10
Loading video...
By Giulia Carbonaro
Senior Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Millions of voters across four states will decide on six housing measures in the November midterms, the most related to housing policy in a single election year in 20 years, according to Ballotpedia.
Housing affordability has become more difficult to achieve in the country, as rising costs and historically high mortgage rates led to the U.S. homeownership rate declining last year for the first time since early 2016. National median home values have surged by over 30 percent since 2019, and stepping onto the property ladder has become particularly difficult for first-time buyers due to higher borrowing costs.
The crisis is evident in expensive markets with chronically low inventory like California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where voters will be able to take matters into their own hands next month. With affordability issues showing no sign of easing due to the uncertainty fueled by the ongoing war in Iran that has driven up energy prices and inflation fears, housing is shaping up to be one of the core issues on November 3—at least in these four states.
Read More on News
Three of the initiatives were referred to the ballot by state legislatures, while three are citizen initiatives. Most address restrictions to homebuilding that lawmakers have been targeting in the bipartisan 21st Century Road to Housing Act and that experts have said are necessary to change to boost supply nationwide—including land use, zoning, and permitting.
What These Four States Have in Common
All four states got an “F” rating from Realtor.com in its 2026 affordability and homebuilding report cards. Massachusetts and Rhode Island featured among the top five states with the lowest building intensity relative to population, at 0.41 and 0.37, respectively.
California, despite being one of seven states that together accounted for over half of building permits last year, at 7.3 percent, had a negative new-construction premium, meaning newly built homes are actually cheaper than existing ones, at an estimated -3.8 percent.
California and Hawaii were among the worst states for affordability and homebuilding as they face “high prices, constrained land, restrictive zoning, and building costs that far outpace what middle-income buyers can afford,” researchers wrote.
The average California home value is $761,538, according to Zillow data, up 0.6 percent over the past year; in Hawaii, it is $832,932, up 1.4 percent year-over-year; in Massachusetts, it is $655,219, up 2.3 percent compared to a year earlier; and in Rhode Island it is $508,507, up 3.5 percent year-over-year.
In total, only six states got an “F” rating. The other two are Connecticut and New York, which share many of the same challenges as the remaining four. Newsweek contacted Realtor.com and Redfin for comment by email on Monday morning.
"All four states scored poorly in our rankings because they have current affordability struggles—median earners have a hard time affording the monthly payment on a median-priced home—and they are doing little to address affordability in the future. They don't build many homes relative to their populations and the homes they do build tend to be quite expensive," Joel Berner, senior economist at Realtor.com, told Newsweek.
"Some common threads are heavy regulation, especially related to environmental review and zoning, and land scarcity—at least in areas where people want to live in California's case."
Below is a breakdown of the measures on the ballot next month.
California: Proposition 1, Proposition 37 And Proposition 45
California’s Proposition 1, also known as the Veteran and Housing Assistance Programs Bond Measure, would authorize the state to issue $11.25 billion in bonds to fund income-qualified housing programs, such as the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and the veteran home loan program.
Of the total, $1.25 billion would be dedicated to the veteran home loan program, while the rest to the other income-qualified housing programs. The last time that California approved a bond measure was in March 2024, when voters backed the issuance of $6.38 billion in bonds to fund housing for homeless individuals and veterans.
Proposition 1, which will be put to voters as a yes/no question, received support from the state’s Democrats and 25 percent of Republicans.
Proposition 37 is a citizen-initiated measure that would authorize the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a new down-payment assistance program targeting some homebuyers in the state. These are defined by the measure as residents of at least one year who earn at or below 200 percent of the area median income for a similar-sized family in the county or city where the home is located and provide a down payment of at least 3 percent of the purchase price.
While these two initiatives are about housing assistance, Proposition 45, another citizen-led proposal, addresses land use, zoning and permitting. The measure, which will be put to voters as a yes/no question, would change the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Permit Streamlining Act for essential projects, defined to include housing, water, renewable energy, medical facilities, public safety infrastructure, broadband, education, and transportation.
