Building homes is a top priority for California Democrats again this year. Voters could get a say

California lawmakers showed historic enthusiasm for the abundance movement last year as they passed sweeping housing laws that roll back landmark environmental reviews for most urban developments and allow denser housing near transit — ambitious endeavors that would have gotten nowhere just a few years ago.

This year, housing advocates are trying to seize the moment again, particularly in the last year in office for the pro-building Gov. Gavin Newsom. 

Just days after returning to work, state lawmakers are already advancing a $10 billion bond that stalled last year to pay for new and existing affordable homes. The proposal, Senate Bill 417, cleared the Senate Housing Committee by an 8-1 vote last week and heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee next week. Lawmakers are seeking to put the measure on the June primary ballot, which would require the governor to sign it into law by Jan. 22.

“Those homes don’t build themselves, and it’s time to finish the job,” said Sen. Chris Cabaldon, a Napa Democrat who authored the legislation, during a hearing last week. “To unlock the full promise of these reforms requires cash. It requires sufficient capital, as it always has, to move these affordable housing projects from approval and permitting to construct.”

The bond measure would allocate $7 billion toward the state’s Multifamily Housing Program, which issues low-interest loans to build and maintain permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households. It also includes $2 billion for wildfire prevention, rental assistance and affordable housing for low-income tenants and farmworkers, as well as $1 billion in low-income first-time home buyer assistance, including help with down payments. 

The committee also approved a separate bond proposal to pay for housing for homeless youths, although lawmakers are looking to combine the bond measures. Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Van Nuys Democrat who authored the proposal, said she’d “couch surfed” at age 19 when she became unhoused for a year and half. The money would help reduce homelessness by offering relief earlier in people’s lives, she said. 

“This is an investment that is really going to help us save money down the line,” she said.

The legislative appetite for housing bonds indicates another good year for pro-abundance advocates. They’ve already got the ear of the governor, who declared himself an ally of the “Yes In My Back Yard” movement by signing a flurry of bills last year to fast-track housing production, which the governor touted in his State of the State address last week. 

This year, the governor said, the Legislature should focus on reducing the cost of construction, “utilizing new building methods and technology” and passing “worker-centered reforms that bring our brothers and sisters in labor along with us.”

In February, Sen. Jesse Arreguín of Oakland, a renter who’s big on fast-tracking housing construction, will take the helm of the Senate Housing Committee. He will replace Sen. Aisha Wahab, a fellow renter and Fremont Democrat who has long criticized new construction without protection for low-income tenants. 

Bill to curb rent increase dies again

But efforts to champion tenant protections hit a major snag Tuesday when a controversial rent control proposal died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Assembly Bill 1157, introduced last year to further restrict how much landlords can raise the rent each year, failed to get enough votes Tuesday despite being authored by the committee chair, Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose. 

The bill, sponsored by the tenant rights group Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, would have tied the annual rent increase rate to the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation, and capped it for most rental homes at 5%, instead of 10% under current state law. As a compromise, Kalra narrowed the bill on Tuesday to exclude single-family home tenants from the proposed rental relief in hopes of securing passage. Individual landlords of single-family homes aren’t subject to rent control under state law.  

“Tenants need a permanent solution, not a temporary fix,” Kalra said during Tuesday’s hearing.  “If we don’t act with urgency to help our tenants in crisis, we are going to continue to contribute to the risk of homelessness.”

The proposal stalled last year amid strong headwinds from a coalition of landlords and realtors led by the California Apartments Association. They argued Tuesday that the measure would discourage investment in rental housing and squeeze small landlords. Voters have rejected past rent control ballot measures, such as Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 33 in 2024. 

The measure needed seven votes to advance but only got four, all from Democrats. All three Republican committee members voted against the bill. Five other Democrats — assemblymembers Rick Zbur of Los Angeles, Blanca Pacheco of Downey, Diane Papan of San Mateo, Catherine Stefani of San Francisco and Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of San Ramon — did not cast a vote, which effectively counts as a no vote. 

Some of them, such as Zbur and Bauer-Kahan, expressed concerns during the hearing that the proposed law could hurt landlords. Rent hikes are caused by the state’s housing shortage, they argued, and the Legislature should instead focus on building more housing. 

Echoing similar concerns, Stefani’s spokesperson, Daniel Herzstein, said in a statement that a lower rent cap would risk squeezing small landlords who already face rising costs. Pacheco was unsure how the bill would affect mom-and-pop property owners, said her spokesperson Alina Evans. Papan’s office did not immediately return a CalMatters’ request for comment. 

Lidya Morales, a 53-year-old single mom from San Diego with three kids, said her monthly rent increased from $1,300 in 2022 to $2,000 last year. She works at three different hotels to afford it, she said. Without the proposed rental relief, she said she fears getting priced out.

“I don’t want to live in my car with my kids,” she said.

Following the bill’s defeat, hundreds of tenants affiliated with ACCE broke into chants in protest. “Housing is a human right!” Some yelled. Others screamed “shame” at the near-empty committee dais after most lawmakers ducked out after the vote.

Kalra told CalMatters that the bill failed because “we are listening to these wealthy landowners and apartment owners and not those that are literally struggling.”

“I think that shows the power and influence of moneyed interests,” he said.

Taming unintended consequences

Apart from unveiling ambitious proposals, state lawmakers this year must also figure out how to clean up after new housing policies like Senate Bill 79, a controversial law authored by Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco that overrides local zoning restrictions to allow apartment buildings up to seven stories near major transit stations in metro areas. 

Lawmakers passed the law narrowly last year after it went through 13 rounds of amendments to quell criticism from a coalition of interest groups and state lawmakers, who sought more stringent environmental reviews, labor protections, affordable units and local control. 

But critics say the resulting law still has unintended consequences. 

Mobile home park residents in the Bay Area who live close to transit lines say the law makes them vulnerable to displacement by allowing their parks to be redeveloped into apartment complexes, a loophole that Wiener himself acknowledged. 

Gail Rubino, a resident at the El Dorado Mobile Home Park in Sunnyvale, said at least 36 parks in six of the state’s most populous counties will be affected by the new law. If all were allowed to be redeveloped, more than 5,400 people would be displaced, she estimates. A new bill from Wahab, whose district includes many of the parks, seeks to shield mobile home parks from redevelopment into transit-oriented housing. 

“This lack of protection threatens existing affordable housing stock that SB 79 seeks to increase,” Rubino told lawmakers last week.

SB79 has caused confusion among local officials, who say the law is so vague that they cannot even agree on which counties it applies to. While Wiener has said it’s his intent to apply the new law to eight of the state’s most urban counties, local government associations insist only four fit the bill. Some local government agencies say they are afraid to adopt new zoning maps without clear guidance, worried it would result in litigation. 

Wiener said he will introduce new legislation later this year to clarify how counties should implement the new law. 

READ NEXT

Gavin Newsom forecasts a rosier California budget and banks on AI boom continuing

January 9, 2026January 13, 2026

Newsom casts California as a foil to the Trump agenda in his final State of the State

January 8, 2026January 8, 2026