Read McClatchy Media’s endorsement on California’s Proposition 1 | Opinion

California has spent years creating laws that make it easier to build housing. Now it needs to help finance affordable housing waiting to be produced at rents many Californians can afford.

There are nearly 40,000 affordable rental homes in the development pipeline — designed and approved but awaiting sufficient financing to begin construction, according to Enterprise Community Partners, a national housing nonprofit. Proposition 1 could help close those financing gaps.

A “yes” vote on Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in bonds: $10 billion for affordable housing and $1.25 billion for a longstanding CalVet home-loan program. Funds raised by Prop. 1 would support construction and preservation of affordable apartments, supportive housing, homeownership assistance, farmworker and tribal housing, student housing and infrastructure needed for affordable developments.

It’s undeniable that Californians struggle with rents they cannot afford, homelessness and home prices that put ownership beyond the reach of many working families.

Private developers generally cannot build housing for low-income and extremely low-income households and charge rents these families can afford while recovering the cost of construction. Every dollar the state invests leverages $4 from federal, local and private funding, according to the California Budget & Policy Center.

And taxpayers wouldn’t be purchasing a fleeting benefit. Affordable apartments receiving these subsidies generally must remain affordable for 55 years. Proponents estimate that turnover during that period could allow roughly 500,000 households to benefit.

There is a cost. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that repaying the $10 billion housing bond will cost the state’s General Fund $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years — roughly one-quarter of 1% of today’s General Fund budget. The separate $1.25 billion veterans portion is expected to be repaid through veterans’ mortgage payments, as previous CalVet bonds have been.

Opponents rightly say that housing in California is too expensive to build. But their argument that lawmakers should attack those costs instead of subsidizing affordable housing presents a false choice.

California can do both.

In just the past two legislative sessions, for instance, lawmakers have approved a series of changes to speed up environmental reviews and permitting, reduce some impact fees and simplify affordable-housing financing. The state’s new One-Stop Shop financing reforms and impact-fee changes alone are estimated by the Newsom administration to reduce affordable housing costs by $60,000-$70,000 per unit.

Government should eliminate unnecessary expenses, but it cannot eliminate the real costs of roads, schools, water, sewer and other infrastructure communities need as they grow. Nor is government responsible for every rising construction expense. Land, materials, interest rates, insurance, labor, contractor practices and other factors all contribute.

That’s why Proposition 1 should become something more than another infusion of money. California should use this enormous investment to learn precisely why affordable housing costs what it does.

For every project receiving bond money, the state should collect standardized information about land, construction, financing, permit and impact fees, professional services, labor expense, financing sources, approval times and change orders. This would allow researchers to compare similar projects being financed and determine why one costs $450,000 per unit while another costs $800,000 a unit.

And Californians should not have to become government accounting detectives to find the results.

The state should create a simple, prominently displayed public dashboard showing money awarded and spent, units produced and preserved, project locations, costs per unit and completion times. Proponents agreed with us that such transparency is achievable.

That need became obvious when we asked them what measurable results from California’s 2018 housing bond justify returning to voters for substantially more money. They cited strong demand and the fact that its funding was fully committed within five years, but could not readily provide the kind of statewide performance measures voters deserve.

Housing is fundamental to economic mobility. A family struggling to keep a roof over its head has little opportunity to save, educate its children, emphasize wellness or build financial security.

California needs those homes. It also needs to learn how to build the next ones faster and for less.

Proposition 1 gives California the opportunity to do better.

BEHIND THE STORY

MORE

What are editorials, and who writes them?

Editorials represent the collective views of the editorial boards of McClatchy Media’s California opinion teams.

They do not reflect the individual opinions of board members or the views of reporters in the news sections of The Sacramento Bee and its sister publication, the San Luis Obispo Tribune. Reporters do not participate in editorial board deliberations or weigh in on board decisions.

In Sacramento, the board includes Executive Editor Chris Fusco, California Opinion Editor Marcos Breton, opinion writers Robin Epley, Tom Philp, LeBron Antonio Hill, Cathie Anderson and op-ed editor Hannah Holzer.

In San Luis Obispo, it includes Opinion Editor Stephanie Finucane.

We base our opinions on reporting by our colleagues in the news section, and our own reporting and interviews. Our members attend public meetings, call people and follow-up on story ideas from readers just as news reporters do. 

Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.

Tell us what you think

You may or may not agree with our perspective. We believe disagreement is healthy and necessary for a functioning democracy. If you would like to share your own views on events important to California, you may write a letter to the editor (150 words or less) using this form, or email an op-ed (650-750 words) to opinion@sacbee.com. Due to a high volume of submissions, we are not able to publish everything we receive.

This story was originally published September 22, 2026 at 10:30 AM with the headline "Read McClatchy Media’s endorsement on California’s Proposition 1 | Opinion."