Proposition 45, also known as the Expedited Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative, would establish deadlines for agencies to review applications and make permitting decisions, shorten or limit public agencies’ existing requirement to consider a range of project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts; and change the court review process for project approvals, limiting the occasions in which courts can delay or overturn them.
"Of the three measures on the ballot in California, Prop 45 would likely have the most direct impact on homebuilding," Chen Zhao, head of economics research at Redfin, told Newsweek.
"It would set deadlines for agencies to review applications, shorten parts of the environmental review process, and limit the circumstances in which courts can delay or overturn project approvals. Any time or uncertainty we can remove from that process can help lower costs for builders, so more projects could pencil out," she added.
"That said, I don’t expect the impact to be huge. Environmental review is one of many factors holding back building in California. Zoning, local fees, construction costs and financing costs matter too. Prop 45 also includes project types beyond housing, so the effect on for-sale inventory would likely be gradual. It also takes years to permit and build a home, so it’ll likely take several years for any impact to show up in listings."
Permitting delays are a costly deterrent to new construction, "so implementing a limit on the review process as Proposition 45 does could speed up the pace of new homes coming onto the market and increase the number of new projects that builders take on," Berner said. "This kind of supply-side deregulation is exactly what we hope to see more of in places like California that badly need new housing."
Proposition 1 would mainly add affordable rental units, Zhao said, whereas Proposition 37 is a down payment assistance program for new construction. "It’s meant to give builders a more reliable buyer pool," she said. "The risk is that in a market with insufficient supply some of that assistance pushes up new-home prices rather than resulting in more units."
Propositions 1 and 37 "could be helpful to homebuyers as well, but "would not do as much to address the housing shortage and high home prices we see in California today," Berner said. "Subsidizing home purchases could actually drive home prices up, while enabling additions to the supply of new homes would bring them down."
Hawaii: Question 2
In Hawaii, voters will decide on Question 2, a constitutional amendment that would authorize the state legislature to empower the counties and municipalities of the state to issue housing infrastructure growth bonds for specified public works, public improvements, and community development.
The bonds would be “repaid solely by future growth in property tax revenues within those districts, not by increasing real property tax rates,” according to the proposal’s text. The measure has received unanimous and bipartisan support by Hawaii legislators.
"Hawaii’s would let counties issue bonds for the roads, water, sewer and drainage that have to be in place before housing can go up, with the bonds repaid from the growth in property tax revenue the new development generates rather than from higher tax rates. Hawaii is one of the only states that doesn’t already have this tool," Zhao said.
The ballot measure does not address zoning problems, which is a fundamental issue in the state, Berner said. "But Hawaii's proposition to allow counties to fund infrastructure development more easily could help to set the stage for more homebuilding," he added.
...
Massachusetts: Question 7
Massachusetts’ Question 7, or the Limit on Required Lot Size for Single-Family Homes Initiative, would require cities and towns to allow single-family homes on residentially zoned lots that meet minimum standards of at least 5,000 square feet in area, at least 50 feet of frontage on a street or public way, and access to public sewer and water services.
The initiative directly addresses zoning policies and so-called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitudes in residential neighborhoods, with the goal of increasing inventory in the state.
"Massachusetts has a severe housing storage of more than 220,000 homes over the next decade. This drives cutthroat competition for homes and increases the costs of renting or owning for everyone," Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, told Newsweek.
"One particular challenge in Massachusetts is large lot sizes—the average lot in Massachusetts is half an acre, with some communities requiring 1 or 2 or more acres to build a single family home. In small states like Massachusetts, land is limited and expensive: large lot sizes increase the cost of building new homes, and builders recoup those costs by increasing the size of new homes," he said.
"This has resulted in the proliferation of luxury, McMansion homes across our state which exacerbates the housing shortage and makes homeownership inaccessible for so many of our neighbors. If passed, this question will help expand the number of modestly sized and reasonably priced homes in more communities, giving young people the opportunity to lay down roots and build wealth, and our senior neighbors the opportunity to downsize in their own communities."
According to Legalize Starter Homes, which is leading the campaign in support of the proposal, the ballot question “was carefully written based on existing state law, evidence from other states that this reform works, and compelling academic studies that large minimum lot size requirements in Massachusetts make homes more expensive and scarce.
"If this ballot question is successful, it would be nothing less than a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners to thrive in Massachusetts."
Andrew Mikula, chair of the Legalize Starter Homes ballot committee, told Newsweek that "Question 7 will result in smaller, lower-cost new single-family homes, expand access to homeownership for young families, and make it easier for seniors to downsize within their own neighborhoods. Similar lot size reforms elsewhere have reduced the cost of a new single-family home by up to 40 percent, helping first-time buyers set down roots and build generational wealth."
Experts agree that this would be a truly helpful measures for homebuyers in the state.
"Question 7 in Massachusetts is another great example of what states can do to incentivize new home construction," Berner said. "Zoning in parts of Massachusetts is notoriously onerous, and large minimum lot sizes are often one of the things to blame."
"State law that would supersede municipal zoning regulations with regard to where and how many houses can be built would have a major impact. Massachusetts is in need of more urban infill building as there is simply not much land to work with, and this measure could help make it a reality. The lack of tie-in to affordable housing is not a drawback: allowing the market to determine what gets built where is the best way for more housing to be delivered, which is what the state ultimately needs."
According to Zhao, minimum lot sizes are one of the more direct ways zoning drives up the cost of a home, because land is a big part of what a buyer pays for.
"Many Massachusetts zoning districts currently require between one-half acre and two acres for a single-family home," she said. "Question 7 would require towns to allow a home on any residential lot of at least 5,000 square feet that has street frontage and public water and sewer. Smaller lots make starter homes more feasible to build, and starter homes are the segment where buyers often have the fewest options."
Like most zoning changes, the effect of the measure, if passed, would likely be gradual rather than immediate, Zhao said.
"The measure only applies to lots with public water and sewer, so it wouldn’t open up every area, and homes would be built one lot at a time rather than all at once. Even so, Question 7 addresses a real constraint on supply in a state where the shortage is severe."
Legalize Starter Homes has worked with Boston University professor Maxwell Palmer to identify the potential for new buildable lots created under this proposal, which they estimated to be around 670,000 statewide.
"Currently, our best estimate is that, between 2027 and 2035, our ballot measure will result in between 2,200 and 5,700 new homes per year in Massachusetts that wouldn’t otherwise have been built," Mikula said. "Of course, the exact number depends enormously on both market conditions and how the measure is implemented at both the state and local levels."
Rhode Island: Question 2
Another Question 2 will be on the ballot in Rhode Island, where voters will decide whether they want to approve a measure authorizing the state to issue up to $120 million in bonds for projects to “increase and preserve the availability of affordable and accessible housing.”
Of these, $25 million would be dedicated to increasing the production of housing intended for homeownership, while up to $10 million would be allocated for a public housing development program. The legislature-backed measure was included in the state’s fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill, which was supported by Democrats but opposed by Republicans.
"Infrastructure and financing costs are often what keep projects from moving forward, so addressing them is a step in the right direction, but these are not quick fixes," Zhao said of the initiative.
What Happens Next
Many of the programs that these measures would launch, including the new grants, depend on future U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's rulemaking, funding notices and appropriations before federal dollars are spent, Zhao said.
"Some provisions, such as higher FHA [Federal Housing Administration] multifamily loan limits and certain environmental review exemptions, have a more immediate effect," she added. "But homebuilding is slow, so I’d expect the effect on supply to build over several years."
Related Story
Newsweek Webinar: How the Politics of AI Could Shape Midterms
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here. Contact Newsweek editors for this story: Anthony Murray and Ben Kelly.
Update 10/19/26, 4:15 a.m. ET: This article was updated to include comments from Chen Zhao, Joel Berner, Jesse Kanson-Benanav and Andrew Mikula.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines