“NO” – Prop. 37 – Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes

Note: this post will be periodically updated! (10/07/2026)

VOTER GUIDE – QUICK LINKS:

Prop 37 puts the state into the second mortgage business — the one that doesn’t get paid back if things go south!
And seriously! What could go wrong under this administration run by a dementia-addled old grifter who could bankrupt a casino, even when he had all his marbles?

Middle-class homeownership or middle-class debt?

What’s the Background? Homeownership builds wealth and stability, and it is out of reach for far too many Californians. Only about 55% of households own their home, the second-lowest rate in the nation. The median California home sold for about $778,000 in June 2026 – putting a 20% downpayment near $156,000. Proposition 37 – the Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act – would have the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) lend buyers most of that downpayment. The goal isn’t the problem. The problem is who Proposition 37 reaches, what it costs a buyer every month, and where it builds.

What would Proposition 37 do?

  • Permit CalHFA to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a downpayment assistance program.
  • Authorize the use of funds for second mortgage loans of up to 17% of the purchase price for qualified buyers.
  • Help homebuyers purchase newly constructed houses and condos as well as newly converted non-residential property priced below $1-$1.5 million (depending on location).
  • Require CalHFA to keep interest costs “as low as possible” – but guarantee no rate.
  • Limit qualified borrowers to homebuyers who:
    • Have a minimum of 3% to put down on the home. Earn up to 200% of area median income – in Ventura County, that’s about $271,200 for a family of four. That’s double the county’s $135,600 median, and far above the state’s own $162,700 ceiling for a “moderate income” family of four.
    • Need not be first-time or first-generation buyers and owe the state no share of their home’s appreciation.
  • Require homebuyers to repay CalHFA – creating a second mortgage on top of the first.
  • Let builders opt into a “qualified builder” track: higher labor and training standards in exchange for more flexible construction-defect liability rules.
What Supporters SayWhat They Leave Out
“Creates affordable homeownership opportunities for working and middle-class Californians. A 3% downpayment instead of 20% is a real difference for a family trying to buy.“It isn’t aimed at the families most locked out. Eligibility runs to 200% of area median income, and buyers need not be first-time or first-generation. White families are over-represented in the income band; Black and Latino families are under-represented. And with price caps of $1-$1.5 million, even 3% is steep: $21,000 on a $700,000 home nearly clears out a typical household’s savings.
“Proposition 37 encourages new home construction which leads to jobs growth in the building trades. The “qualified builder” tracks sets higher labor and training standards.“It steers building to the wrong places – and hides the carrying costs. Assistance is limited to new construction, pushing demand to the exurbs – away from locations where Californians work and live. New homes come loaded too: often carrying HOA dues, Mello-Roos taxes for infrastructure development, increased insurance premiums due to proximity to the wildland-urban interface, and transportation costs related to longer commutes.
“Proposition 37 has no cost to taxpayers. Loans are funded by private investors and repaid by home borrowers so funds are not diverted from Medi-Cal, schools, or CalWORKs. The LAO confirms there is no direct state or local cost.“No cost to the state – but a monthly bill for the buyer, possibly at a higher rate than the mortgage itself. CalHFA’s existing programs (MyHome, Dream for All) are deferred “silent seconds” – nothing owed until you sell or refinance. Prop 37’s bonds must be repaid out of the loans themselves, so buyers would likely pay monthy – and because second-mortgage bonds are riskier for investors, that rate could land above today’s roughly 6.5% first mortgage rate.
“Proposition 37 is backed by the California Democratic Party, the Realtors, and carpenters’ unions as well as Building a Better California.” Follow the money. The Yes campaign raised nearly $13 million by June 30. It’s largest single donation – $6 million – came from Building a Better California, the group Google co-founder Sergey Brin has funded with over $100 million this cycle to pass Props 41 and 42 and defeat the Billionaire Tax.

