Make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing, infrastructure projects
Jump to section
What did voters decide?
What would it do?
California makes it difficult for local governments to borrow money. Not only do most city and county bonds require voter approval, they need the support of at least two-thirds of those voting to pass.
Proposition 5 would amend the California constitution by lowering the required threshold to 55% for any borrowing to fund affordable housing construction, down payment assistance programs and a host of “public infrastructure” projects, including those for water management, local hospitals and police stations, broadband networks and parks.
If it passes, the new cut-off would apply not just to future bonds, but any that are on the ballot this November.
Why is it on the ballot?
Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat from Winters, has been trying and failing to get some version of this on the ballot since 2017. After a helpful promotion to Assembly majority leader, she finally got her way this year.
The Legislature voted to put Prop. 5 on the ballot last fall. But after a bit of political wrangling this spring, lawmakers passed a second measure to make a few last-minute changes. Though an earlier version applied to certain tax hikes, the proposition now only covers bonds. It also now includes a ban on local governments using the money to buy up existing single-family homes to convert them into affordable units. That change was required to persuade the powerful California Association of Realtors not to oppose the measure (though it gave money to the opposition campaign before then).
Take the Prop Quiz
Find out if you agree or disagree with Proposition 5 to inform your 2024 ballot →
For
$15.2M raised
Supporters argue that allowing just one third of voters to overrule the wishes of two thirds is undemocratic. If the majority of voters want their local government to borrow money to fund desperately needed affordable housing or other public infrastructure, they should be able to do so.
Backers also say this is a question of local control. Reducing the required vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% would allow local officials to fund their own priorities more easily without having to rely as much on statewide bonds or federal dollars.
Supporters
- California Democratic Party
- California State Building and Construction Trades Council
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation
- California Housing Partnership
- California YIMBY
- California Labor Federation
- League of Women Voters of California
- United Way Bay Area
Media Endorsements
Against
$30.3M raised
Opponents argue that it’s always easy to support taking on more debt if you aren’t the one who has to pay it back. When a local government decides to borrow money, that tab almost always gets put on property owners — who might make up a minority of voters — through higher taxes. Rather than allow a narrow majority to make what are potentially financially irresponsible decisions, the choice to issue a bond should be made only when a broad consensus exists.
Critics also call this measure just the latest attempt by Democratic lawmakers to undo the taxpayer protections that California voters embedded into the state constitution with Proposition 13.
Opponents
- California Chamber Of Commerce
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- National Federation of Independent Businesses
- California Republican Party
- Catalyst For Local Control
Media Endorsements
Commentary
For
Against
Funders
Polling Data
Related News
Free to read, but not free to produce
We’re CalMatters, a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom for Californians.
We’re proud that our Voter Guide, which informs millions of people each election, is free for everyone.
We need your help to continue doing critical work that informs voters.
If you can, a modest donation will help us publish quality election information now. And together, we’ll continue holding elected leaders accountable every day of the year.
Please make today the day you support quality journalism. Every donation helps.