Look, every few years California asks voters to approve bond measures to fund major projects like housing, schools, infrastructure, and water systems. This year we've got three of them on the ballot, and according to CalMatters Housing, understanding what you're voting on comes down to asking yourself two key questions about each measure.
Here's how bonds work in California's finances. The state uses them to borrow money upfront for big-ticket projects that cost too much to pay for out of the general fund all at once, then pays back the debt with interest over decades. The research shows that borrowing money at today's rates costs about fifteen percent more than if the state had cash on hand, but that premium lets us build now instead of waiting years to save up. Currently, California is paying back roughly eighty billion in existing bonds at about six billion three hundred million annually, which comes to around three percent of the general fund. That's below the historical average, so there is room to borrow more.
But just because there's room doesn't mean we should fill it all right now. Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget and Policy Center, points out that every dollar committed in bonds today is money we can't use later for schools, infrastructure, disaster recovery, or addressing the affordable housing shortage that will still be with us a decade from now.
According to the CalMatters analysis, Proposition One for affordable housing comes out strong on both questions. It would authorize over eleven billion for housing assistance and homelessness programs, and it targets people who need it most, including those experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, tribal communities, and young people aging out of foster care. Proposition Thirty-Eight, which focuses on scientific research funding, answers no to both questions because research work gets done in the early part of the repayment period while the state is still paying debt in the twenty-fifties with no guarantee of public benefit. Proposition Thirty-Seven is trickier. It would help middle-income families afford homes, which matters, but the program is open to people buying second homes and focuses only on new construction, which often pushes development away from job centers and into wildfire-prone areas.
What I am seeing locally here in the Bay Area is that these three measures hit differently depending on where you're standing. For East Bay and Fremont buyers and sellers, Proposition One addresses the real shortage we see every day, while Proposition Thirty-Seven's focus on new construction might push more development further out from our job centers, which affects traffic and where our communities grow. These are decisions about our regional future, not just state finances.
