37Up to $25B state-backed loans for middle-income buyers of newly built homes

#Key findings

• The Realtors put up $18.4M of the $33.6M for Yes. No one is funding the No side, and no ballot argument against was filed. ^[1]
• The state's last down-payment program, Dream For All, ran through $300M in 11 days in 2023. It reached 2,564 buyers with an average loan of ~$112K. One loan officer estimated 30–50% could have bought without it. ^[2][3]
• Only newly built homes qualify, which steers demand to builders. Builders who meet labor standards also get new limits on homeowner defect lawsuits, including a 30% cap on contingency lawyers' fees. ^[4][5]
• No one has estimated how many homes this would finance. It depends on whether investors buy the bonds. ^[4]

#Track record

#Money and conflicts

• The Realtors earn commissions on more sales. Builders get buyers for new homes plus liability relief. Carpenters' unions get labor standards. All three are funders or signers. ^[1]
• The ballot argument was signed by Treasurer Fiona Ma, who sits on the CalHFA board that would run the program and is now running for Lt. Governor. ^[1]
• The bonds are repaid from buyers' loan payments, not the General Fund. Buyers owe monthly payments on the second loan. ^[4]

#Does it solve a lasting problem?

• It helps some middle-income buyers with the down payment, but it adds demand without lowering the cost to build. The defect-liability change does address one real reason so few condos get built in California (3% of new multifamily units, vs. 38% in Canada). It just comes bundled with a benefit for the people funding the campaign. ^[5]

#If you vote yes: accountability

Bottom line: Up to $25B in loans would be run by one agency, CalHFA, and the measure requires no public reporting and no audits. ^[4] Taxpayers aren't on the hook if loans fail (bondholders are), but buyers are. ^[5]

#Who runs it, and who answers for it

• CalHFA decides how many bonds to sell, sets lending standards, and picks how much risk to take. ^[4][5] Its executive director is Tony Sertich. ^[7]
• CalHFA's board includes the State Treasurer. Treasurer Fiona Ma signed the ballot argument for Prop 37 and is now running for Lt. Governor. ^[1] The next Treasurer (Kounalakis or Hawks) inherits that seat.
• No agency is named to enforce the builders' labor standards or check buyer eligibility. ^[4]

#Lessons from the last program

• Dream For All ran through $300M in 11 days. One loan officer estimated that 30–50% of buyers could have bought without it. ^[2][3] Demand outran the money about 9 to 1, and a lottery later broadened who got loans. ^[6]

#Who to press, and what to ask for

1. CalHFA and its board (meetings are public):
   • Publish quarterly data by county: loans made, buyer income, price, builder, and late payments and defaults.
   • Use a lottery or need-based priority, not first come, first served.
   • Publish which builders opt into the labor standards and defect-lawsuit limits, and how many defect claims each one gets.
2. Your Assemblymember and state Senator: add an annual public report and a State Auditor audit after the first $5B, since the measure has neither.

#Public records to request (CPRA)

Anyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. ^[8]

To CalHFA: Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request records sufficient to show, for each Dream For All loan (2023–2025), with personal information removed: county, purchase price, loan amount, household income as a percentage of area median income, and current status (current, delinquent, paid off, or defaulted). I prefer a spreadsheet.