Over the past five years, single-family home prices have risen roughly 54% nationally. This is pushing property tax bills higher for homeowners, as local governments often fail to offset these increased valuations with reduced tax rates.
Meanwhile, rising office vacancies due to ongoing remote work trends have led to declines in some commercial property values, placing added pressure on residential properties to sustain revenue for local budgets.
Currently 76% of Americans believe housing affordability is a growing problem. This past Tuesday, voters across nine states weighed in on housing-related measures.
The following provides a summary of statewide housing measures, how they fared, and what their outcomes could mean for our future housing landscape.
Arizona
Statewide Proposition 312 passed with 58.4% of the vote. The measure allows people to seek property tax refunds if they incur expenses because local governments fail to enforce laws against illegal camping, loitering, panhandling, public urination, and similar issues.
Prop 312 was on the ballot after a homeless encampment in downtown Phoenix, known as “The Zone,” was cleaned up by the city following a court order with a November 2023 deadline.
At its peak, The Zone had an encampment that consisted of about 1,000 unhoused people. Last Tuesday, on October 29, the nonprofit group Keys to Change counted 140 individuals.
The measure was designed by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank based in Phoenix.
“The reform garnered a large coalition of support from residents, property owners, and business owners who have been hurt not only by their government’s failure to enforce the law, but by the government’s proclivity for shunting homeless people into unofficial open-air shelters like “The Zone” in Phoenix,” Goldwater Institute wrote in a press release after the measure passed.
Opponents of the proposition include Arizona Housing Coalition and the ACLU of Arizona, which argue that this is an “inhumane and counterproductive measure” that criminalizes homelessness without addressing the root cause.
“Proposition 312 criminalizes homelessness, forces cities and towns to act in ways that violate the rights of unhoused people, allows corporations to avoid paying taxes, and threatens the financial well-being of our state,” wrote ACLU of Arizona. It added that the proposition would reduce the city’s tax revenue and the resources available to address housing instability.
California
California is the only state in this election cycle with multiple statewide housing measures.
Proposition 33:
For the third time, California residents tried and failed to overturn a state law restricting rent control. Proposition 33, the Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative, was defeated with 61.5% of California residents voting no.
Proposition 33 would repeal the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act enacted in 1995, limiting how cities can regulate rents and allowing local governments to make that decision.
The measure was initiated and funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation; proponents want to preserve the affordable-housing units available, and create more. Though most cities wouldn’t see an immediate change, some cities, such as Berkeley and San Francisco, already have the local legal infrastructure and public support to see the effects quickly.
But rent control has always faced loud opposition. One main concern was that cities will enact rent control so strict that it will end up stifling new housing construction despite the desperate need for it.
Currently, California caps rent increases for apartments and corporate-owned houses more than 15 years old at 10% per year. Tenant advocates say this can still significantly burden tenants, according to CalMatters.
Prop 34
While the Protect Patients Now Act looks like a healthcare reform measure, it’s really just another battle over the state’s rent control, as KCRW reported.
Prop 34 would require certain healthcare providers to spend 98% of the revenue they earn through a federal drug-discount program on direct patient care. If found to be out of compliance with the new rules, those providers would have their healthcare license and nonprofit status revoked.
Californians passed this ballot measure with 51.5% voting yes.
Prop 34 is targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which has spent more than $150 million on ballot initiatives, including rent control measures, over the past few years. According to KCRW, the criteria set by Prop 34 seem to be true only for AHF.
Prop 34’s primary sponsor is the California Apartment Association, a lobbying group that represents the state’s rental property landlords and does not support rent control. Since passed, this proposition effectively stops AHF from ever backing another rent control ballot initiative again.
Prop 5
The last housing-related ballot measure for California is Prop 5, which would allow approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with a 55% vote, as opposed to the current two-thirds vote of the local electorate.
The bill failed to pass, with 56.3% voting no.
