In 2022, San Francisco rejected Proposition A despite sixty-five percent of voters choosing to pass it. This measure would have allowed the city to fund improvements to public transportation, streets, and sidewalks. Unfortunately, a minority of voters – about thirty-five percent – voted against this proposition, leaving these vital aspects of San Francisco’s infrastructure untouched [1]. Currently, San Francisco is ranked the seventh-worst city in the United States in terms of traffic, and Proposition A would have worked to solve this issue [2]. This rejection exemplifies how California’s high voting thresholds can block critical improvements, leaving cities unable to address pressing infrastructure needs despite majority support. Proposition 5 would prevent similar rejections by allowing cities such as San Francisco to make decisions on infrastructure and housing measures more democratically.

Proposition 5 is an initiative on California’s November ballot that would switch the supermajority needed to pass any local bonds for infrastructure and affordable housing from two-thirds to fifty-five percent. A local bond is a way for city governments to borrow money from investors and pay it back with interest over time. Slight increases in property taxes typically pay back bonds for local infrastructure and affordable housing. More bonds of this nature would be passed if the supermajority required to pass one were lowered through the enactment of this proposition. The Legislative Analyst’s Office found that twenty to fifty percent more local bonds would have passed in recent local elections under Proposition 5 [3]. Importantly, Proposition 5 would require that cities monitor the use of bonds through audits and oversight committees to account for the increased number of passed bonds.

Proposition 5 is essential because California is notorious for poor transit and expensive housing. In cities such as Los Angeles, traffic can make driving three miles on the 405 take nearly forty minutes. These long, inefficient commutes to work decrease productivity and quality of life. This also hurts California’s economy, as workers are spending time that could be spent at work sitting in their cars commuting. By making it easier to pass infrastructure bonds, cities will be able to improve roads and public transportation to decrease traffic and make streets safer. Shorter commute times and safer roads would increase the overall productivity of California’s cities, benefiting the economy and quality of life. Safer roads would also lead to fewer accidents and less money spent on car repairs, which can cost thousands of dollars.

Between October 2019 and June 2022, California’s monthly ridership for public transit dropped from over one hundred million to about sixty million people [4]. In addition to the growth of remote work, the quality of public transit has declined, while the price has increased. In Los Angeles County, fares that used to be $1.50 for a round trip are now $1.75 each way, making the burden of public transit add up in the long run for its users [5]. By passing Proposition 5, public transit would receive increased funding through bonds, improving its efficiency, and thus reducing the costs of transit and potentially its fares.

Improved public transportation would also mean less carbon emissions released. If public transit is more affordable, safe, and convenient, people will be more likely to utilize it, resulting in less personal car use, and decreasing the overall emissions. Proposition 5 could also make funding available for greener transportation projects such as bike lanes and pedestrian-friendly areas.

Infrastructure bonds work to improve public transit. In 2016, voters passed Measure RR, which issued bonds for $3.5 billion to improve the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system [6]. This has allowed BART to decrease the number of trains delayed due to outdated rails by four hundred in 2023 [7]. This comes from only around half the funding awarded to BART in Measure RR, showing the efficiency of transit improvements [8]. The plan still intends to improve stations, power infrastructure, tunnels, etc. This is just one example of numerous nationwide improvements to infrastructure through local bonds. 

California’s median housing prices are the highest out of any state, coming in at nearly $800,000, making buying a home impossible for many people [9]. When people cannot buy a home, they are forced to rent. This is why almost half of all Californians are renters, higher than every state except New York [10]. Renting doesn’t build equity or offer the tax benefits (via the home mortgage tax deduction) that buying a home does. The majority of California renters are rent-burdened, with almost thirty percent spending more than half of their income on rent [11]. When spending this much money on a home each month, Californians make sacrifices just to keep their families housed.

Municipal bonds for local affordable housing developments have combated the housing crisis and decreased homelessness. Berkeley has seen a forty percent drop in unsheltered homelessness in the past two years, a result of passing more local bonds to fund housing in the city [12]. Similar to Proposition A mentioned earlier, Measure L would have been used to further fund new housing developments but wasn’t enacted because forty percent of Berkeley voters rejected the initiative [13]. These ballot measures are only two examples of the many bonds rejected that would have improved infrastructure and housing.

Critics of Proposition 5 argue that it may increase property taxes in some cities where the bonds are passed. However, for these bonds to be passed, fifty-five percent of the vote is needed. Thus, property taxes will only increase when a clear majority of the community has determined that the benefits of the bond outweigh the costs. If a city’s population votes to reject a bond, then taxes won’t increase. This proposition doesn’t directly increase the number of bonds passed or property taxes, but it does give voters more of a say in how their local governments address infrastructure and housing.

Some bonds won’t even raise taxes if implemented. London Breed, the Mayor of San Francisco, stated that Proposition A wouldn’t raise taxes because it would have replaced older bonds, keeping tax rates the same [14]. This would be the case for many municipalities as infrastructure and housing would be improved with little to no increase in taxes.

Additionally, any concerns that bond funds will be misused are addressed by the proposition’s implementation of an oversight committee. This makes sense because more bonds will be passed, resulting in more funds flowing through municipal governments. To account for this, the establishment of oversight committees would ensure that funds are used efficiently and correctly.

The implementation of Proposition 5 not only empowers voters to improve their communities but also sets a foundation for more responsive and equitable governance. Backed by the California Democratic Party, Habitat for Humanity California, and California State Association of Counties, this measure is an essential step toward addressing California’s most pressing issues in housing and infrastructure. A ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 5 means a future where essential improvements in transportation and housing reflect the will of the majority – not a minority – to shape the future of their communities.