The 2024 election results show that voters are willing to greenlight big spending to fund affordable housing. Across the country, cities and states approved hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds and taxes to increase housing supply. But the question remains—given existing regulatory barriers like zoning and red tape, will that money be spent where it’s needed most?
Hundreds of millions in bonds approved to fund affordable housing
In Charlotte, voters passed a $100 million bond measure for affordable housing construction and maintenance. The region’s rapid growth has put pressure on the market, elevating asking rents 27% above 2019 levels. Constructing new affordable housing relieves the housing cost burden for lower-income households for current renters and renters who will live in that housing far into the future.
In Baltimore voters approved a $20 million in bonds to support acquiring, building or managing affordable housing. Baltimore asking rents have increased 8.5% in the last year, making renting especially unaffordable to low income households.
Rhode Island made one of the most significant investments in housing, approving $120 million in bonds to boost supply of affordable housing. Rhode Island housing has become much pricier since the pandemic, due to remote work allowing more East Coast workers to live farther away, especially along train lines that can take them to the office when necessary.
California is a mixed-bag on rent control and affordable housing bonds
California was a battleground on the housing front, and the results are mixed.
First, Prop 33 failed, keeping stricter rent control off the table. Had it passed, it would have exacerbated the housing shortage. No matter how well-intentioned, rent control discourages development and reduces the housing supply. Developers need incentives to build, and if we want more homes to come online, keeping tight caps out of the equation is a smart move.
Prop 5—which would have made it easier to pass affordable housing bonds—also failed. This keeps California’s supermajority requirement intact for funding housing projects, which means funding must be approved by at least two-thirds of each state-house, a difficult bar to pass to increase investment in new supply. For a state desperate for more homes, this is a missed opportunity.
San Francisco’s Prop G passed, earmarking $8.25 million annually for rental subsidies aimed at assisting very low-income households. This will provide immediate relief for those most vulnerable to rising rents, but it’s not a long-term solution. Subsidies can help in the short run, but unless they are paired with significant new construction, they just kick the can down the road. Building more homes is the only way to make rents affordable in the long term.
Berkeley voters approved Measure BB, which funds homelessness prevention and limits annual rent increases to 5%. Homelessness prevention serves not only those most vulnerable to becoming homeless but also all community members who want safer public spaces. While the rent cap feels modest, rent control in any form is a supply killer. Every time we impose these limits, we make development less attractive and reduce the incentive to build. The best rent stabilization tool we have is more supply.
In Los Angeles, Measure A passed, increasing a sales tax from a quarter-cent to half-cent, directing funds to affordable housing and homelessness services. This is a step in the right direction: more revenue means more opportunity to build. But if LA is going to make a real dent in its housing shortage, local governments must also cut through the regulatory barriers that make new construction so slow and expensive. Funding alone isn’t enough—we need to make it easier to build.
Denver and Hoboken, NJ: Missed Opportunities
In Denver, voters narrowly rejected Ballot Issue 2R, a sales tax increase that would have raised $100 million annually for affordable housing. This is a setback—the more investment we can make in new housing, the better our chances of easing the crunch. The close vote suggests there’s momentum, but the city will have to find another way to generate funding.
Meanwhile, a plan to loosen rent controls on vacant units was shot down in Hoboken, NJ. Rent control may protect existing tenants but also discourage property owners from investing in new rentals. Encouraging more density and development is critical in a city with limited land.
Takeaways: Focus on Supply, Not Restrictions
The 2024 election results are a reminder that housing policy remains a high-stakes battleground, and will continue to come up in future elections. It’s tempting to believe that rent controls or strict regulations will solve the problem, but they don’t address the root issue: a lack of supply. To make housing truly affordable, we need policies that build more homes, not rules that complicate it.
Because affordable housing is dense housing, without more support to increase housing density in areas with economic opportunities—neighborhoods with highly rated schools, access to transit and job opportunities—these investments may fall short. With Republicans now in control at the federal level, it’s unlikely we’ll see a solid push to economically diversify these neighborhoods through zoning reform that legalizes affordable, dense housing. Although President-elect Trump has promised to cut red-tape for homebuilders, he has also pledged to protect single-family zoning in the suburbs. Local resistance to new housing will also remain a significant barrier to housing affordability and economic opportunity.
To make housing affordable, we need leaders and voters to relentlessly focus on increasing supply. It’s good to see more money going to increasing supply instead of subsidizing demand, but I worry about existing regulations remaining a barrier. We are making strides, but there is much more progress to be made.
United States
Canada