Housing policy was at the forefront of this year’s election, with both presidential candidates campaigning on plans to address record-high cost burdens and supply shortages. Housing also took center stage down the ballot as voters were presented with a dozen or more ballot measures related to housing at the state and local levels.

Though there’s an important role for the federal government in addressing access to affordable rental housing and homeownership, establishing tenant protections, and ending homelessness, president-elect Trump’s first term in office featured roll backs of fair housing protections and other proposed restrictions, which would have made it harder for families to access federal housing supports. If that trend continues in his second term, policymakers and advocates may wish to focus on strategies that can be enacted at the state and local levels.

Below, we highlight implications for state and local policymakers and advocates interested in advancing equitable housing policy based on the voting outcomes of 12 state and local ballot measures.

Affordable housing received broad, but not universal, support

Increasing the housing supply, particularly housing affordable to those with low incomes, can alleviate housing costs and advance housing stability for families across the country. Voters seemed to recognize this reality last week, with at least one state and nine localities passing measures to fund affordable housing (through bonds, taxes, or budget appropriations).

In Rhode Island, 65 percent of voters supported the issuance of a $120 million housing bond—the largest in state history—to increase the availability of affordable housing. The funds will be used for public housing construction, construction for homeownership, efforts to acquire and redevelop existing properties, physical infrastructure upgrades to support housing development, and support for municipal changes that support housing development. Voters in Baltimore and Asheville, Chapel Hill, and Charlotte, North Carolina, also approved new bonds to support affordable housing. 

In Los Angeles County, residents voted to replace a 0.25 percent sales tax approved in 2017 with a 0.5 percent tax directed toward affordable housing, mental health and addiction treatment, and services for some people experiencing homelessness. The new tax is estimated to raise more than $1 billion annually. Voters in St. Louis also authorized a new 3 percent tax on short-term rentals that will fund affordable housing and other related initiatives, while voters in Orange County, Florida and San Francisco supported funding existing housing trust funds to develop affordable housing.

Despite the success of many affordable housing initiatives, our analysis suggests that local and regional context continues to drive policy priorities. Although most of the measures we identified were put forth in heavily Democratic localities and states, not all passed. For instance, a narrow margin of 51 percent of voters in Cary, North Carolina, rejected a $30 million housing bond that would have financed new and preserved existing housing for residents with low incomes. Similarly, 51 percent of voters in Denver, Colorado, denied a 0.5 percent sales tax increase that would have funded affordable rental housing, reduced rents, and provided more affordable homes for purchase.

Renter protections and supports for the unhoused were more popular when paired with affordable housing strategies

Compared with affordable housing, fewer measures related to protections for renters and the unhoused made it to the ballot. Of the five measures we identified, three failed to pass.

In the California cities of Larkspur and San Anselmo, measures that would have limited rent increases for certain units to 60 percent of inflation failed to gain traction. Additionally, California’s controversial Proposition 33, which would have given localities more freedom to limit rent increases by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, failed to pass following a high-profile and expensive campaign. Proposition 33 is the third time in six years that a measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins has been put forward to California voters.

However, voters were not completely against these types of initiatives. In Berkeley, California, voters passed a measure to use existing revenue for housing retention and homelessness prevention, modify eviction rules, remove rent control and registration exemptions for certain units, and limit rent increases to 5 percent. And in Hoboken, New Jersey, residents opposed a measure to repeal a 51-year-old regulation that limits rent increases to 25 percent when tenants vacate units.

Additionally, two of the affordable housing measures mentioned above—Charlotte’s Housing Bond Measure and Los Angeles County’s Measure A—also included funding for supportive services for those experiencing homelessness. The success of these measures suggests bundling targeted supports for tenants and the unhoused with more general funding for affordable housing may make the policies more palatable to voters.

This year’s measures are only a snapshot of the national housing landscape, and the success or failure of a ballot measure can’t be taken as an outright endorsement or rejection of specific strategies or goals. Although preelection polling indicated that affordable housing was a priority for Denver voters, residents voted against a tax increase to fund affordable housing. The failure of the measure may speak more to the policy’s approach and voters’ economic concerns rather than the substance.

What’s next?

As our colleagues outlined in their recent report A Road Map for Affordable and Stable Housing For All, advancing stable and affordable housing for all requires a comprehensive policy strategy that expands the housing supply, empowers renters, supports first-time homebuyers, and invests in solutions to homelessness.

Given the broad support that funding for affordable housing received in this month’s election, states and localities may have an opportunity to pair housing development efforts with efforts to protect vulnerable residents. In the face of an uncertain federal housing landscape, state governments in particular will have a critical role to play in ensuring that lesser-resourced communities are equipped with the funding needed to increase housing affordability and stability for their residents.

Many of the housing strategies that made it to the ballot can also be pursued by local government entities (PDF), like city councils and county commissions, through legislation. But policy is only one tool to accomplish this broad vision for safe and affordable housing, and housing organizations and advocates can continue to work outside of election and budget cycles. Community and tenant organizers can continue to build political and economic power by creating tenant unions, developing housing that is independent of public funding or outside of the speculative sphere, and advocating for policies and programs that promote equitable housing at the local and state levels.