters in November 2026, a proposal supporters say would represent one of the largest housing investments in state history and help address the state’s persistent housing affordability crisis.”
So, you know what to do come November if you don’t want Affordable housing developers “teaming up” with market-rate developers to pursue sprawl.
Buffy Wicks (cited in the article) is one of the Wiener-type assembly members who has decided to declare war on existing residents. But (like Wiener) she represents the Bay Area, where the state’s efforts are supposedly focused. (And the Bay Area itself isn’t pursuing sprawl.)
I wonder if California voters ever figure out that these bond measures have to be funded by taxpayers, or what the other consequences are (such as the one I just mentioned above).
If these type of measures restricted funding to areas that are already within city limits, it would at least prevent the first consequence described above (pursuit of sprawl). But the lack of such a restriction (combined with the tax increase) is reason-enough to vote against it. Isn’t California already expensive enough, without yet another tax increase?
“I wonder if California voters ever figure out that these bond measures have to be funded by taxpayers, or what the other consequences are (such as the one I just mentioned above).”
I hope voters remember the Bullet Train to NoWhere Bond that has so far not had even one passenger and the Watershed Bond that has so far not resulted in any water storage.
IMO these bonds end up being a pipeline for a selected few to get rich.
No one wants to take a train from Fresno to Bakersfield. That system should have bypassed the valley entirely (or not build it at all, if it wasn’t possible to build it closer to the coast).
Don’t know much about the “Coast Daylight” (just now heard of it), but it sounds like this is the type of route that should have been pursued – though perhaps it has too many curves to accommodate high-speed rail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Daylight
Perhaps if the “train to nowhere” is actually built and travels fast-enough, you’ll be in Los Angeles before you even realize that you had to go through Bakersfield, first. (Essentially, “fly-over” country.)
California has been doing housing bond issues for decades. They have never been the kind of debacle the bullet train represents.
Projects are under construction funded by Proposition 1 for water storage. I worked on one that is in process now.
Ron O.: “So, you know what to do come November if you don’t want Affordable housing developers “teaming up” with market-rate developers to pursue sprawl.”
At least Ron O. is honest. He doesn’t go through all these machinations pretending to be for helping the less fortunate while doing all they can to undermine actual attempts to do something helpful.
From what I’ve seen, the people who are for Affordable housing are honest, as well. Just seems to me that they don’t always consider the consequences, such as the two I mentioned above.
I’m for rent control, in general.
The state already has a sufficient supply of buildings. (Truth be told, there is no specific number of buildings that it needs, or doesn’t need. Or even an accurate range – it’s all based on assumptions.)
1.6 kids per woman, nationwide. It’s happening in developed countries throughout the world. Mexico’s birthrate is even lower than that of the U.S.
Don’t be afraid of change.
We can’t wait 30 years to solve the housing cost crisis which is happening now and will last another decade at least. The number of people per household in California has INCREASED in the last decade indicating a shortage of housing.
You’re wrong about Mexico. The fertility rate is 2.0: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/mex/mexico/fertility-rate
BTW, we know that rent control is counterproductive to producing sufficient housing and lowering prices for everyone, not just the lucky in rent controlled housing.
I saw an article which stated that Mexico’s birth rate had fallen below that of the U.S., but can’t find it now. In any case, your citation appears “official” (and it is still below replacement levels in Mexico).
The entirety of Latin America has a birth rate below replacement levels (1.8 children per woman).
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/americas/latin-america-birth-rates-fall-latam-intl
Falling birth rates immediately impact demand for housing – and not just when the kids become adults.
As far as rent control is concerned – your comment suggests that it’s needed everywhere (and not just in select locations).
There is no shortage of housing, and I’ve posted more than one source which shows this. The so-called housing shortage is based on past trends; not what’s happening today. Those who claim there’s a shortage of housing often have a self-interest in promoting the concept of a housing shortage.
Costs are not indicative of a shortage. In fact, it’s the free market at work (and causes people to pursue alternatives). This is why we don’t all live in Tiburon, for example. (Don’t tell me that the reason that all of us don’t move to Tiburon is because some place like Davis or Woodland is “superior” to Tiburon, as we know that it would be an outright lie to state something like that.)
Don’t be afraid of change, especially the type of change that counteracts so-called “housing shortages”.
Some people claim that the high cost of housing is causing people to have fewer kids, but this doesn’t seem to account for the drop in birthrates worldwide.
“We can’t wait 30 years to solve the housing cost crisis which is happening now and will last another decade at least”
But that is what you just voted to do. Push a development with 16 acres of Affordable back a decade maybe two or three decades.
You do realize that other communities are also pursuing (limited) Affordable housing funds, right?
Or do you only care about those in Davis? (Much like the school district only cares about the number of students it can poach from other districts.)
It’s essentially a game of musical chairs (and the chairs in this case consist of limited funding).
There is never, ever going to be enough funding (statewide or nationwide), because the actual problem (if there actually is one) is due to wealth distribution.
For sure, whatever funding might have been pursued for Village Farms will be pursued by many other Affordable housing developers/developments. And some of them are in areas in more need than Davis is, and might even generate a higher contribution from developers, themselves.
There is no “loss” here.
While I’m waiting for my response to Richard McCann to appear, the U.S. Housing and Urban Development department (I assume under the control of Trump) issued this report:
“HUD just put out a report and found that between 2021 and 2024, the foreign-born population in our country increased by six million people – the largest such influx over such a short period in American history.
“The report found that in states like California and New York, Biden’s border crisis accounted for 100 percent of all rental price growth and over one-half of all growth in owner-occupied housing in recent years. Nationwide, the foreign-born population accounted for two-thirds of rental demand growth.”
https://www.hud.gov/news/hud-no-25-146
In any case, it makes no logical sense to suggest that illegal immigrants are having “no” impact on the housing market.
So perhaps it is a good thing that the entirety of Latin America has a birthrate well below replacement levels (1.8 kids per woman).
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/31/americas/latin-america-birth-rates-fall-latam-intl
(Let’s face it, folks – the “zero population growth” people have already won the war. And the lack of kids has an IMMEDIATE impact on demand for housing – and not just when the kids become adults.)
The people kicking and screaming about this are the ones who are resisting change.