SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board has endorsed Proposition 1, the $11.25 billion affordable housing bond on California’s Nov. 3 ballot, arguing that the state’s severe shortage of affordable homes warrants a major public investment despite concerns about long-term costs and the measure’s complicated funding structure.
In its endorsement, published Sept. 26, the Chronicle acknowledged that the bond would address only a fraction of California’s housing needs but concluded that recent changes to state housing laws could make the investment more effective than previous efforts.
The endorsement comes as California faces a substantial shortage of housing affordable to low-income residents, with a recent legislative analysis finding that 2.2 million extremely low-income and low-income households are competing for just 664,000 affordable rental homes.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has estimated that the state needs at least 1 million additional affordable units by 2031, illustrating the scale of the challenge facing policymakers and voters.
Proposition 1, placed on the ballot by the Legislature with bipartisan support, would authorize the state to issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds to finance affordable housing construction, rehabilitation and homeownership assistance.
The measure has no formal opposition, according to the Chronicle, although questions remain about its fiscal impact, allocation of funding and whether California can sustain its affordable housing programs without repeatedly turning to voters for new borrowing.
The largest allocation, $7.2 billion, would go to California’s Multifamily Housing Program, which provides low-cost financing for the development, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable rental housing.
Within that funding, $1.15 billion would be reserved for supportive housing and services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including $150 million specifically for young people experiencing homelessness or involved in foster care.
Another $750 million would support the renovation and modernization of existing affordable housing, an issue the Chronicle identified as a continuing weakness in California’s housing policies.
The editorial cited a California Budget and Policy Center analysis showing that the Multifamily Housing Program receives approximately $9 in funding requests for every dollar available, underscoring the demand for public financing.
Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, who authored the measure, described the Multifamily Housing Program as the “workhorse” of California’s affordable rental housing development efforts during an interview with the Chronicle editorial board.
Beyond rental housing, Proposition 1 would allocate $1.25 billion to the CalVet Home Loan program, which helps eligible veterans purchase homes through loans financed by bond proceeds.
Unlike most of the measure’s other programs, the CalVet loans are structured so that participating veterans repay the principal and interest through their loan payments rather than relying on state general fund revenues.
The measure would also provide $600 million to local agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist with affordable home construction and financing, along with $500 million in down payment assistance for eligible first-time homebuyers.
Additional funding would include $500 million for infrastructure supporting affordable housing, $450 million for farmworker housing, $350 million divided between the University of California and California State University systems for student housing, and $200 million for tribal housing programs.
Another $200 million would support local grants and pilot programs designed to test cost-saving approaches to creating or preserving affordable housing.
The Chronicle questioned whether spreading the bond proceeds across so many programs could dilute its effectiveness, particularly when the state faces a shortage of affordable housing that substantially exceeds the number of units the measure could finance.
Wicks acknowledged those concerns in her interview with the editorial board but maintained that the programs selected for funding have established records of producing housing.
According to estimates from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 1 could help finance as many as 40,000 affordable rental units, along with approximately 2,500 farmworker housing units and 1,200 student housing units.
The measure could also help approximately 40,000 households achieve homeownership, including an estimated 2,100 veterans.
Those projected results would represent a significant investment in housing opportunities for lower-income Californians, although the number of homes produced would remain small compared with the statewide shortage.
The Chronicle also addressed the cost of financing the bond, which would require estimated annual payments of $500 million to $600 million from the state general fund over approximately 25 years.
The total cost of repayment would be approximately 15% higher than paying for the programs upfront, according to the editorial, and would create an ongoing obligation at a time when California faces projected budget deficits.
The endorsement nevertheless argued that changes to California’s housing approval process could allow bond financing to produce more housing than it would have under previous regulatory conditions.
In particular, the editorial pointed to recent reforms of the California Environmental Quality Act and legislation streamlining the development of higher-density housing near public transit.
These changes have reduced some of the procedural barriers that previously delayed housing projects and increased construction costs, potentially allowing public subsidies to support more units.
Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, told the Chronicle, “We’re at a great moment in time to actually have the best impact on housing that I’ve seen in my career.”
The Chronicle also raised concerns about the long-term maintenance of affordable housing developments, noting that many older properties with legally restricted rents have deteriorated because rental revenues are insufficient to cover operating expenses and capital improvements.
Although Proposition 1 provides funding for rehabilitation, the editorial argued that California needs additional strategies to preserve its existing affordable housing stock.
The newspaper pointed to policies in Washington state that encourage affordable units within market-rate developments, potentially allowing private-sector revenues to help support maintenance and upkeep.
Wicks also acknowledged the need for a more permanent source of affordable housing financing rather than relying on periodic bond measures.
She called for “sustained ongoing funding for affordable housing so that we’re not having to have this bond conversation every six years.”
California voters previously approved a $4 billion affordable housing and veterans housing bond in 2018, with those funds fully allocated by the end of 2023.
The Chronicle’s endorsement places the newspaper among supporters of a measure that would renew a substantial source of state housing financing while leaving unresolved the broader question of how California will pay for its affordable housing needs over the long term.
In recommending approval, the editorial board concluded that the immediate need for affordable homes, combined with changes intended to accelerate housing construction, justified the additional state borrowing.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
