At this week’s coalition call, we had folks from East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) and Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) come to present about the interconnected housing fights that will be on the ballot this November (if you missed the presentation, you can see the slides here). Both of those orgs are helping to anchor the fight for a Bay Area regional housing bond that will be in the range of $10-20 billion.

It’s worth pausing to highlight the sheer size and scope of this proposal. $10 to $20 billion. For comparison, state leaders are estimating a $15-16 billion bond limit for the entire state across a number of competing bond proposals (climate, housing, and schools). Assemblymember Buffy Wicks has a proposal for a $10 billion affordable housing bond, which will almost certainly get pressured to go down — which, again, is for the entire state, and is the bottom of the range for what’s being considered in the regional Bay Area bond.

So this is a big deal. With just a $10 billion bond, they estimate the funding would  produce and preserve upwards of 45,000 affordable homes, create 29,000 jobs annually, and generate $670M in state and local taxes (a $20 billion bond would double all of that). A new analysis from TransForm shows how the bond can be a climate solution. If new homes are built near transit, that would spur millions of additional transit trips every year. And if those transit trips are replacing car trips, we’re making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is the polling at this early stage looks positive — on the coalition call, Ze-Kun at NPH mentioned that recent polling is a little less than 60% in favor of the bond. The bad news is that state law currently requires 2/3 voter approval for local bonds. In other words, a relatively small minority of local voters have the power to overrule local funding decisions. That’s where ACA 1 comes in.

ACA 1 is proposed constitutional amendment that would lower the voter threshold to 55% for local bonds and special taxes that fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. While 55% might seem strange like a strange threshold (why not 50%?), this would put these measures in line with local school bonds, which currently require 55% voter approval.

The current supermajority requirement is a huge obstacle to local funding. One analysis of local funding measures that required 2/3 approval showed that, while 80% of them got more than 55% approval, less than half ultimately succeeded in getting the necessary supermajority. Case in point: in 2022, Berkeley put a $650 million affordable housing bond measure in front of voters (it’s biggest-ever bond!). It received 59% support, and failed to pass. Beyond that, there are many local revenue measures that never even get put out to voters in the first place because city/county officials don’t think they will be able to get to 2/3.

So the fate of the Bay Area regional bond may come down to the success of ACA 1. If ACA 1 passes (needing just a simple majority of 50%… democracy is weird, huh?), it would go into effect immediately and include the results of the November election. If the support for the regional bond holds at about 60%, the outcome would ultimately be tied to ACA 1 (failing if ACA 1 fails, passing if ACA 1 passes).

You may be wondering, the regional bond sounds pretty great, but does it actually help move us to green social housing? After all, didn’t this newsletter just talk about the problems with for-profit affordable housing, and couldn’t this just be a huge public subsidy for private profit? I’ve been wondering the same things…

My sense is that the answer to that question is a strong maybe. The bond is structured so that 80% of the funds would return to their county/city of origin (based on the jurisdiction’s share of assessed property value), and 20% will be administered by the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA).

Many are hoping that BAHFA can be the gold standard for this that the cities and counties are pressured to follow. BAHFA was established by in 2019 by the state legislature through AB 1487, and is the state’s first regional housing finance agency. A lot of work has gone into developing a BAHFA Equity Framework, which is intended to serve as the core of its business plan. Urban Habitat built on that to propose a framework that cities and counties should use when developing their bond funding expenditure plans.

Ultimately, this means that the decisions on how the money is spent will be spread across these jurisdictions — which means you have to contend with the different local decision-makers, politics, institutions, communities, and interests of region as diverse as the 9 county Bay Area. But it should be underscored that all of that is contestable, and will be contested. It’ll be up to local organizers and communities to fight for the money to go to the solutions we want.

While there are some restrictions on what you can do with bond funding, its possible to prioritize the funds for a lot of things that are part of a vision for green social housing. We can ensure new housing production is equitable, and affordable for extremely low-income residents. We can prioritize money for preservation, converting existing buildings into permanently affordable housing. As much as possible, we can use the funds to advance tenant protections and support tenant-centered services.

This regional bond measure is in many ways a microcosm and preview of the same fight we’ll have for green social housing across the state. It will never be the case that we can win it all in one fell swoop. We’ll need to fight for new funding, fight to create new social housing institutions, fight for the funding to go to those institutions, and fight to make sure the money gets down to projects on the ground that benefit the communities that need it most. It’s fights all the way down.