Proponents argued that the measure would shift local spending priorities away from the state government and empower local voters to address challenges facing their communities. Whereas opponents said Prop 5 would shift the financial burden from the state to local communities, increasing costs for homeowners, rents, and consumers. The measure would make it easier to increase bond debt, leading to higher property taxes.
Colorado
The Colorado ballot’s Amendment G to the state constitution, regarding veteran access to property tax exemptions, passed with 72.6% of the vote.
Currently, the Colorado Constitution only allows veterans with a service-connected disability rated as a 100% permanent disability to claim a property-tax exemption for a portion of the actual value of the veteran’s owner-occupied primary residence.
House Concurrent Resolution 23-1002 is a Colorado State constitutional amendment that expands veteran eligibility for the exemption. Now, veterans with individual unemployability status, as determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), can claim the exemption.
The Colorado legislature predicted that an additional 3,400 veterans in the state could claim a property tax exemption if Amendment G passed. Opponents, however, argued that the exemption’s extension could make property taxes more complicated and difficult to fairly administer.
The resolution also changed the existing defined term “disabled veteran” to “veteran with a disability” to conform to public policy of using “people-first language” in new or amended legislation that refers to people with disabilities.
Florida
Florida’s ballot contained a state constitutional amendment on housing. Amendment 5, or the Annual Inflation Adjustment for Homestead Property Tax Exemption Value Amendment, passed with 66% of the vote.
The amendment essentially requires an annual adjustment for inflation to the value of current or future homestead exemptions. The portion of the exemption that pays school district levies will not be impacted by the adjustment for inflation. A separate state law, the Save Our Homes Act, caps homestead tax increases at 3% per year or the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less.
As a result, in the new year, homeowners will see an increase anywhere from 1% to 3% on the $25,000 exemption, matching the inflation rate.
Homestead tax exemptions decrease the assessed property value of a home, which means lower property taxes for homeowners’ primary residences. Most homeowners qualify for at least two $25,000 exemptions that add up to a fixed $50,000 deduction from a home’s assessed value each year. With the passage of Amendment 5, one of the two homestead exemptions will now be adjusted for annual inflation. This means that when inflation goes up, so will that exemption.
Supporters, including the resolution’s sponsor, Representative James Buchanan, believe the amendment aims to lower the cost of home ownership over time, Florida Phoenix reports, as cost-of-living increases are reflected in homeowners’ homestead-exemption taxes.
Opponents of the amendment, including Democratic Representative Robin Bartleman of Broward County, worry about the decrease in property-tax revenue, as well as the increasing inequality this amendment would bring. Florida counties will now collect $406 million less in property-tax revenue over the next five years after Amendment 5 passed, according to the Florida Policy Institute.
“While local governments grapple with this reduction in revenue, Floridians will see only modest relief under Amendment 5, as [Florida Policy Institute] estimates that the 4.3 million households eligible for this inflation-adjusted homestead exemption will see an average of just $20 in savings over the next five years,” Florida Policy Institute wrote. “Plus, since this is not targeted property-tax relief, the wealthiest families in the state are among those who will benefit, while small business owners and renters are left out.”
Georgia
Georgia’s state ballot had a constitutional amendment also related to Homestead Property Tax Exemptions. Amendment 1, or the Local Option Homestead Property Tax Exemption Amendment, passed with 62.9% of the vote.
Amendment 1 limits increases in the assessed value of homesteads by authorizing the state legislature to implement a statewide local-option homestead exemption from ad valorem taxes. This limits increases in assessed home values for tax purposes—home property assessments will be capped to the rate of inflation for the previous year, measured by the CPI.
The change goes into effect on January 1. Local governments like counties, consolidated governments, municipalities, or local school systems, have the ability to opt out of the homestead exemption between January 1 and March 1, given that they hold three public meetings before March 1 that abide by certain timing and scheduling regulations.
While proponents of the amendment are largely homeowners experiencing increasing property taxes, opponents warn that the caps will unfairly shift the burden onto new homeowners, renters, and other property holders.
