Housing & Affordability Are on the Ballot: Key Takeaways from CCRE's Panel

California voters face 14 statewide propositions this November, covering housing, taxation, environmental review, public services and other consequential policy issues. To help Californians better understand what several of these measures could mean for housing and affordability, the Center for California Real Estate (CCRE), the think tank for the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.), convened leaders from various industries for an important discussion.

Moderated by political analyst and professor Dan Schnur, the CCRE panel featured State Senator Ben Allen; Jennifer Barrera, President and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce; Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO of the League of California Cities; and Chris Hoene, Executive Director of the California Budget & Policy Center.

The CCRE conversation mainly focused on five measures with significant implications for housing, homeownership, development, taxation and local government: Props. 1, 37, 40, 43 and 45. The panelists brought different perspectives to examine the choices before voters and provide Californians with a clearer understanding of what is at stake. Below are some of the key takeaways from the CCRE panel.

1. California’s housing crisis requires more than one solution

The panel began its housing discussion with Props. 1 and 37, two measures that seek to improve housing affordability through different approaches.

Prop. 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for affordable rental housing, homeownership programs and housing loans for veterans. Most of the debt would be repaid from California’s General Fund. C.A.R. is neutral on Prop. 1.

Prop. 37, the Middle-Class Homeownership Act, would create an up-to-$25 billion loan program to help eligible middle-income Californians purchase newly built homes. Qualified buyers could borrow up to 17% of a home’s purchase price at a fixed interest rate. The revenue bonds would be repaid by participating homeowners, not taxpayers. C.A.R. sponsors and supports Prop. 37.

The distinction between the two measures illustrates the breadth of California’s housing challenges. Prop. 1 would fund several affordable housing and veterans’ programs, while Prop. 37 focuses on helping prospective homeowners overcome the down payment barrier.

Chris Hoene described Prop. 37 as a new approach that should be viewed as one component of a broader housing strategy. He noted that many of California’s housing leaders recognize that the state will need numerous policies working together, rather than one all-encompassing solution.

“There’s no one solution to the affordable housing crisis. It’s going to take 25 or 30 different solutions that all have to be working together.”

- Chris Hoene, Executive Director, California Budget & Policy Center 

California State Senator Ben Allen similarly described the measures as targeting different aspects of the housing squeeze. Prop. 1 would direct more resources toward housing programs and production, while Prop. 37 would help buyers finance a purchase.

The panel also addressed potential challenges. Hoene questioned whether the assistance available through Prop. 37 would provide enough purchasing power in California’s highest-cost markets, suggesting that the program may have greater reach in exurban or rural areas. Allen raised the possibility that buyer assistance could have inflationary effects, while emphasizing that the measure responds to a very real barrier for Californians who cannot accumulate a traditional down payment.

“It recognizes what an enormous barrier the down payment is to so many people.”

- California State Senator Ben Allen

2. Multiple measures address new housing production

Prop. 37’s defining feature is that assistance would be limited to the purchase of qualifying newly built homes. The program is therefore intended to do more than help individual buyers. By connecting purchase assistance with new construction, the measure seeks to support demand for additional housing production.

Jennifer Barrera described Prop. 37 and Prop. 45, the Building an Affordable California Act,  as complementary.

“Prop 45 is building new homes. Prop 37 is down payment assistance for new homes. It’s a great combination.”

- Jennifer Barrera, President and CEO, California Chamber of Commerce

The panel highlighted that increasing buyers’ purchasing power can help households access homeownership, but assistance alone cannot resolve a housing shortage. Connecting the program to newly built homes is intended to address both sides of that equation.

3. Faster project review must be matched by implementation capacity

Prop. 45 would establish faster timelines and new procedures for environmental review, permitting and legal challenges involving specified housing, transportation, water, health and clean-energy projects. C.A.R. supports Prop. 45.

Barrera argued that California’s lengthy and unpredictable approval processes add significant costs to development. As projects remain under review, labor, financing and holding costs can increase. In some cases, investors may abandon projects altogether. She emphasized that Prop. 45 would not eliminate environmental protections or public comment, but would require decisions and legal challenges to be completed within defined periods.

The panel also examined what those deadlines could mean for cities, agencies and courts. Allen noted that accelerated judicial timelines may move certain cases ahead of other matters on already burdened court calendars. If voters approve Prop. 45, he said, adequate court funding would be an important part of successful implementation.

Coleman raised similar concerns from the local government perspective. New timelines may require cities to redirect finite staff and resources toward expedited projects, potentially delaying other reviews.

“Every time I hear that word ‘streamline,’ I’m like, ‘Uh-oh,’ because it means ‘do something faster and put ours first.’”

- Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO, League of California Cities

The central issue raised by some panelists whether Prop. 45 can help responsible projects move forward more predictably while maintaining environmental review, public participation and workable implementation at the state and local levels. Barrera argued neither has to be sacrificed with Prop. 45 while others left the question open.

4. Prop. 40 presents a debate over short-term revenue and long-term fiscal risk

Prop. 40, the “Billionaire Tax,” would impose a one-time 5% tax on certain assets of individuals and qualifying trusts with net worth of at least $1 billion. The measure would primarily direct the revenue toward health care, with additional funding for education and food assistance. C.A.R. opposes Prop. 40. The panel’s Prop. 40 discussion reflected the measure’s broader political and fiscal complexity.

Barrera argued that high-net-worth residents have the ability to relocate and take taxable income and business activity with them. From that perspective, a one-time tax could generate an initial infusion of revenue while weakening California’s ongoing tax base and economic competitiveness.

Hoene offered a different fiscal assessment. He noted that the Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the measure could generate tens of billions of dollars while potential ongoing income-tax losses would be measured in the hundreds of millions. He also pointed to recent federal reductions affecting health care and food assistance as the underlying rationale for seeking a new source of revenue. At the same time, he acknowledged that a state-level wealth tax would be experimental and that wealthy residents are more able than most taxpayers to relocate.

The debate highlighted whether a first-of-its-kind state wealth tax is the right tool, whether the measure’s revenue allocations meet California’s highest priorities and whether temporary revenue can justify uncertain long-term effects.

5. Prop. 43 raises competing questions about taxpayer protection and local control

Prop. 43 would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes, regardless of whether the measure is placed on the ballot by a city council, county board or citizen initiative. C.A.R. supports Prop. 43 as a way to restore a consistent voter-approval standard and strengthen protections for taxpayers and homeowners.

Coleman argued that Prop. 43 would limit the ability of local voters to raise revenue for services and priorities in their own communities. She cited public safety, transit, affordable housing, parks and recreation as examples of programs that local tax measures may support. Under a two-thirds requirement, she noted, measures receiving support from a clear majority of local voters could still fail.

Hoene similarly argued that California cities and counties already have limited authority to raise revenue and that a supermajority threshold could make it more difficult to fund locally supported services.

Allen framed the policy challenge in practical terms: Californians may resist paying taxes, but they also expect responsive public safety, well-maintained streets, transportation, parks and other public services. Those services require resources, and the quality of local services can also affect a community’s desirability and property values.

The competing case for Prop. 43 is that dedicated taxes should require broad consensus and that the approval standard should not change solely based on who places a measure on the ballot. The debate therefore involves more than taxes. It asks voters to weigh consistency and taxpayer protections against majority rule and local communities’ ability to fund services.

6. REALTOR® engagement in elections and beyond

The panel also emphasized the value of REALTOR® engagement beyond Election Day. REALTORS® see how housing costs, down payments, insurance, taxes, development barriers and local services affect clients and communities. Allen encouraged members to remain involved through C.A.R., local associations and community organizations, and to understand the reasoning behind perspectives that differ from their own.

The CCRE panel added a broad range of perspectives and highlighted the policy tradeoffs voters might consider while completing their ballots.

Learn more:

• Review California’s official voter information: Visit the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide for nonpartisan analyses, fiscal estimates, arguments for and against each proposition and the full text of the measures.

• See C.A.R.’s official positions: C.A.R. members can review C.A.R.’s 2026 ballot measure positions and analyses. Member login is required.

• Watch the full panel discussion: Visit CCRE’s Past Events page to watch the complete conversation and explore additional CCRE programming.

• Learn more about Prop. 37: C.A.R. members can access campaign information and shareable resources at Vote Yes on Prop. 37. Member login is required.

The panel was designed to present a range of perspectives. Comments made by individual panelists reflect their own analysis and do not necessarily represent the positions of C.A.R., CCRE or the other participating organizations.