Election Results Update [8 November 2006]

For updated results on all propositions, see the Secretary of State website.

Background

As of the third quarter of 2005, according to data from the California Association of Realtors, California median-income households (those with a median household income of $54,140) were $73,810 short of the $127,950 qualifying income needed to purchase a median-priced home at $545,910. Housing units in California are built from a variety of financial sources. Most units are built by private industry. Some units however, are built with federal, state and local government assistance through state programs. These programs provide private developers, non profit and government agencies with low-interest loans to subsidize housing construction costs provided the housing is rented or sold to low income residents. City and county governments traditionally pay any infrastructure costs that might incur from new housing including water, sewers, and roads. The state government also supplies eligible first-time home buyers with assistance with their down payment on a new home.

The most recent funding increase for housing for low income residents came with the passage of Proposition 46 in 2002. The proposition provided $2.1 billion for a housing trust fund which has been the source for creation of new shelter beds, apartments for homeless and funds for low-income home buyers in the last 4 years. Low income housing supporters claim that Prop. 46 funds may be exhausted by the end of 2006.

Proposition 1C originated as SB 1689 which was introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland). The legislature passed the bill on 4 May 2006. The proposition was part of a larger infrastructure development bond targeting education, flood protection and housing. Negotiations in the legislature led to cutting the bond into separate bills, each aimed at different parts of infrastructure development.

Proposition 1C would provide $2.85 billion in funds for 13 new and existing housing and development programs which would fund new battered women shelters, low-income senior housing, veterans housing and shelter for homeless families. The programs are divided into four categories, each targeting a separate area of housing development.

• $1.35 million from the measure would fund new development projects in urban areas and public transportation targeting parks, water, sewage and housing. Loans and grants would be provided amongst private contractors.
• $625 million from the measure would fund down payment assistance to low and medium-income home buyers. Eligibility for assistance would be based on household income, cost of the home and whether or not it is the home buyer's first home.
• $590 million from the measure would fund rental housing renovation projects aimed at constructing new housing for low-income families. Private developers, local government and nonprofit organizations would receive a 3% low-interest loan to fund the construction provided that a portion of housing would be reserved for poor households. Prop. 1C gives funding priority to projects located in developed areas and near existing public services.
• $285 million from the measure would provide loans and grants for the construction and renovation of homeless shelters and homes for farm workers. Additional funds would be used for projects aimed at providing affordable housing.

The state would make payments on the bond debt from the general fund over a period of 30 years. Unlike most bonds, some of the programs introduced by Prop. 1C are not eligible for federal tax exemption as they provide funds for private use. This would cause the interest rate to be higher. These bonds would generate approximately $3.3 billion along with the $2.85 billion cost of the principal. The total annual cost to the state would be around $204 million. In addition, the programs provided by Prop. 1C would cost the Department of Housing and Community Development and the California Housing Finance Agency some administrative costs. A portion of these costs would be paid by the programs' funds over time.

Campaign Finance

Browse our updated webpage listing major contributors to all of the campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures here.

Proponents of Proposition 1C say that it will provide much needed shelter for thousands of citizens who cannot afford housing. They cite statistics that find that there are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in the state that cannot access shelter each night. They also point to thousands of battered women and their children who were turned away from shelters last year. Proposition 1C, proponents argue, would provide new jobs to administer the programs and new housing for target risk groups. They claim that the costs would be paid from the general fund, money supplied from tax dollars already spent by California residents. Supporters of Proposition 1C come from members of the business community, homeless and battered women advocacy groups, and senior citizens and youth organizations.

Opponents of Proposition 1C claim that it will add debt and bureaucracy to California's already stumbling economy. They say that the Proposition will barely touch the housing crisis and will instead enable the state to help only a small minority. Critics claim that Californians will actually have to pay an additional $600 in taxes over the life of the bond. Furthermore, they contend that future generations will be saddled with years of debt. Opponents blame the housing affordability issue on government interference in the form of over regulation of the housing industry, environmental lawsuits and high fees on private industry. Opponents largely come from anti-tax groups and members of the business community.

Official Voter Guide
Includes title and summary, arguments for and against, and text of the initiative.

Housing and Emergency Shelter Bond
Analysis by California Legislative Analyst, 2006.

Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2006 election" and "Prop. 1C " in dropdown boxes)

League of Women Voters of Education Fund non-partisan analysis

Rebuilding California
Pro-Prop. 1C website.
[Website archived in UCLA Online Campaign Literature Collection]

Analyzing the Vote for Selected Propositions, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006.

