As Californians see their housing costs rise, the state and some cities are bringing possible solutions to the November 2026 ballot. As part of our ballot analysis, SPUR evaluated two state measures, three San Francisco measures, and one Oakland measure that aim to address housing affordability or impact new housing development. Why are there so many measures related to housing and development, are some more effective than others, and what, if any, effect would they have on each other if they pass? We explain what the measures would do and how some of them would interact. For deeper dives, stay tuned for the SPUR Voter Guide, which will go live October 1 at spurvoterguide.org.
California
The November ballot includes two state-level housing measures: one authorizes state general obligation bonds to support affordable housing production and a homeownership program for veterans and military families, and one authorizes state revenue bonds to encourage new home construction and increase middle-class homeownership through second mortgages.
Proposition 1 would provide $11.25 billion for building affordable housing.
Prop. 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which the State Legislature placed on the ballot, is by far the largest affordable housing bond in California history. It would authorize $10 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund production of affordable rental and ownership housing and supportive housing and $1.25 billion in mortgage revenue bonds to fund a homeownership program for veterans and military families, all without raising taxes. The California Housing Partnership says Proposition 1 would help finance more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable rental homes and help 20,000 California households become homeowners.
SPUR’s take: Vote YES. A new general obligation bond to fund key state affordable housing programs has not been passed since 2018, and funds from that bond were depleted two years ago. The most recent State General Fund allocations for affordable housing through the budget process have been relatively sparse, making passage of Prop. 1 critical to financing affordable housing developments statewide. Replenishing state funding is critical for affordable housing developers to produce much-needed new affordable homes and create well-paying jobs.
Proposition 37 would support new housing construction and homeownership opportunities.
Prop. 37 was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign. It would authorize $25 billion in state revenue bonds to encourage new home construction and increase middle-class homeownership through second mortgages. Home loan borrowers would be required to repay the bonds and administrative costs, so state and local governments would bear no direct cost. Under Prop. 37, the California Housing Finance Agency would offer eligible buyers fixed-rate second mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a newly constructed home while requiring a minimum 3% down payment.
SPUR’s take: Vote YES. State and local affordable housing bond measures that include new construction affordable homeownership programs increase overall housing supply. Prop. 37’s focus on new construction would boost the supply of for-sale homes and allow newly empowered homebuyers to build generational wealth through home equity.
San Francisco
In San Francisco, three measures could impact housing affordability or development: Propositions C, I, and J. Props. C and I are framed as affordable housing measures. Props. I and J involve the city’s transfer tax revenue. Specifically,
- Proposition C would expand and extend the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
- Proposition I would make changes to the real property transfer tax and remove the Board of Supervisors’ authority to reduce, suspend, or repeal the tax.
- Proposition J would eliminate the transfer tax exemption for certain foreclosed properties.
Proposition C would expand San Francisco’s existing Housing Trust Fund, a dedicated pool of affordable housing funding, and extend it through 2058.
Prop. C emerged from a negotiation process kicked off by a report showing that housing has become financially infeasible to build in San Francisco, in part because of the fees and other costs the city imposes on new development. As part of a broader agreement, the Board of Supervisors reduced certain fees and requirements that made housing harder to build. However, some of these fees had helped fund affordable housing, creating a potential trade-off: lowering fees could make new housing more feasible but could also reduce a source of affordable housing funding when the economy rebounds. The city seeks to address this issue by lowering development costs to help build housing while establishing a larger, steadier funding source for affordable housing through Prop. C.
SPUR’s take: Vote YES. Affordable housing production can suffer when funding rises and falls with the economic cycle. Prop. C reflects a consensus effort among affordable housing organizations, city leaders, and other stakeholders to provide a more predictable and less volatile source of affordable housing funding over the long term.
Proposition I would change the transfer tax structure by earmarking a percentage for affordable housing and by removing the Board of Supervisors’ authority to amend transfer taxes without going back to the voters.
Prop I is a citizen-initiated measure that would reduce transfer taxes for some types of new housing and redirect an estimated $114 million from the General Fund annually to support affordable housing. This amount is projected to increase each year in the near future, growing to $123 million by 2030. Additionally, it would prevent the Board of Supervisors from lowering transfer tax rates without going back to the voters.
