So, Does It Matter? On CA Politics!

So, Does It Matter? On CA Politics!

$25 Billion “Housing Bond” Measure Qualifies For November Ballot - It Should Be Firmly Rejected By Voters

Instead Of Fixing The Policies That Made Housing Scarce, Sacramento Wants Voters To Approve Another Massive Big-Government Workaround

Jon Fleischman's avatar
Jon Fleischman
Apr 23, 2026
∙ Paid

You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here. Our afternoon content is typically for our paid subscribers. Certain columns, like this one, are made available to all of our readers.

⏱️ 4 min read


A Familiar Sacramento Scam

A massive housing bond has now qualified for the ballot, and California voters should be very wary of what is being sold here. The basic idea is simple: for certain Californians who want to buy a home, instead of coming up with the traditional 20 percent down payment themselves, almost all of that upfront equity would effectively be supplied for them through government-issued revenue bond funds. This is the same failed governing formula Californians have seen over and over again. Politicians create a problem through bad policy, refuse to fix it, and then come back asking voters to authorize billions of dollars for a brand-new government program that supposedly will clean up the mess.

That is exactly what is happening here. California has spent years making it harder, slower, and more expensive to build housing. Now, instead of fixing the policies that made housing scarce in the first place, Sacramento wants to borrow billions to subsidize homebuying for a select group of people. Delegates to the California Republican Party convention voted unanimously to oppose this measure, and they got it exactly right. This proposal is not a real housing fix. It is a $25 billion big-government gamble designed to paper over the consequences of California’s own failed housing policies.

Top 5 Reasons To Vote No

  1. It does not fix the real problem

California’s housing crisis is not being driven by a lack of creative mortgage programs. It is being driven by a lack of housing supply. The state has piled on regulations, lawsuits, delays, fees, mandates, zoning restrictions, and ideological nonsense, making it incredibly difficult to build enough homes. This measure does not touch any of that. It leaves the actual disease in place and offers a taxpayer-backed painkiller.

  1. It will pump more money into a broken market

When there are too few homes, giving more buyers more purchasing power does not make housing cheaper. It makes competition for scarce housing even more intense. That is basic economics. In a state where buyers already bid against each other for too few homes, injecting billions of dollars in subsidized buying power risks driving prices even higher. Sacramento is pretending to make housing affordable when it may simply make the next house more expensive.

  1. It is a giant debt-funded government program

This is a $25 billion bond measure tied to a government-run intervention in the housing market. Sacramento has a terrible habit of acting like borrowed money is free money. It is not. Voters should be skeptical any time the people who helped create a crisis show up demanding authorization for billions more in debt to supposedly solve it.

  1. It picks winners and losers

One of the ugliest parts of this proposal is that it puts the government in the position of deciding who gets special help buying a home and who does not. Some Californians will get subsidized access to capital. Others will not. Taxpayers will be expected to underwrite the program whether they benefit from it or not. That is not broad-based housing reform. That is a political allocation of advantage inside a broken system.

  1. It gives politicians an excuse not to do the hard work

This may be the most important reason to oppose the measure. If voters approve this, Sacramento politicians will claim they “did something” on housing while continuing to duck the real reforms that would actually matter. Why confront the environmental litigation racket, the permitting bottlenecks, the anti-growth local rules, and the cost-driving mandates when you can just throw bond money at the problem and stage a press conference? A yes vote lets them keep avoiding accountability. A no vote forces the issue back where it belongs.

So, Does It Matter?

It does, because this is about more than just one housing measure. It is about whether Californians are going to keep rewarding a governing model that fails, then doubles down.

The people running this state helped create a housing market defined by scarcity, delay, cost, and frustration. Now they want voters to believe the answer is not less government distortion but a brand-new $25 billion government-backed workaround. That is not serious reform.

California does not need another giant housing bond. It needs to make it possible to build housing again. Until that happens, measures like this are not solutions. They are just expensive distractions.


Do Not Be Fooled By The “These Are A Different Kind Of Bonds” Argument

Do not be fooled by proponents trying to make this proposal sound acceptable just because it would be financed through a different kind of bond — “revenue bonds.” This is not risk-free financing. It is risk-shifting. The repayment risk is pushed down into the program itself, where it depends on payments from the participating homeowners and the value of the collateral behind those loans. If a homeowner stops paying, the state can try to collect and enforce its second mortgage — but before the state-created fund gets repaid, the bank holding the primary mortgage gets paid first. That means the government-backed piece is standing behind the main lender in the recovery order when things go bad, which can sharply limit recovery if the home is sold after default. Calling these “revenue bonds” does not make this proposal safe, harmless, or acceptable. It just means the risk has been repackaged, not removed.


A Bonus For Paid Subscribers

Below the paywall are three more amazing cartoons that you NEED to see.

If you aren’t a paid subscriber yet, please consider it! It’s a great way to support my work, and every week I get lots of great extra content!

User's avatar

Continue reading this post for free, courtesy of Jon Fleischman.

Or purchase a paid subscription.
© 2026 Jon Fleischman · Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start your SubstackGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture