作者：美国社区媒体（ACoM）联合主任 Julian Travis Do
拥有自己的家，是许多人心中的美国梦。这句话或许听来老生常谈，却道出了真实的愿望。
对加州各地的移民家庭、工薪家庭和有色人种社区而言，没有属于自己的安身之所，是每天必须面对的现实：租金不断上涨，几代人挤住在狭小的公寓里，季节更替时忍受严寒酷暑，甚至为了负担得起住房，不得不痛苦地决定搬离熟悉的社区。
数据说明了一切。如今，加州只有22%的家庭负担得起中位价住房；对非裔和拉丁裔家庭而言，这一比例更低至令人痛心的11%。与此同时，超过一半的租房者将收入的30%以上用于住房支出（ACoM）。
不过，11月3日，这些社区以及加州全体选民，将有机会对三项住房相关提案表达意见。这些提案采取不同途径，试图解决长期存在的住房危机，让美国梦变得触手可及。
第1号、第37号和第45号提案，合计涉及约360亿美元的债券发行授权，以及一套新的环境审查程序。这三项提案并非一并制定，各有不同的发起方、制度设计和资金偿还方式。对希望了解切身利害的家庭来说，不妨先逐一看清，再思考它们之间的关联。
第1号提案：为可负担住房提供补贴
第1号提案由州议会提交选民表决，拟授权发行112.5亿美元州债券。根据加州立法分析办公室的说明，其中100亿美元将用于住房项目，由州一般基金偿还；另有12.5亿美元用于退伍军人购房贷款，通过退伍军人的房贷还款偿还。
最大的一笔资金，约72亿美元，将投向可负担出租住房。州选民指南表示，这笔债券资金将补助建设最多4万套出租住房、约2,500套农场工人住房，以及约1,200个学生住宿床位。州一般基金预计需要在约25年间，每年支付5亿至6亿美元偿还债务。批评者则认为，借债并非解决住房短缺的长久之计（《东湾时报》）。
第37号提案：协助支付购房首付
对第一代移民和有色人种家庭来说，买房最大的障碍往往不是每月还贷，而是缺乏可用来支付首付的代际财富积累。
支持者认为，第37号提案可以帮助跨越这道财富鸿沟。提案将允许加州住房金融局发行最多250亿美元的收益债券，用来提供第二顺位抵押贷款，金额最高可达新建住房售价的17%。购房者须自行支付至少3%的首付，并向私人贷款机构取得第一顺位房贷。
债券将通过借款人的还款偿还，不动用州一般基金；违约风险则由私人贷款机构承担，而非纳税人（CalMatters）。住房金融局可以发行全部授权额度的债券，但没有义务这样做。因此，250亿美元是上限，并非预计实际发行的金额。
第37号提案本质上是一项面向中等收入家庭的计划。借款人的收入最高可达所在地区收入中位数的两倍，且不必是首次购房者。因此，批评者指出，许多租房者可能仍无法取得第一顺位房贷；这项措施不会降低每月还款额，而增加购房资金还可能意外推高房价（NBC湾区）。
第45号提案：建设速度与环境保护之间的取舍
第45号提案并非债券案，而是一项由加州商会发起的规则改革。它拟将适用项目依据《加州环境质量法》（CEQA）进行的环境审查，限定在365天内完成，并收紧提起司法挑战的时限。其适用范围也不限于住房，还包括道路、供水及其他建设项目。
对有色人种社区而言，这是一个难以取舍的问题。支持者认为，一些资源充裕的社区有时会利用CEQA诉讼阻挠可负担住房建设，第45号提案则能让这些住房以更快速度、更低成本建成。
批评者则称，这是一项可能削弱环境保护的“开发商漏洞”。对于那些早已承受污染及工业开发主要冲击的社区而言，这种担忧尤为严肃（《纽约时报》）。
三项提案如何相互关联？
从法律上看，这三项提案各自独立；从实际运作上看，它们却是同一条住房供应链上的不同环节：第1号提案补贴住房供给，第37号提案为买方提供融资，第45号提案则影响审批速度。
如果第1号提案通过、第45号提案未获通过，获得补贴的项目可能仍按现有审查速度推进。如果第37号提案通过，却没有新住房建成，更多购房资金就可能争夺数量不变的房源，意外推高房价，让住房更加难以负担。至于第1号提案资助的项目中，有多少会采用第45号提案规定的程序，目前尚无定论。
选举日之后的问题
无论选民如何决定，批准资金向来不容易；但如果目标是解决加州住房危机，让有色人种和移民社区能够拥有自己的家，那么资金授权其实还算是相对容易的一步。执行计划必须纳入问责机制，确保不同群体都能公平获得机会。
对那些因房价过高而被挡在市场之外的家庭，以及面临被迫迁离的当地居民来说，实际问题依然存在：他们如何取得申请资格？宣传与服务能否触及非英语使用者？他们符合资格申请的住房，最终能否真正建成？
加州住房计划提出，到2030年需要新增超过250万套住房。然而，美国总承包商协会的2026年劳动力调查发现，多数承包商仍难以找到合格工人。
从选举后的星期三起，这些问题就将摆上台面。有关这三项提案的官方信息，请参阅加州选民指南。
编者按：本文为美国社区媒体（American Community Media，ACoM）联合主任 Julian Travis Do 撰写的观点文章。他的工作重点为公共政策及政策执行。
California’s $36 Billion Housing Bet: What It Means for Our Communities
By Julian Travis Do, Co-Director of ACoM
It sounds cliché, but owning a home is truly the American dream for many.
For immigrant families, working-class households, and communities of color across California, not owning a roof over their heads is a daily reality: rising rents, crowded multi-generation family apartments, extreme cold and heat when seasons change, and the painful decision to move far from familiar neighborhoods just to afford a home.
The numbers tell the story. Today, only 22% of California households can afford a median-priced home—a figure that drops to a devastating 11% for Black and Latino families. Meanwhile, more than half of renters spend over 30% of their income on housing (ACoM).
But on November 3, these communities and California voters in general will have a chance to weigh in on three housing-related propositions that take different approaches to solving the persistent housing crisis and putting that American dream within reach.
Propositions 1, 37, and 45 together involve roughly $36 billion in bond authority and a new environmental-review process. They were not written together. Each has a different sponsor, structure, and method of payment. For families trying to understand what is at stake, it helps to take them one at a time, then ask how they relate.
Proposition 1: Subsidies for affordable housing
Proposition 1 is an $11.25 billion state bond, placed on the ballot by the Legislature. Of that, $10 billion would fund housing programs and be repaid from the General Fund, and $1.25 billion would fund veterans’ home loans, repaid by veterans’ mortgage payments, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The largest share,about $7.2 billion, would go to affordable rental housing. The state’s voter guide says the bond would subsidize up to 40,000 rental units, about 2,500 farmworker units, and about 1,200 student beds. Repayment would cost the General Fund $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years. Critics argue that borrowing is not a lasting answer to the housing shortage (East Bay Times).
Proposition 37: Help with a down payment
For first-generation immigrants and families of color, the biggest barrier to homeownership isn’t the monthly payment—it’s the lack of generational wealth needed for a down payment.
Supporters see Prop 37 as a bridge across that wealth gap. It would let the California Housing Finance Agency sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds. The money would fund second mortgages covering up to 17% of the price of a newly built home. Buyers would put down at least 3% and get a first mortgage from a private lender.The bonds would be repaid by borrowers’ payments, not the General Fund, and private lenders, not taxpayers,would bear the default risk (CalMatters). The agency could borrow the full amount but would not be required to, so $25 billion is a ceiling, not a forecast.
Prop 37 is essentially a middle-income program. Borrowers could earn up to twice the area median incomeand need not be first-time buyers. That’s why critics of this proposition respond that many renters might still not qualify for a first mortgage, that the measure does not lower monthly payments, and that adding buyer money could unintentionally push up prices (NBC Bay Area).
Proposition 45: Speed versus protection
Proposition 45 is not a bond but a rule change, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce. It would limit environmental reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to 365 days for covered projects and tighten deadlines for court challenges. It also reaches beyond housing, to roads, water, and other projects.
For communities of color, this is a hard question. Supporters argue that CEQA lawsuits are sometimes used by well-resourced neighborhoods to block affordable housing, and that Prop 45 would let it be built faster and more cheaply. Critics call it a loophole for developers that could weaken environmental protections—a serious concern for neighborhoods that already bear the brunt of pollution and industrial development (New York Times).
How they relate
Legally, these are standalone measures. Functionally, they are parts of the same supply chain. Prop 1 subsidizes the supply. Prop 37 finances the buyer. Prop 45 controls the speed of the permits.
If Prop 1 passes without Prop 45, subsidized projects could move at today’s pace of review. If Prop 37 passes without new homes being built, more buyer financing could chase the same number of homes, unintentionally boosting prices and making houses even less affordable. How many Prop 1 projects would use Prop 45’s process is not settled.
The questions after Election Day
Whatever voters decide, authorizing money is always hard, but it’s actually the easy part in the context of solving California’s housing crisis and enabling communities of color and immigrants to own a home. Holding the system accountable for equitable access must be part of the execution plan.
For families who have been priced out and local residents facing displacement, the practical questions remain:How can they get qualified? Will outreach reach non-English speakers? And will their qualified homes actually get built?
California’s housing plan calls for more than 2.5 million new homes by 2030, and the Associated General Contractors of America’s 2026 workforce survey found most contractors still struggle to find qualified workers.
Those questions begin on Wednesday. For official information on all three measures, see the state voter guide.
Editor’s Note: This article is an opinion by Julian Travis Do, Co-Director of American Community Media (ACoM) where he focuses on public policy and execution capacity.