What it does
Authorizes the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a "middle-class homeownership loan" program. Eligible buyers could receive a second mortgage covering up to 17% of a newly constructed or converted home's purchase price, while contributing at least 3% of their own funds as a down payment.
Creates or opens door to future tax/obligation?
N — revenue bonds repaid by borrowers; no direct state General Fund obligation
Revenue bonds vs. general-obligation bonds
Prop 37 uses revenue bonds, not general-obligation bonds. The key difference:
- General obligation bonds are repaid from the state's General Fund (taxpayer dollars)
- Revenue bonds are repaid only from revenue generated by the project or program — in this case, the mortgage payments made by participating homebuyers
What happens if home prices fall and borrowers default?
The official ballot measure language includes a specific statement that must appear on every bond:
"This bond shall not be deemed to constitute a debt or liability or a pledge of the faith and credit of the State of California, other than the agency, but shall be payable solely from the funds provided therefor."
This means:
- Legally, the debt stays with the bond investors and the pledged loan collateral, not the state's General Fund or taxpayers
- The second mortgages are subordinate to the primary mortgage, so if a borrower defaults, the first mortgage lender gets paid before the bond investors
- Investors bear the default risk and would demand higher interest rates to compensate for it
Important caveat
Prop 37 is a statute, not a constitutional amendment. In a severe housing downturn with mass defaults, the Legislature could face political pressure to change the program or provide a taxpayer backstop. The measure itself does not create that obligation, but a future Legislature could.
Who is eligible
- California resident for at least one year before applying
- Income no more than 200% of area median income for the county/metro
- Must occupy the home as a primary residence within 60 days of closing
- Must contribute at least 3% down payment from own funds (not a grant or borrowed money)
- Home must be newly constructed or newly converted from non-residential use; buyer must be the first purchaser
- Purchase price capped around $1 million to $1.5 million depending on county
Supporters say
- Helps middle-income families afford homes
- Self-supporting through borrower payments; no direct taxpayer cost
- Builds wealth for first-generation homebuyers
- Could spur construction of new homes
Opponents say
- $25 billion is a large exposure for the state agency to manage
- Risk of defaults or program losses if home prices fall
- Does not solve the underlying housing supply problem
- Second mortgage interest rates could end up higher than conventional mortgage rates, reducing the benefit
- Only helps buyers of new homes, not existing housing stock
My Vote and Why
My Vote: Yes
Why: The obligation is on the bondholders and the people taking out the loans, not taxpayers directly. The bonds explicitly state they are not a pledge of the state's faith and credit. As long as that structure holds, it does not create a new taxpayer obligation.
← Back to full 2026 Voting Research table