SPUR’s take: Vote NO. Tapping the General Fund for affordable housing involves trade-offs with fund-supported critical city services such as public health, public safety, and other human services. Unlike Prop. C, which would gradually ramp up its funding commitment, reducing the impact on the General Fund, and allow the city to adjust its contributions during a serious economic downturn or fiscal emergency, Prop. I would offer no comparable protections. Moreover, removing the Board of Supervisors’ authority to reduce, suspend, or repeal transfer taxes would limit the city’s flexibility to respond to changing economic conditions. Finally, Prop. I could reduce the affordable housing funding generated by Prop. C. One component of Prop. C’s funding formula is tied to the city’s projected growth in General Fund discretionary revenues. Because Prop. I would redirect a substantial amount of General Fund revenues, it could constrain the funding available through Prop. C. This matters because the Housing Trust Fund supported by Prop. C can provide funding for preserving and operating existing housing (an important gap), but very little revenue from Prop. I could be directed to these needs.
Proposition J would increase transfer tax revenue by removing the exemption for all foreclosed commercial and larger multifamily residential properties.
Prop. J was placed on the ballot by a vote of the Board of Supervisors. It would expand the city’s real property transfer tax to include foreclosed commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family residential properties with more than five units, effective March 1, 2027. Single-family homes and condominiums would remain exempt, and the overall transfer tax rates would not change.
SPUR’s take: Vote YES. Foreclosure exemptions boost economic activity by attracting buyers for inactive properties, but investors have treated this exemption as a loophole by first buying the debt on a building and then foreclosing on it in order to avoid transfer taxes, recently dodging more than $450 million on high-value investment properties. Prop. J would close this loophole while maintaining exemptions for single-family homes, condos, and small multi-family properties facing foreclosure, generating an estimated $100 million to $150 million annually over the first five years.
This change was originally proposed to offset the financial impacts of a plan to halve transfer tax rates for properties above $10 million (reversing increases voters approved in 2020). If the Board of Supervisors revisits this idea and lowers transfer tax rates for high-value properties, the fiscal benefits of Prop. J could be lower than projected.
Both Prop. J and Prop. I affect transfer tax policy but do not offset each other. If both pass, revenue from Prop. J would support Prop. I’s affordable housing fund. Prop. I, if passed, would make future tax rate reductions for high-value properties harder to enact.
Oakland
Similarly to San Francisco’s Prop. J, Oakland Measure FF would boost transfer tax revenue by removing foreclosure exemptions for investment properties.
The City Council placed Measure FF on the ballot by unanimous vote. The measure would eliminate an exemption from Oakland’s real property transfer tax for most foreclosed commercial and multifamily residential properties, effective January 1, 2027. This change would not impact single-family homes or condominiums facing foreclosure, and overall transfer tax rates would not change. Measure FF would make all commercial and residential properties subject to the city’s transfer tax unless one of the following conditions applies:
- The buyer is an individual or a family trust and the property consists of four residential units or fewer.
- The transferred real estate is a commercial property that will be converted to interim shelter, single-room occupancy, affordable, or permanent supportive housing; or a healthcare facility.
- The transferee is a community banking organization with assets under $10 billion.
City Council could amend these exemption categories by ordinance, including establishing other exceptions.
SPUR’s take: Vote YES. Although foreclosure exemptions aim to boost economic activity by attracting buyers for inactive properties, they often favor financial institutions and investors, preventing cities from reclaiming value from large property transfers. Measure FF aims to recapture revenue from high-value property transfers and create a financial incentive for lenders to prioritize loan modifications over seizures, generating approximately $4 million to $13 million annually in revenue to bolster the city’s General Fund over the next five years. As Oakland grapples with projected budget deficits, relying on volatile revenue sources like transfer taxes is unsustainable, but with limited options to raise revenue without burdening working families and small businesses, closing the foreclosure loophole presents a viable solution that treats foreclosure transactions like other sales, protecting homeowners, small landlords, and community banks.
Check out our deep dives on these and other measures in the SPUR Voter Guide launching October 1.