Prop. 37 would make a broad range of households eligible for downpayment assistance, but income eligibility alone does not determine who can realistically purchase a home. Racial and ethnic disparities in income, wealth, credit access, and housing affordability mean that not all eligible families across California may be positioned to benefit from the program as proposed.

Prop. 37 would require the buyer to put down at least 3% of the purchase price, which would still be unattainable for many Californians. For example:

  • A house that costs $500,000 would require a 3% down payment of $15,000.
  • A house that costs $700,000 would require a 3% down payment of $21,000.

These upfront costs could be out of reach for many families, with the result that Prop. 37’s assistance could largely benefit families with incomes toward the higher end of the eligibility range. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the median amount in Californians’ checking and savings accounts was just over $18,000 in 2025 dollars. This means that a 3% down payment could still almost or entirely clear out most or all of what an average family has in checkings and savings.

Prop. 37 could also reinforce economic, racial, and ethnic inequities in homeownership. The measure is intended to help “middle class” Californians, roughly defined as those with incomes between 80% to 200% AMI. White families are overrepresented among middle- and upper-middle-income Californians (46%), compared to their share of all California families (42%).

In contrast, Black and Latinx families are underrepresented in this “middle class” income range. This means that white families could disproportionately benefit from this program —  even though white households already make up the largest share of homeowners in the state, while Black and Latinx renter households face disproportionately high housing costs.

Prop. 37 does not require applicants to be first-time or first-generation home buyers, further exacerbating equity concerns. Black and brown communities have been historically excluded from building wealth and accumulating assets, making the barrier to entering the housing market even more pronounced. Families of color face occupational segregation that pushes them into lower-paying jobs. They are also less likely to inherit generational wealth, and are more likely to be renters. These factors make it substantially more difficult to save for a down payment, even at similar income levels. Additionally, data limitations often mask significant disparities in homeownership access across racial and ethnic groups, especially among Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Californians.

Could Prop. 37 Encourage Sprawl and Harm the Environment?

(calbudgetcenter.org) By restricting downpayment assistance to newly built homes or newly created housing units converted from nonresidential buildings, Prop. 37 could push more “middle-class” housing onto land that’s not well suited for housing. Much of the land in California best suited for housing has already been developed, leaving remaining areas that are often far from job centers, prone to wildfire,environmentally sensitive, or important for agriculture.

While existing state down payment assistance programs are not immune to these concerns because they can also be used to purchase new homes, Prop. 37 goes further by limiting assistance exclusively to newly constructed homes. As a result, Prop. 37 could further direct “middle-class” housing demand toward suburban and exurban areas. This is a critical deviation from infill development — building on denser, already developed land — which has been the focus of state affordable housing and environmental efforts.

This pattern of building housing on the periphery of cities is known as urban sprawl and carries various environmental and equity considerations. Development in more suburban and inland areas can push Californians further from job centers, increasing their commute times and making it difficult to travel without a car. It may also encourage development in areas on the outskirts of cities that may cause new homes to infringe upon natural habitats and important agricultural lands, especially in areas like the Central Valley. Sprawl can also lead to divestment from urban areas, which are often composed of communities of color, and concentrate investment in higher-income, suburban neighborhoods, further exacerbating racial and income inequality across the state.

What Other Homeownership Costs Could Come with Prop. 37’s New-Construction Requirement?

(calbudgetcenter.org) Prop. 37’s new construction requirement could steer homebuyers toward housing with higher out-of-pocket costs on top of their monthly mortgage payments. Unlike existing state down payment assistance programs, which can be used to purchase both new and existing homes, Prop. 37 would limit assistance to newly constructed homes. New construction homes are more likely to come with homeowners association (HOA) dues, Mello-Roos assessments (see next section), and home insurance challenges.

HOA fees are far more common in new homes as nearly 70% of newly built homes listed for sale nationally in 2024 were subject to HOA dues, compared with about 38% of existing homes. In California, more than a third of residents live in an HOA — including about 65% of all California homeowners. The average monthly fee is $280, and fees can rise up to 20% annually without a homeowner vote under current state law.