Exit poll: Complete poll data, Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Nov. 9, 2006.

Majorities of voters appear ready to approve the state's infrastructure bonds (Props. 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E). Field Poll, Release 2219, Nov. 4, 2006.

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, Public Policy Institute, October 2006.

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, Public Policy Institute, September 2006.

Feinstein, Brown and Lockyer ahead, other statewide races close or tied; Support for infrastructure bonds and propositions 86 and 87 lukewarm.
Los Angeles Times Exit Poll, Sep. 29, 2006.

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future, Public Policy Institute, August 2006.

Voters are supporting four of the five bond proposals on the November ballot, although not by overwhelming margins. Field Poll, Release 2206, July 28, 2006.

Continuing negative job appraisals of the Governor and the legislature, despite initial support for infrastructure bonds. Field Poll, Release 2201, June 5, 2006.

Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E: The Public Works Bond Package. Oct. 2006, California Budget Project

The following citations include links to full-text articles online, when they are available. Some restrictions on use apply, due to licensing requirements. For more information, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.

Abate, Tom.
"Welcome results for business: Passage of bonds should make it easier for firms to thrive in California," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Richards, Gary; de Sá, Karen; Hull, Dana.
"Home run for bonds: $43 billion to fix decades of neglect, needs," San Jose Mercury News, Nov. 9, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Rau, Jordan.
"With bonds approved, the line for billions forms," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2006.
Los Angeles Times

Lucas, Greg.
"Infrastructure bonds: Voters backing governor's public works spending package," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 8, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Cabanatuan, Michael.
"Infrastructure bonds on course for victory: Voters set to invest in transit, schools, housing and water," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 4, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Mendel, Ed.
"Voters to decide how much debt state can afford: 5 bond measures total $43 billion," San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Richman, Josh.
"Governor: McClintock is 'wrong' on bonds," Oakland Tribune, November 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Radovich, Emma.
"Proposition Is Latest Volley In Debate Over Housing Costs," Daily Californian (UC Berkeley), Oct. 30, 2006.
Daily Californian

Marinucci, Carla.
"Public Policy Institute of California Poll: Governor bucks trend against GOP," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2006.
[Includes poll information on Propositions 1B-1E, and 84.]
San Francisco Chronicle

Mendel, Ed.
"Backers of Prop. 1C stress need to fund existing programs: Housing bond would finance shelters," San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 19, 2006>
Access World News (UCB)

Halper, Evan.
"Initiative Could Undermine State Bond Issues: A measure to restrict use of eminent domain would hinder construction under Props. 1A to 1E, critics say," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 18, 2006.
Los Angeles Times

Herdt, Timm.
"Backers hoping bond measures pay dividends," Ventura County Star, Oct. 16, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Schultz, E.J.
"Valley has big stake in $37b: Massive bond package on ballot affects levees, roads, schools, housing," Fresno Bee, Oct. 9, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Wildermuth, John.
"Bonds seen as the only way to get things built," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 8, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Wildermuth, John.
"Bond Measures: Governor, Dems chums once more," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 5, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Leonard, Bill [Opinion].
"Let housing operate in a free market," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

De Sa, Karen.
"Measure would fund more affordable housing," San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 3, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Furillo, Andy
"Big push planned for bond issues," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 1, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Mecoy, Laura; Yamamura, Kevin.
"Republicans reject bonds: Governor loses party backing on 2 measures,"Sacramento Bee, Aug. 21, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

[Opinion].
"Fate of Arnold's bond package dicey," Oakland Tribune, July 29, 2006.
Access World News (UCB)

Yi, Matthew.
"Infrastructure bonds find general approval with voters, poll says: Initiative to aid homeless housing, shelters is behind,"
San Francisco Chronicle, July 28, 2006.
San Francisco Chronicle

Hecht, Peter.
"Coming this fall: Big ballot bingo: Bonds, tax hike facing voters in November total $46 billion, Sacramento Bee, July 1, 2006.
Access World News

Wisckil, Martin.
"Governor makes pitch: Schwarzenegger visits to drum up support for his $37.3 billion public works plan," Orange County Register, May 9, 2006
Access World News (UCB)

Nelson, Soraya Sarhaddi; Joseph, Brian.
"Billions in the works," Orange County Register, May 6, 2006
Access World News (UCB)