Listen to this article:
California Civil Liberties Advocacy’s Position on AB 11
At the California Civil Liberties Advocacy (CCLA), we recognize that housing is a fundamental human right, and we strongly support legislative efforts to ensure that all Californians have equal access to safe, affordable, and stable housing. As the housing crisis continues to displace vulnerable populations and drive economic inequality, we believe that government intervention is necessary to provide publicly owned, mixed-income housing that operates outside the pressures of speculative market forces.
Assembly Bill No. 11 (AB 11), the Social Housing Act, introduced by Assemblymember Alex Lee, proposes a bold and ambitious framework for state-developed and state-owned housing through the creation of the California Housing Authority (CHA). In principle, we support this vision. However, upon a careful review of the bill’s provisions, we must reluctantly oppose it in its current form due to severe deficiencies in its funding mechanisms that render it, at best, tenuous legislation and, at worst, an unworkable policy that would fail to deliver on its promises.
The Fatal Flaw: No Concrete Funding Mechanisms
AB 11’s most glaring weakness is that it fails to establish any actual funding for the California Housing Authority, instead relying on vague language that pushes the issue of financing to some unspecified future legislation.
For instance, the bill states:
“It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to provide financing for the activities of the authority through the issuance of general obligation bonds.” (Assem. Bill No. 11 (2025–2026 Reg. Sess.) § 2, adding Gov. Code, § 64945, subd. (a).)
Rather than securing initial funding, the bill merely expresses intent to pass a future law to finance the program. If such legislation never materializes, AB 11 will be functionally meaningless.
Similarly, the bill establishes the Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund to provide zero-interest loans for construction:
“The Social Housing Revolving Loan Fund is hereby established within the State Treasury to provide, upon appropriation by the Legislature, zero-interest loans for the purposes of constructing housing to accommodate a mix of household incomes.” (Gov. Code, § 64944.)
However, this provision does not allocate any actual funding, making the loan fund an empty vessel that is contingent on future legislative appropriations that may never happen.
The bill also authorizes CHA to issue revenue bonds, which are supposed to be repaid using revenue from rents and leasehold mortgages:
“The authority may issue revenue bonds, as specified, to provide sufficient funds for financing social housing developments.” (Gov. Code, § 64945, subd. (b).)
Yet AB 11 fails to demonstrate how social housing developments would generate the necessary revenue to sustain bond repayments, particularly given its commitment to affordability and the cross-subsidization model (where higher-income tenants subsidize lower-income tenants). Without a clear economic feasibility study, CHA risks financial shortfalls that could leave the state liable for debt repayment.
If No Additional Funding Laws Pass, AB 11 Becomes Moot
The consequence of these financial ambiguities is dire: If the subsequent legislation needed to fund the CHA never passes, AB 11 would be nothing more than a symbolic policy statement with no functional capacity. The CHA would exist on paper but lack operational capacity, leaving the state with a housing authority that cannot build, acquire, or manage a single unit of social housing.
Lessons from International and Domestic Social Housing Models
If California is to establish a viable social housing program, it must learn from successful international and domestic models—and avoid untested or ineffective ones.
1. The Vienna and Singapore Models Work Because They Have Dedicated, Long-Term Funding
In Vienna, social housing has succeeded for nearly a century because it is financed through a combination of municipal land leases, earmarked tax revenues, and cost-based rent payments (Wiener Wohnen, “About Us” (2023) https://www.wienerwohnen.at). Likewise, in Singapore, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) operates sustainably because it is funded by the country’s Central Provident Fund (CPF), a mandatory national savings program that ensures continuous financing (Housing and Dev. Bd., “Public Housing in Singapore” (2023) https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/homepage).
AB 11 lacks any comparable dedicated revenue stream. Instead, it relies on speculative future actions, making it far more precarious than the stable, well-funded housing programs of Vienna and Singapore.
2. Seattle’s Social Housing Program Remains Stalled Due to Funding Issues
Seattle’s voters approved Initiative 135 in 2023 to create the Seattle Social Housing Developer, a public entity similar to what CHA would be under AB 11. However, Seattle has yet to fund the program, and as of February 2025, the city is still debating how to finance it (King County Elections, “Proposition 1A & 1B: Social Housing Funding” (2025) https://info.kingcounty.gov/kcelections/Vote/contests/ballotmeasures.aspx?cid=100690). This should serve as a warning to California legislators: Without an enforceable funding mechanism, social housing remains an unfulfilled promise.
3. Montgomery County, Maryland: A Functional but Small-Scale Model
Montgomery County’s Housing Production Fund (HPF) demonstrates a working municipal social housing framework, but its scale is incomparable to California’s needs. The HPF operates on a $50 million bond issuance with a $3.1 million annual county appropriation, enabling it to finance the construction of hundreds of units (Housing Opportunities Comm., “Housing Production Fund” (2023) https://www.hocmc.org/about-us/innovations/housing-production-fund). However, scaling this model to a state with a population exceeding 39 million would require a vastly larger financial commitment that AB 11 does not address (U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: California (July 1, 2024) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045223).
Conclusion: AB 11 is Ideologically Commendable but Practically Deficient
The California Civil Liberties Advocacy (CCLA) supports the expansion of public, mixed-income housing to combat affordability crises and displacement, and we share the fundamental goals of AB 11. However, we cannot support the bill in its current form because its funding provisions are vague, overbroad, and contingent on future legislative action that may never materialize.
If California is serious about developing a sustainable social housing system, it must ensure that funding mechanisms are built into the enabling legislation itself—not left to be determined by an undefined, future bill. Without concrete financing, AB 11 is a policy framework with no substance, an empty promise that cannot deliver real housing solutions.
We urge Assemblymember Lee and the Legislature to amend AB 11 to incorporate explicit, enforceable funding provisions, ensuring that social housing in California is not just a vision, but a reality.