The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 would authorize a general obligation bond, $10 billion of which would fund affordable housing and related infrastructure projects. Another $1.25 billion would fund the CalVet Home Loan Program. The Legislative Analyst’s Office reports bond funds would support up to 40,000 rental units and could also assist 40,000 families in buying a home.
Yes Argument
Proposition 1 builds and preserves affordable homes and expands homeownership opportunities without raising taxes. It unlocks federal matching funds and fast-tracks construction. This measure will benefit veterans, low-income seniors on fixed incomes, survivors of domestic violence and their families, at-risk foster youth, working families and people with disabilities.
No Argument
This package represents $11 billion in debt that taxpayers will add to their credit card with no reforms. We know the cost of building in California is exponentially higher than it needs to be. We have to reform that by first cutting costly regulations before we take out the credit card and borrow money.
Key Supporters
In Support
- All Home
- California Association of Veterans
- California Federation of Teachers
- Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
- Self-Help for the Elderly
In Opposition
- Carl DeMaio, California Assembly member
- Tony Strickland, California state senator
- David Tangipa, California Assembly member
FundraisingCampaign finance data comes from the California Secretary of State’s office or the Federal Election Commission.
Source: California Secretary of State
More Statewide Propositions

Should state and local governments have the option to provide public funding for election campaigns?

Should successor elections be eliminated from recall elections of state officials?

Should California issue $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a “middle-class” homebuyer downpayment assistance program?

Should California issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research?

Should California tax the wealth of billionaires to fund health care services?

Should California require ongoing audits of programs funded by specific taxes, and make those tax revenues subject to the state’s spending limit?

Should the state prohibit new taxes on financial assets like stocks and investment accounts and prohibit most retroactive taxes?

Should local tax measures placed on the ballot by voter signature face a higher threshold if the tax will be used for a specific purpose?

Should certain nonprofit community health clinics be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare services?

Should California speed up its environmental review process for certain projects?




