Election 2026 · State of California

Proposition 1: $11.25 billion state housing bond

Published September 29, 2026 · Updated October 2, 2026

Proposition 1 would let the state borrow $11.25 billion by selling bonds for housing. About $10 billion would go to state housing programs, mostly for building and renovating affordable rental housing, plus homebuyer help, farmworker, tribal and student housing, and housing infrastructure. The other $1.25 billion would fund home loans for veterans.

Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 1.

What would Proposition 1 cost?

The Legislative Analyst estimates the state would pay $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years to repay the $10 billion housing bond, about 0.25% of the state General Fund budget. The $1.25 billion veterans bond would be repaid by veterans' loan payments, which the Analyst says has always meant no direct state cost.

What it means for the City of LA

The City of Los Angeles would not receive a set share. The money goes through state competitive programs, mostly loans to developers and local governments for affordable rental housing. $200 million is set aside for local housing trust funds and local pilot programs. A 2026 Enterprise Community Partners study counted 9,533 stalled affordable homes in Los Angeles and Ventura counties waiting for public funding. The state would repay the bond from its General Fund, not from City taxes.

The details

The question on your ballot

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond. Supporters: US Vets; CA Federation of Teachers; Self-Help for the Elderly; Habitat for Humanity CA; CA Alliance of Child & Family Services Opponents: None submitted

This is not the Proposition 1 on the March 5, 2024 ballot, the bond for mental health treatment facilities, which passed with 50.2% of the vote (Secretary of State, March 2024 Statement of Vote).

What would change

Where the $10 billion would go (text, Sec. 54054):

Source: Proposition 1 text, Section 54054. The separate $1.25 billion veterans bond is in the Military and Veterans Code section of the same text (text, Sec. 3).

The Legislative Analyst estimates the money would subsidize up to 40,000 rental apartments, about 2,500 farmworker units and about 1,200 student beds. It would help up to 40,000 households, including about 2,100 veterans, buy or repair homes (LAO analysis). The measure sets no production targets of its own (text).

What it means for the City of Los Angeles

• No set share for the City. The bond money goes to state programs. The Legislative Analyst says the rental programs “generally provide local governments and private developers with low-interest loans” (LAO analysis). Projects in Los Angeles would compete for it statewide. The analysis does not estimate how much would reach the City.
• Money cities can apply for. $200 million would be “available to cities, counties, and certain other entities for pilot projects aimed at developing housing at reduced costs” (LAO analysis). The text sends it through the Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program, which requires a local trust fund with its own ongoing money (text, Sec. 54054(b)(11)).
• Stalled projects in the region. Enterprise Community Partners, a nonprofit housing lender that backs Proposition 1 and gave $100,000 to the Yes campaign, counted 39,880 affordable homes statewide that had local approvals but lacked the funding to start construction at the end of 2025. It put 9,533 of them in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. It did not break out the City of Los Angeles (Enterprise report, p. 3; Yes on Prop 1 coalition list).
• The City’s own housing tax. The City’s main local source of new affordable housing money is Measure ULA, the tax on property sales over $5 million. The Housing Department reported it raised nearly $1.2 billion from its start through April 30, 2026 (LAHD report, May 10, 2026). The Legislative Analyst says Proposition 1 money “would be used together with other government monies” (LAO analysis).
• No City tax. The state would repay the $10 billion bond from its General Fund (LAO analysis). Proposition 1 does not create a local tax (text).
• We did not find a City Council resolution or City Housing Department statement on Proposition 1 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

How it got on the ballot

Proposition 1 is a bond act written by the Legislature. It needed a two-thirds vote in each house and the Governor’s signature, then voter approval (Cal. Const. art. XVI, sec. 1; SB 417 status).

• Feb. 18, 2025: SB 417 was introduced (SB 417 history). Its lead authors are Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. The principal coauthors are Sen. Christopher Cabaldon and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (SB 417 status).
• Jan. 6, 2026: The Senate Housing Committee approved it 8-1 (SB 417 votes).
• Jan. 27, 2026: The Senate passed it 30-9. The no votes were Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Seyarto, Strickland and Valladares (SB 417 votes).
• April 22 and May 14, 2026: The Assembly Housing Committee (10-2) and Appropriations Committee (12-3) approved it (SB 417 votes).
• June 25, 2026: The Assembly passed the amended bill 61-7, the Senate agreed 29-2, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed it the same day. It became Chapter 16, Statutes of 2026 (SB 417 history). The Assembly no votes were Chen, DeMaio, Ellis, Hadwick, Macedo, Sanchez and Tangipa. The Senate no votes were Seyarto and Strickland (SB 417 votes).

