Public Comment

California’s governor, Senate, and Assembly announced an agreement to place the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 on the November 2026 ballot. The proposal would authorize an $11.25 billion bond for affordable housing construction, preservation, rehabilitation, homeownership programs, and related state housing initiatives. The public choice is whether long-term borrowing is justified to speed up housing production and preserve affordable units, or whether California should avoid more debt unless it also changes local approvals, construction costs, and accountability rules. Supporters say housing scarcity requires a major public investment. Critics say borrowing can be expensive, and money alone may not fix permitting, land costs, or project delays. Housing is crushing family budgets, but borrowing billions should come with a clear promise: more homes people can actually afford, not just another expensive program.

Should California ask voters to borrow $11.25 billion for housing?

Overall results

1
52% support · excluded by 6%
7

Funding helps only if projects can actually get built. The bond should come with local approval reforms so money turns into housing instead of studies.

1
52% support · excluded by 6%
7

A smaller bond could focus on the highest-need projects first and reduce the chance that money disappears into overhead.

3
51% support · excluded by 6%
7

California cannot preserve affordable housing with small symbolic programs. A large bond can keep units available and support families who are being priced out.

4
51% support · excluded by 6%
7

California already spends heavily. Before borrowing another $11.25 billion, the state should prove existing housing dollars are working.

5
42% support · excluded by 14%
7

People need help now. Rent support and tenant protections may reach struggling families faster than new construction that takes years.

About the author