Voters split 50-46 against California housing measure

California voters rejected Proposition 45 by a margin of 50 percent to 46 percent, according to a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. The measure sought to change the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a law often cited as a driver of high construction costs and delays.

The proposal would have created a shot clock for legal challenges and expedited environmental reviews for projects classified as essential. These categories included housing, water, transportation, and internet access. Supporters argued the change would cut costly delays. Opponents warned it would weaken environmental protections and limit public input.

The measure faced internal resistance from pro-housing groups. A July poll from the Public Policy Institute of California showed 73 percent of likely voters in favor. By October, support had eroded to the point where opposition held a four-point lead. Experts cited confusion over the complex measure and effective opposition messaging as factors in the shift.

Campaign finance data shows supporters raised several million dollars more than opponents. However, Jason Elliott, a consultant who helped craft the measure, stated that proponents were outspent two to one on paid advertising. He said this disparity made it difficult for the yes campaign to compete in the final weeks.

Critics argued the measure favored low-density development on the outskirts of cities. Jordan Grimes, legislative director for the Greenbelt Alliance, said the proposal increased greenhouse gas emissions by forcing residents to drive more. He noted that the measure gobbled up natural areas and required outsize taxpayer investment in urban infrastructure to support sprawl.

Grimes pointed to Assembly Bill 130, which passed last year and exempted much urban infill housing from CEQA. He estimated that roughly 18,000 units have been permitted statewide since that law took effect. He described the legislative change as a watershed moment in urban housing production.

Proponents countered that the new measure would help cities left out of last year’s exemptions. Paul Shafer, public policy manager for the California Council for Affordable Housing, said infill projects larger than 20 acres did not qualify for the existing CEQA exemption. He noted that developers still face hurdles when redeveloping large shopping malls or parking structures.

Linda Mandolini, chief executive of Eden Housing, said delays cost her nonprofit $29 million on a 130-unit project in the eastern Bay Area. The organization was involved in lawsuits over the project for five years. Construction begins this year. She described death by delay as a real strategy used against affordable housing developers.

Propositions 1 and 37 passed easily on the same ballot night. These measures unlock billions in bond dollars for low-income housing and middle-income homeownership. Shafer said shot clocks would provide the certainty needed to secure financing and insurance for new developments.

Despite the rejection, some officials want state lawmakers to adopt parts of Proposition 45. The measure proposed a 365-business-day limit for environmental impact reports and a 270-calendar-day limit for lawsuits. Shafer said he does not expect the Legislature to prioritize such reforms for many years. Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at the UC Berkeley Center for Law, Energy and the Environment, suggested lawmakers should focus on allowing denser housing in areas zoned for single-family homes.