Why the vote threshold is a simple majority. The State Constitution says a state bond law cannot take effect until it has been submitted to the people and “shall have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at such election” (Cal. Const. art. XVI, sec. 1). The bond act itself says it becomes operative only if voters adopt it on Nov. 3, 2026 (text, Sec. 54051).

Related past measures.

• Proposition 1 (November 2018): a $4 billion housing and veterans bond (LAist). It passed with 56.2% statewide and 64.4% in Los Angeles County (Statement of Vote, 2018). The Budget Center says its money was fully committed by the end of 2023 (Budget Center).
• Proposition 2 (November 2018): $2 billion for supportive housing for people with mental illness (LAist). It passed with 63.4% statewide and 69.8% in Los Angeles County (Statement of Vote, 2018).
• Proposition 1 (March 2024): a mental health bond that included $2 billion for housing for veterans and others facing homelessness (LAO analysis). It passed with 50.2% statewide and 54.0% in Los Angeles County (Statement of Vote, March 2024).

What each side says

In the state voter guide. Arguments are the authors’ opinions and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments).

The argument in favor is signed by Anni Chung of Self-Help for the Elderly, Jeffery Freitas of the California Federation of Teachers and John H. Ing of US Vets (argument in favor):

• Need: “More than half of renters spend over 30% of their income on rent and only 22% of households can afford a median-priced home, yet only 1% of California’s state budget goes to housing.”
• Veterans: $1.25 billion goes “solely to veterans’ housing and homeownership” through CalVet.
• Construction: it “jumpstarts the construction of tens of thousands of shovel-ready affordable homes.”
• Taxes and oversight: “NO NEW TAXES,” with public reporting, and it “unlocks federal matching funds.”

No argument against Proposition 1 was submitted, so there are no rebuttals (arguments).

Outside the guide.

• Chione Flegal, executive director of Housing California, which backs the measure, told the Bay Area News Group that tens of thousands of affordable units are “shovel-ready” and that “you have both an incredible need and the conditions to actually get building quickly” (Bay Area News Group via Press Democrat).
• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommends a no vote. Its guide says “the actual cost to taxpayers will be roughly double the advertised amount due to interest” and that bonds used for programs rather than capital projects are “a much greater burden on taxpayers than just paying for these programs from the budget” (HJTA 2026 voting guide). Spokesperson Susan Shelley said, “The more you pile this debt on, the more difficult the budget process is” (Bay Area News Group via Press Democrat).
• State Sen. Tony Strickland, who voted no, told LAist the measure has a “noble goal” but could end up “bankrupting our next generation,” and said, “We could definitely find $10 billion within the general fund spending, and within our normal budget, without doing bond indebtedness” (LAist).
• California YIMBY supports it and estimates the production money could build about 43,700 affordable homes. It also says the $500 million in down payment help “could drive up home prices” if housing supply does not grow (California YIMBY).

Checking the main factual claims against official records.

We did not check the argument’s “22% of households” and “1% of the state budget” figures against official records.

Who supports and opposes it

Supporters

• The five groups on the ballot label: US Vets, California Federation of Teachers, Self-Help for the Elderly, Habitat for Humanity California and California Alliance of Child and Family Services (official title and ballot label).
• California Democratic Party (CDP positions, Aug. 2, 2026).
• Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed SB 417 (SB 417 history; Bay Area News Group via Press Democrat).
• League of Women Voters of California (LWVC recommendations).
• California State PTA, which voted to support on Aug. 8, 2026 (CAPTA).
• California YIMBY (California YIMBY).
• The campaign’s coalition list includes the California Federation of Labor Unions, State Building and Construction Trades Council, California Professional Firefighters, California Chamber of Commerce, League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing. Los Angeles groups on the list include the Los Angeles Business Council, Valley Industry & Commerce Association, Century City Chamber of Commerce, Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles, East LA Community Corporation, Hollywood Community Housing Corporation, Venice Community Housing, PATH, The People Concern, Inner City Law Center, Public Counsel, Strategic Action for Just Economy and Move LA (Yes on Prop 1 coalition). The list names no City of Los Angeles elected official.

