Voters across California have backed two major housing finance measures, Proposition 1 and Proposition 37, which together unlock more than $11 billion in new funding for affordable housing and homeownership support. Proposition 1, called the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, lets the state issue $11.25 billion in general-obligation bonds. Of that, $10 billion goes to general affordable housing and $1.25 billion to CalVet home loans. Early statewide returns from the California Secretary of State showed 2,967,315 votes (58.4%) in favor and 2,113,289 votes (41.6%) opposed as of 8:50 p.m. on November 3, 2026. The measure needed only a simple majority to pass. The $1.25 billion for veterans' housing is set aside, while the rest supports rental housing, homeownership, farmworker, student, tribal, and related programs. About $5 billion of the affordable-housing allocation is expected to go to the Multifamily Housing Program, one of California's largest housing development efforts. The bond will be repaid over 25 years. Supporters wrote in the official voter guide that the financing would "help move affordable housing projects into construction and expand access to housing for veterans and working families." Program estimates suggest Proposition 1 could help create up to 40,000 multifamily rental units and provide assistance to another 40,000 households, including veterans, seniors, teachers, and essential workers. These numbers are projections, since actual housing delivery will depend on future appropriations, project selection, and construction schedules. More details are available from KQED's election coverage and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Proposition 37, also passed by voters, sets up a revenue bond mechanism that creates a one-time $25 billion fund for down-payment assistance to qualifying buyers of newly built homes. Early returns cited by the San Diego Union-Tribune showed 3,053,260 votes (60.4%) in favor and 2,005,341 votes (39.6%) opposed. Unlike Proposition 1, which uses general-obligation bonds, Proposition 37 relies on revenue bonds to be repaid by participating homebuyers. The program lets qualifying buyers get fixed-rate financing of up to 17% of the purchase price of an eligible new home. The measure aims to help middle-income homebuyers, but the real impact will depend on future administrative rules, eligibility standards, and how quickly bonds are sold. Assistance is limited to new homes, which could steer demand toward new construction. The state will need to set up the fund, define qualified homes and buyers, and publish program rules. More information is available in CalMatters' election analysis.
Rent control measure rejected in Redwood City
While statewide housing finance measures moved forward, Redwood City voters rejected Measure E, a proposal to cap annual rent increases at 5 percent for qualified units built before 1995. Early returns from the San Mateo County Elections Office showed 4,647 votes (41.75%) in favor and 6,484 votes (58.25%) opposed. The measure would have expanded eviction restrictions and required relocation payments in certain cases. It also would have applied rent stabilization and anti-harassment protections to about 20% of Redwood City's housing stock. The early tally showed a rejection trend, though final certification was pending because of the high number of vote-by-mail ballots. Measure E's design put it within California's broader post-2020 tenant-protection framework, but with stricter local rules for covered properties. The statewide Tenant Protection Act already sets rent-increase limits and eviction protections on many properties, though coverage varies by building type, age, and local ordinance. The California Apartment Association notes that more than 35 cities and counties in the state have long-term rent control ordinances.
Other states pass property tax and infrastructure amendments
North Carolina voters approved two constitutional amendments: HB 1089, which lets the legislature set a statutory cap on property tax increases by local governments, and SB 1080, which lowers the state income tax ceiling to 3.5 percent. Supporters say these changes could benefit residential property owners, including those in multifamily housing. Critics warn of possible impacts on local services funded by property taxes.
In Florida, Amendment 3 passed with just over the 60 percent threshold needed for constitutional changes. The amendment raises the homestead tax exemption to $250,000 by 2028 and cuts the annual cap on assessed value increases for non-homestead properties from 10 percent to 5 percent. The Florida Policy Institute estimates this could reduce local revenue by nearly $12 billion on a recurring basis. Local governments may have to cut services or look for other revenue sources.
Hawaii voters approved the RISE Amendment, which lets the state issue Resilient Infrastructure for Shelter and Equity (RISE) bonds. These bonds, backed by increased property tax revenue within designated districts, are meant to support infrastructure development, especially around transit hubs. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development has identified Iwilei-Kapālama in Honolulu as a possible district, where 30,000 new residential properties are planned but need an estimated $667 million in infrastructure upgrades.
For more on recent changes to rental regulations in California, see this earlier breakdown.