New construction in undeveloped areas of California also often comes with Mello-Roos special tax assessments, which fund infrastructure like roads, schools, and utilities in newly developed areas and are layered on top of regular property taxes — typically adding another monthly fee to new-build homes for years.

California’s home insurance market also compounds the problem. Some state insurers have stopped providing coverage in many of the wildfire-prone areas where new homes are being built which has statewide ramifications. California’s state-run insurer of last resort, known as the FAIR Plan, is likely to be overburdened to the extent that more insurers drop coverage across the state.

While home insurance challenges are not unique to Prop. 37, they remain acute in the wildland-urban interface — where almost 45% of the houses built in California have been located over the last 30 years. Though these areas tend to have less expensive real estate, they are also particularly susceptible to wildfires. That exposure could mean higher premiums, more difficulty securing a loan, or dependence on the FAIR Plan, driving additional costs on top of the repayments of Prop. 37.

Altogether, these compounding factors could undercut the affordability gains the measure is purported to provide for Californians. As a result, the benefits of Prop. 37 may skew toward eligible families with greater financial resources who were already better positioned to cover the costs of homeownership.

What is Mello-Roos, exactly? Well, Virginia, it’s the Sprawl Tax!

(taxhardshipcenter.com) Mello-Roos is a special tax levied on properties located within a Community Facilities District, or CFD. It is not a standard property tax. It is a separate assessment created specifically to fund infrastructure and public services in newer or developing areas of California.

The tax is named after the two California legislators who authored the enabling legislation: Senator Henry Mello and Assemblyman Mike Roos. They passed the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act in 1982, and CFDs have been a fixture of California real estate ever since.

If your property sits inside a CFD boundary, you pay Mello-Roos. If it does not, you do not. It is geography-based, not income- or value-based, as standard property tax is calculated under Proposition 13.

Proposition 13, passed in 1978, capped California property taxes at 1% of assessed value and limited annual increases to 2%. It was a meaningful protection for existing homeowners, but created a funding gap for local governments trying to build out infrastructure in new communities.

Mello-Roos was the Legislature’s answer to that gap. By allowing local governments and school districts to form CFDs and issue bonds backed by special taxes on properties within those districts, new developments could be funded up front without straining the general tax base. Residents in the new development pay the tax that funds the infrastructure they use.

The result is that newer subdivisions in California often carry Mello-Roos assessments while older neighborhoods in the same city do not. If you are buying in an area built after the early 1980s, it is worth checking.

Mello-Roos taxes typically pay for one or more of the following:

Roads, sewers, drainage systems, and utilities serve the development. Schools and school facilities. Fire stations and emergency services. Parks and recreational infrastructure. Public libraries.

The key point is that Mello-Roos funds are tied to specific projects within the CFD. The money collected from your property cannot be redirected to the city’s general fund or to infrastructure in a different district. That is also why the tax has a defined end date in most cases.

There is no universal rate. The amount varies significantly by district, by the infrastructure financed, and by the bond amount issued at the time the CFD was formed.

In practice, Mello-Roos assessments in California commonly range from a few hundred dollars per year to well over $5,000 annually on a single residential property. In high-cost areas or districts with substantial school bonds, annual assessments above $3,000 to $4,000 are not unusual.

The California Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act allows the special tax rate to increase by up to 2% per year, which is consistent with the cap on standard property tax increases under Proposition 13. Some CFDs build in annual escalators; others hold the rate flat until the bond is paid off.

Your annual property tax bill will show the Mello-Roos assessment as a separate line item, often labeled with the CFD name. If you are unsure what a specific line item represents, your county tax assessor’s office can explain it.

League of Women Voters CA

“NO” Recommended by


https://cayimby.org/endorsements/

CADEM
Los Angeles dem. Party
Cause action fund
Central Coast Labor Council