Opponents

• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA 2026 voting guide).
• Los Angeles Daily News editorial board (Daily News, Sept. 23, 2026).
• Reform California, Carl DeMaio’s ballot measure committee, reported independent spending against Proposition 1 (Cal-Access raw data export; see Outside spending). DeMaio also voted no as an Assemblymember (SB 417 votes).
• The Republican legislators who voted no, listed above (SB 417 votes). LAist reported there is “no organized campaign against Proposition 1” (LAist).

Editorial boards and others. The Los Angeles Daily News editorial board recommends a no vote. It says subsidized housing in California “is incredibly expensive to build” and that the bond would “further crowd-out other spending in the state budget” (Daily News, Sept. 23, 2026). The San Francisco Chronicle published an endorsement editorial on Proposition 1, but we could not open it to confirm its recommendation. We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026. We found no published position from the California Republican Party. The California Budget & Policy Center published an analysis but says it does not endorse ballot measures (Budget Center).

Money for and against

Source: the committees’ campaign statements for Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, 2026 (1485601, Jan.-March, April-June, July-Sept. 19; 1492745; 1493876) and late contribution reports through Sept. 28, from the Cal-Access raw data export of Sept. 30, analyzed by CityHallPass. None of the committees reported activity before 2026. The Secretary of State’s contribution totals page still showed totals through Aug. 2 when checked on Sept. 30.

Who is giving

Method: every itemized contribution to the three Yes committees from Jan. 1 to Sept. 19, 2026, plus late contribution reports through Sept. 28, from the Cal-Access raw data export. Transfers between the three Yes committees are removed. Categories are ours, based on donor names. All money was itemized.

• 70 donors. The 27 that gave $100,000 or more supplied 90.1% of the money. The top five gave 43.9% and the top ten 61.8%.
• Individuals. Eight people gave. Intuit co-founder Scott D. Cook and H. Signe Ostby gave $295,000 each, split between two committees. The other six gave $3,518.50 together.
• Where donors are. 94.8% of the money came from donors with California addresses. Pacific West Communities, a developer based in Eagle, Idaho, gave $500,000. Donors with Los Angeles County addresses gave $373,962 (3.8%), and donors with City of Los Angeles addresses gave $152,500 (1.6%): Enterprise Community Partners, the law firm Goldfarb & Lipman, CTY Housing and Venice Community Housing. Organizations report their office address.

Source: Cal-Access raw data export and the committees’ July-Sept. statement, analyzed by CityHallPass. The FPPC top-10 list shows the same top donors to committee 1485601.

Source: same as above, analyzed by CityHallPass.

Where committee donors get their money.

• Building a Better California: the FPPC lists two individuals as its top donors (FPPC top-10 list).
• Western States Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee: its top donor is the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters (FPPC top-10 list).
• NPH Action Fund Political Issues Committee: the FPPC lists the San Francisco Housing Accelerator Fund and Mercy Housing California as its top donors (FPPC top-10 list).
• The League of California Cities gave $100,000 directly and $100,000 through its CITIPAC committee, dated Sept. 11 to 25 (Cal-Access raw data export).

Timing. Most of the money came late. The main committee reported $1,314,136.88 in the first half of 2026, then $6,094,768.40 from July 1 to Sept. 19 and $1,654,762.47 more by Sept. 28, including Airbnb’s $1 million on Sept. 25 (1485601 statements; Cal-Access raw data export).

How the money was spent. Through Sept. 19 the main committee paid Bearstar Strategies $137,720 and Spectrum Campaigns $120,000 for consulting, Kaufman Legal Group $53,732.04 for legal and treasurer work, Bertolina & Barnato $50,000, and David Binder Research $50,000 for polling. The NPH committee’s largest payment was the $700,000 it moved to the main committee (July-Sept. statement; NPH committee statement).

