Ballot measures offer a mechanism by which elected leaders can secure a dedicated local funding source to help fill capital gaps in affordable housing developments, provide funds that abate homelessness, and support a stressed ecosystem struggling to produce and preserve affordable units, especially during periods when elevated interest rates or high construction costs might constrain private developers. These locally controlled funds are more responsive to local priorities and needs, and can often be leveraged with private, philanthropic, and, in some cases, federal dollars, making them an extremely valuable resource for local communities trying to combat the housing crisis. When combined with strategic policy choices that expand access to quality housing options for low-income renters and prospective homeowners, and aligned with outside investment, ballot measures can have a major impact in supporting the production and
preservation of affordable housing.

The Challenge This Tool Solves

As the costs of land, construction, and maintenance steadily rise, housing projects increasingly require infusions of additional capital to move forward. Without a dedicated local funding source to fill the gaps, many cities cannot produce the housing required to serve their residents, deepening an already sever affordability crisis.

Types of Communities That Could Use This Tool

Housing ballot measures could be pursued by thousands of local governments, including cities and counties, as well as at the state level. Nationally, most local governments have the authority to raise dedicated revenue via ballot measure, though whether that authority resides with city or county government, and the process which a local government must go through to put a measure on the ballot, can vary widely by state.

Expected Impacts of This Tool

Local governments have successfully leveraged public dollars up to 9.5X through private, philanthropic, and federal sources. Based on a development cost of $250,000 per subsidized unit, each $1 million raised through a local ballot measure could finance approximately 38 new homes. A $100 million bond could thus finance nearly 3,800 new homes. Costs for preservation and/or household stabilization programs often cost less, allowing these funds to stretch even further. Moreover, if deployed through a revolving loan, local funds can support even more units over the long-term, as the initial investment(s) can be redeployed into future projects as funds are repaid.