State Senator Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, is pulling his public housing measure from the November ballot, citing recent legislative progress on the issue and a fear that its nuances would be lost among the many other complex measures facing voters.
Meanwhile, he is doubling down on his effort to get a climate resiliency bond on the ballot to fund projects that reduce fire and flood risk, improve access to clean drinking water, protect against sea-level rise and expand renewable energy. While members of the state Senate and Assembly have agreed they want to move forward with the bond, they are currently in negotiations over its price tag and priorities.
“The impacts of climate change are being felt and will continue to be felt by Californians and it will exact quite a toll on us physically, logistically, infrastructurally and financially,” said Allen. “The idea here is that we are looking to make some smart upfront investments now, particularly in the areas of water infrastructure and wildfire prevention.”
Allen’s public housing measure, known as SCA 2, was approved for the November 2024 ballot by the state Legislature in 2022.
It would repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution, which requires local voters to approve any new government-subsidized, low-income housing. Article 34 was passed in the 1950s when there was a lot of fear around integrating neighborhoods and, as a result, a push to block government housing that might bring minorities into white areas.
Allen said that recently adopted laws — including his own SB 469 that passed last year — have gone a long way to promote the production of affordable housing and “address some of the most substantial concerns over Article 34.”
“I think Article 34 continues to be a symbolic problem and a stain on the Constitution, which is obviously an important reason to try to get it out of the Constitution,” he said. “But at the end of the day symbolism is less important than the on-the-ground reality.”
Voters rejected past campaigns to repeal Article 34 and Allen worries that the effort could fall flat again without a robust advocacy push. And it’s challenging to communicate a clear message when voters will potentially be grappling with more than two dozen measures and initiatives on the November ballot.
“We always knew that this effort would take a little bit of voter education, and that if we were able to create the space to make the case to voters we had a really strong shot of getting it done,” said Allen. “That principle is still very much true and intact, it’s just a matter of picking the right time to do it.”
On the other hand, the climate resiliency bond will have an easier time cutting through the noise Allen said, because it’s simple for voters to see how they benefit from things like clean water and fire protection.
“I think people understand and recognize that we need to do more to prepare for the realities of climate change,” he said. “People want the state to be better prepared, they want us to invest to make sure that we continue to have a high quality of life in the state.”
The state Senate approved a $15 billion version of the bond in 2023, but it has since been reduced to a lower figure in response to the state’s budget deficit and the fact that there may also be school and housing bonds on the ballot. The size of the reduction is still a subject of debate among Assembly and Senate members, but proposals range from $6 billion to $10 billion.
“The bigger the bond, the more we’re able to do, but also the more pressure it puts on future budgets,” said Allen. “So this is all about finding a happy medium where we’re able to make an impact on climate challenges while doing so in a way that’s really fiscally responsible.”
Legislators are also debating how much revenue should be allocated toward various priorities under the bond including hydrogen fuel, extreme weather shelters and offshore wind stations. They have until June 27 to strike a deal and place the bond on the ballot.