Vote to help build our collective power!

Yes on California Proposition 4 to create a climate resiliency bond

If this measure passes, a $10 billion bond would be put into place for safe drinking water, drought/flood/fire/extreme heat resilience, climate-smart farms and clean air.

Why it matters: The state of our farmlands and our natural environment more broadly, impacts how food is able to be produced. ACCFB and other nonprofits, businesses, and government agencies also work to carry out efforts to respond to the causes and effects of climate change. This includes disaster relief – including in the event of fires and floods. These efforts also support environmental sustainability: in turn, supporting the growing of food and reducing food insecurity.

People who this measure could impact: People – such as agricultural workers who grow our food – who live and work in areas that suffer from climate change-related impacts on our environment.

How it would work: The state would spend an estimated $400 million per year from the General Fund for the next 40 years. The General Fund also pays for most public services such as education and health care. Because of environmental justice advocacy, at least 50% of the money would go to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged-to-severely disadvantaged communities (based off of median incomes). Food banks and other critical community infrastructure would be eligible for grant funding for fire and flood mitigation and management. Low-income agricultural workers would also receive different resources for clean technology and energy efficiency upgrades. Other funding would go towards farmers markets, urban farms, and tribal food sovereignty.

Yes on California Proposition 5 to help pass local bonds more easily

If this measure passes, the percentage of voter approval required to pass local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure would decrease from 66.67% to 55%.

Why it matters: Affordable housing is defined as housing that a household could afford even if their income is less than 150% of their county’s median income (or about $183,732 per year in Alameda County, since our median household income is $122,488 per year). Public infrastructure could include things like schools, police, fire protection, parks, recreation areas, emergency medical services, public health facilities, libraries, flood protection, roads, public transit, railroads, airports, and seaports.

Currently, to pass any bonds at the county or city level, 66.67% of voters in that area must approve them. Many proposed taxes and bonds, especially those aimed at funding affordable housing, fail to meet this high threshold. Meanwhile, low-income community members continue to struggle with the high cost of housing, impacting their ability to afford enough healthy food.

People who this measure could impact: People who struggle to find affordable housing, especially tenants, could experience improved access. Many community members may benefit from improved public infrastructure. Some property owners might see higher property taxes, depending on the specific bonds that voters in different cities and counties choose to pass.

How it would work: Cities or counties would be able to introduce bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure that would require the approval of just 55% of voters to pass. Bonds for other types of projects would still require 66.67% approval. The government would use property taxes to repay the affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds over time. The exact cost to property taxpayers would depend on the specifics of each bond. Additionally, all approved bonds would be audited annually, with the audit results made available to the public.

Yes on California Proposition 6 to remove forced work as punishment for a crime

If this measure passes, state prisons or county jails – as punishment for a crime – would be prohibited from forcing people who are incarcerated to work.

Why it matters: California is among 16 states that allow involuntary servitude – forcing people to work against their will – in prisons. Workers often earn less than $1 per hour. Also, food available to people who are incarcerated is often insufficient and inadequate. People who are incarcerated can feel forced to work to try to supplement their diet. In addition, part of the wealth gap in our state is due to intergenerational wealth built on stolen labor.

People who this measure could impact: People who are incarcerated, or who could return to prison after being released.

How it would work: People who are incarcerated could still be incentivized to work in exchange for lessening the amount of time they serve. Should they not want to work, though, they would not face disciplinary action.

Yes on California Proposition 32 to raise the state minimum wage

If this measure passes, all California employers would pay at least $18 per hour as the statewide minimum wage to workers – increased from the current $16.

Why it matters: Last year, unions supported bills signed into law to specifically raise the minimum wage for fast food and health care workers (based on employment type). But various workers earning low wages continue to push for more progress given their ongoing challenges with – despite being employed – balancing the cost of basic needs like sufficient and healthy food.

In 2021, more than a third of California adults with low incomes said they could not afford enough food. We see this reflected in how need for food shows up the most, in the parts of our county where people face the highest levels of poverty. Additionally, ACCFB has seen a growing need for food in our community over recent years: including with 2024 being the year when we distributed the most food in our organization’s history. Also, roughly 25% of partner agencies who responded to a 2023 ACCFB survey told us that wages are among the top issues in our community.

Research shows that increased minimum wage helps households increase their calories purchased: which could improve food security. In some cities like Oakland and Hayward, the minimum wage is already higher than $16 for some workers.

People who this measure could impact: Workers earning minimum wage and the people they support financially. Note: independent contractors are not and would not be required to be paid minimum wage.

How it would work: Workers working for companies of 26+ employees would see wage changes in 2025. Workers of smaller employers would see the change in 2026. The minimum wage would continue to be adjusted for inflation every year.

Yes on California Proposition 33 to repeal limits on local rent control

If this measure passes, city and county governments would be allowed (but not required) to enact rent controls on any category of housing – changing the current prohibition. Local governments would also be able to limit rent increases for new tenants moving into units that were vacant. Additionally, this measure would prevent the state government from adding new restrictions on local governments’ ability to enact rent controls.

Why it matters: About 30% of all Bay Area tenants pay more than 50% of their income on rent: impacting their ability to afford sufficient and healthy food. In a 2023 ACCFB survey, most of our 154 partner agencies who responded said housing and homelessness are the most pressing issues impacting our community. Many of our partner agencies and clients have told us that high rent is a major cause of food insecurity.

There is currently a state law that caps most rent increases at 10% until 2030. However, since 1995, the statewide Costa Hawkins law has allowed landlords to raise rents on properties not protected by city and county rent and vacancy control ordinances; while simultaneously limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to counteract these measures. Costa-Hawkins also prevents homes built after 1995, condominiums, or single-family homes from being subject to rent control. Costa Hawkins also bans vacancy control, enabling landlords to raise rents on vacant units before new tenants move in.

People who this measure could impact: Tenants, especially people at risk of becoming displaced or unhoused due to high rents.

How it would work: This measure would expand local governments’ ability to address their unique housing challenges through rent control. Each city would decide whether to pass rent control laws and which properties would be covered.