The amendment will make tax bill calculations increasingly complicated, result in inconsistent tax relief across different local jurisdictions, and reduce property-tax revenue for counties and cities that heavily depend on those taxes to fund local services, according to the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.
New Mexico
New Mexico’s Constitutional Amendment 2 amended the state constitution to increase the property-tax exemption for honorably discharged members of the armed forces or their widows or widowers from $4,000 to $10,000. Starting 2025, the amendment also requires the exemption to be annually adjusted for inflation.
The amendment passed with 71.7% of the vote, with proponents claiming that increasing the property-tax exemption for honorably discharged veterans and their spouses helps them maintain homeownership, reflecting New Mexico’s appreciation for their service.
Opponents argued that veteran benefits are the responsibility of Congress, not the states, that this exemption unfairly shifts the tax burden to other property taxpayers, and isn’t based on financial need. Additionally, the inflation adjustment provision could further increase nonveteran property tax bills in the future.
The measure was referred to the ballot by unanimous votes in both the state’s Senate and House.
North Dakota
North Dakota voters had the opportunity to largely end property taxes on Tuesday, but 63.5% of citizens voted no.
Measure 4 would have prohibited state and local governments from levying taxes on the assessed value of any real or personal property except for those designed to pay for bonded indebtedness. If passed, it would have made North Dakota the first state to repeal property taxes on the assessed value of a home.
The initiative also would have required the legislature to make up that lost tax revenue, which is estimated to be around $3.15 billion every two years.
Rick Becker, who led the measure, believes it would provide long-sought relief that the state can afford, CBS News reported. “We are such a rich state per capita that we can actually make this conversion and be able to afford it without increasing taxes and without cutting services,” said Becker, a former Republican state representative.
However, more than 100 organizations in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, and more, formed the Keep It Local ND coalition to oppose the measure.
“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is,” reads the Keep It Local website. “There is no well-vetted plan to make up the estimated $1.575 billion per year to cover property taxes to fund essential services.”
Rhode Island
Question 3, the Housing Acquisition, Development, and Infrastructure Bond Measure, asked voters whether they supported issuing $120 million in bonds to increase the availability of housing in the state.
The answer was yes, according to 65.7% of the state’s voters.
Housing insecurity has emerged as the leading social determinant of health, according to Jay O’Grady, senior program officer at the Rhode Island branch of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC).
“The need for more housing is accepted at a consensus level,” O’Grady said before the election. “I have no reason to believe it won’t be approved. We’re at a crisis level that’s not been seen.”
Wyoming
Wyoming’s Constitutional Amendment A, The Wyoming Property Tax on Residential Property and Owner-Occupied Primary Residences Amendment, was passed by residents with 59.3% of the vote.
This creates a separate class for “residential real property” for property-tax assessments. It also creates a subcategory, “owner-occupied primary residence,” which can be taxed at a different rate.
Over the past several years, Wyoming has seen increasing property values, resulting in increasing property taxes. While the state legislature has responded through expanding the state’s property tax refund program, among other measures, achieving a more robust property tax reform has proven complicated.
One challenge is that the Wyoming Constitution grouped residential property in the same tax class as commercial and agricultural properties, largely preventing lawmakers from making isolated changes to how homes are taxed.
While Measure A solves that problem, even politicians who were in favor of the measure have expressed concern about the impact.
“Creating a new class does not provide tax relief,” Republican state Representative John Bear of Gillette, who voted for the change, told WyoFile. “In fact, this body could choose to raise taxes within that new class. If anything, keeping it tied together to corporations is probably a good idea for right now because it keeps this body from doing just that.”
The other main concern, like a variety of other states voting on property taxes, is the reduction in revenue for the state.
“We’re on the cusp of a pretty big change,” Republican state Senator Cale Case of Lander, who voted against the change, told WyoFile, pointing to Wyoming’s fossil fuel industry and declining demand for and production of coal.