Outside spending

Independent expenditures reported to the state through Sept. 28, 2026 (Cal-Access raw data export):

• Against: Reform California with Carl DeMaio, Ballot Measure Committee (ID 1268914) reported $37,500: $7,500 on July 1 and $30,000 on Aug. 27 for slate mailers, door hangers and campaign management. The same payments are also listed against other propositions, so the amount spent on Proposition 1 alone cannot be separated. The FPPC lists two individuals as the committee’s top donors (FPPC top-10 list).
• For: Friends of CAUSE Action Fund reported $24,154 for a field program on Sept. 12. ACLU California Action reported $2,200.71 for its voter guide, shared with other propositions.

Independent analysis

The official analysis is the Legislative Analyst’s (LAO analysis). Other analyses:

• State bond debt. The Analyst says the state is repaying about $80 billion in General Fund bonds and has about $40 billion more approved but not yet sold. Payments are about $6 billion a year, about 3% of General Fund revenue, below the historical average of about 4% (LAO bond overview).
• Budget Center. The California Budget & Policy Center, which does not endorse measures, estimates repayment at $580 million a year for 30 years. It says the 2018 bond was used up by the end of 2023 and that the Multifamily Housing Program is “routinely oversubscribed by roughly 9 to 1” (Budget Center).
• Terner Center. David Garcia, policy director at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, which does not take positions on ballot measures, told the Bay Area News Group Proposition 1 would replenish state programs to “continue building affordable housing throughout California” (Bay Area News Group via Press Democrat). A Terner Center analysis found each added funding source delays a project about four months and adds $20,460 per unit, CalMatters reported (CalMatters via LAist).
• Construction costs. California YIMBY cites a UC Berkeley estimate of about $708,000 to build one tax-credit-financed affordable unit in 2023 (California YIMBY).

Interaction with other measures on this ballot

• Proposition 38 is the other General Fund bond on the ballot: $8.4 billion for immunology research. The Analyst estimates both bonds together would cost about $1 billion a year, about 0.5% of General Fund revenue (LAO bond overview). The Budget Center says the two draw on the same borrowing capacity (Budget Center). See our Proposition 38 page.
• Proposition 37 would let the state housing finance agency sell up to $25 billion in bonds for down payment loans on new homes, repaid by borrowers rather than the General Fund (Bay Area News Group via Press Democrat). See our Proposition 37 page.
• The Analyst’s analysis names no conflict between Proposition 1 and any other measure on the ballot (LAO analysis).

If it passes

• When it takes effect. The bond act becomes operative only if voters adopt it on Nov. 3, 2026 (text, Sec. 54051). The Analyst says the money “would be allocated over a number of years” (LAO analysis).
• Who runs it. The state Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency and its departments run most programs and may streamline them. CalHFA runs the down payment money, UC and CSU the student housing money, and the veterans bond goes to the CalVet home loan program (text, Secs. 54054 and 998.750; LAO analysis). Several allocations need a later appropriation by the Legislature (text, Sec. 54054).
• Deadlines. Money for several programs that is not committed by Nov. 3, 2036, shifts to the Multifamily Housing Program (text, Sec. 54054).
• Later changes. The Legislature can reallocate money among the programs and amend the program laws (text, Sec. 54056).
• Legal challenges. We found no reported legal challenge to Proposition 1 as of Sept. 30, 2026.

Key moments

We found no debate focused on Proposition 1 in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.

• Senate vote (Jan. 27, 2026). The Senate passed SB 417 on a 30-9 vote (SB 417 votes).
• Pipeline report (March 2026). Enterprise Community Partners reported 39,880 affordable homes stalled for lack of funding, and called for passing the bond (Enterprise report; Multifamily Dive; CalMatters via LAist).
• Final passage and signature (June 25, 2026). The Assembly and Senate passed the final version and Gov. Newsom signed it the same day (SB 417 history).
• Late money (September 2026). The main Yes committee reported more than $7.7 million from July 1 to Sept. 28, including $1 million each from the Carpenters committee on Sept. 8 and Airbnb on Sept. 25 (Cal-Access raw data export).

Polls

Source: PPIC, September 2026, pp. 6, 22 and 29. Respondents read the ballot title and label. Support was 75% among Democrats, 19% among Republicans and 56% among independents, and 72% among renters and 49% among homeowners. Five percent of likely voters named Proposition 1 as the measure they were most interested in. The Berkeley IGS September poll did not report a result for Proposition 1 in the coverage we found (LA Times via Yahoo).