California voters have made their call on two statewide measures that went right at the two problems our members raise with me most: what it costs to buy, sell, and finance housing, and how long it takes to get to “yes.” It was a split result for HAC. As of today, it appears voters rejected Prop 43, which we opposed, and they also rejected Prop 45, which we supported.
Now that the results are in, I want to walk through where HAC landed on each, why, and what the outcome means for the fights ahead.
Prop 43: What it really was
Prop 43 didn’t start where it ended. It began as a leverage play to reform transfer taxes including LA’s Measure ULA and others around the state (Assembly Bill 736). When that deal fell apart, what made it to the ballot was a larger threat to local governments than anyone expected. Prop 43 would have required a two-thirds vote for taxes going forward, starting in 2027. And it left existing transfer taxes, including ULA, untouched.
HAC opposed Prop 43 for two reasons. First, it makes it harder for communities to fund housing and infrastructure. Second, it would have rewarded a negotiation that walked away from real transfer-tax reform.
I want to be honest about the tradeoff. Some of our members saw Prop 43 as protection against the next ULA, and I understand why. But Prop 43 wouldn’t have fixed ULA and that fight is still ahead of us.
The transfer tax problem, by the numbers
Research from the UCLA Lewis Center and RAND found that after ULA took effect, sales of multifamily-zoned land over $5 million in LA dropped roughly 50 percent more than in comparable nearby cities. If developers aren’t buying land, they aren’t building homes. The same research found that only about 8 percent of ULA’s revenue comes from sales of newly built multifamily housing.
The fix is straightforward: exempt new multifamily housing, or lower the rate drastically, so these taxes stop creating a financial disincentive to build. That’s where HAC will keep pushing.
Prop 45: Getting to “yes” faster
On a second measure, HAC supported Prop 45. We fought hard for the 2025 CEQA reforms in Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131, and they were a big step forward. But gaps remain, and there’s no guarantee those wins will hold. We believed locking in faster approvals at the ballot was the right play, and the gaps it aimed to close are still there.
Many of our pro-housing allies stayed neutral or opposed Prop 45 out of concern about sprawl and (misinformation around) data centers, and I respect where they’re coming from. We need to push for reforms that focus on infill and with the coalitions that have made progress, we’re stronger together.
The through-line
No other pro-housing organization took on both of these problems this cycle. That matters. Builders and housing providers need an organization that can deliver wins at the ballot, not just in Sacramento and city halls. HAC needs to be that organization.
Where we’re going
That’s why we’re building political power through our c4 and the HAC PAC. The goal is for HAC to lead housing campaigns, not just sign on to them. The next round of housing fights, including potential 2027 and 2028 measures on housing, will be decided by who has the power to shape them early.
Thank you for being part of this work. HAC will be providing more election analysis once the final numbers are in. Stay tuned!
