California Proposition 10, Ballot Measures Required for Publicly Funded Low-Rent Housing Projects Initiative (1950)

California Proposition 10
Election date November 7, 1950
Topic Housing
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 10 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 7, 1950. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to require voter approval of a ballot measure to authorize publicly funded low-rent housing projects.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment to require voter approval of a ballot measure to authorize publicly funded low-rent housing projects.

Aftermath

In 1980 and 1993, voters rejected ballot measures to repeal or amend Proposition 10.

Election results

California Proposition 10
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,591,076	50.78%
No		1,542,161	49.22%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 10 was as follows:

“

Public Housing Projects. Requiring Elections to Establish. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Adds Article XXXIV to Constitution. Requires approval of majority of electors of county or city, voting at an election, as prerequisite for establishment of any low-rent housing project by the State or any county, city, district, authority, or other state public body. Defines low rent housing project as living accommodations for persons of low income financed or assisted by Federal Government or state public body. Exempts any project subject to existing contract between state public body and Federal Government.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XXXIV, California Constitution

Proposition 10 added Article XXXIV to the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to develop, construct, or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election.

For the purposes of this Article the term "low rent housing project" shall mean any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments or other living accommodations for persons of low income, financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government or a state public body or to which the Federal Government or a state public body extends assistance by supplying all or part of the labor, by guaranteeing the payment of liens, or otherwise. For the purposes of this Article only there shall be excluded from the term "low rent housing project" any such project where there shall be in existence on the effective date hereof, a contract for financial assistance between any state public body and the Federal Government in respect to such project.

For the purposes of this Article only "persons of low income" shall mean persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding.

For the purposes of this Article the term "state public body" shall mean this State, or any city, city and county, county, district, authority, agency, or any other subdivision or public body of this State.

For the purposes of this Article the term "Federal Government" shall mean the United States of America, or any agency or instrumentality, corporate or otherwise, of the United States of America.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• State Sen. Earl Desmond (D-9)
• State Sen. Arthur H. Breed Jr. (R-16)

Organizations

• California Farm Bureau Federation
• California Real Estate Association
• California Taxpayers Association
• California State Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

• State Sen. Earl Desmond (D-9) and Frederick C. Dockweiler wrote the supporting argument found in the state's voter guide:

“ A 'Yes' vote for this proposed constitutional amendment is a vote neither for nor against public housing. It is a vote for the future right to say 'yes' or 'no' when the community considers a public housing project. Passage of the 'Public Housing Projects Law' will restore to the citizens of a city, town or county, as the case may be, the right to decide whether public housing is needed or wanted in each particular locality. Such is not the case at present." Time after time within the past year California communities have had public housing projects forced upon them without regard either to the wishes of the citizens or community needs. This is a particularly critical matter in view of the fact that the long-term, multimillion-dollar public housing contracts call for tax waivers and other forms of local assistance, which the Federal Government says will amount to HALF the cost of the federal subsidy on the project as long as it exists. For government to force such additional hidden expense on the voters at a time when taxation and the cost of living have reached an extreme high is a ‘gift’ of debatable value. It should be accepted or rejected by ballot. If, on the other hand, certain communities are in such dire need of housing that the cost of long-term subsidization is deemed worth while, local voters, who best know that need, should have the right to express their wishes by ballot. In either case, a ‘YES' vote for this proposed amendment will strengthen local self-government and restore to the community the right to determine its own future course. Furthermore, the financing of public housing projects is an adaptation of the principle of the issuance of revenue bonds. Under California law, revenue bonds, which bind a community to many years of debt, cannot be issued without local approval given by ballot. Public housing and its long years of hidden debt should also be submitted to the voters to give them the right to decide whether the need for public housing is worth the cost. A ‘YES' vote for the ‘Public Housing Projects Law’ is a vote for strong local self-government. It is an expression of confidence in the community's future and in the democratic process of government. To strengthen the grass roots democracy which has made America protector of the world's free peoples, vote ‘YES' on the Public Housing Projects Law. ”

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Earl Warren (R)
• State Sen. Chris Jespersen (R-29)
• Mayor Fletcher Bowron (R), Los Angeles

Organizations

• Disabled American Veterans
• League of Women Voters of California
• The American Legion
• Veterans of Foreign Wars

Unions

• American Federation of Labor (AFL)
• California State Federation of Labor
• Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)
• Railroad Brotherhoods

Arguments

• Gov. Earl Warren (R) said, “Proposition 10 is a roadblock to civilian defense and a departure from representative government.”

• State Sen. Chris Jespersen (R-29), Los Angeles Mayor Fletcher Bowron (R), and C.J. Haggerty, the Secretary of the California State Federation of Labor, wrote the opposing argument found in the state's voter guide:

“ This proposition should be defeated because: (1) it is wholly unnecessary; (2) it is contrary to firmly established principles of American representative government; (3) if adopted, it would be impossible to act expeditiously in times of emergency; (4) it would substantially increase the tax load in cities and counties of the State. There is no necessity for a constitutional amendment such as here proposed, prohibiting the development, construction and acquisition of low-rent housing projects without submission of the issue to the vote of the people in general or special elections to be held for the particular purpose in each city, town, or county of the State. This would be time-consuming and expensive. (A single special election in the City of Los Angeles would cost $400,000.) The total cost to taxpayers of the State for holding special elections would be staggering. California now has an adequate statute relating to the subject—“The California Housing Authorities Law, Act 3483”—which provides that no low-rent housing project can be undertaken “until the governing body of the city or county approves said project by resolution duly adopted.” This law was passed in 1938 and has been amended several times. If the proponents of this measure desire to change the legal procedure for local approval of low-rent housing projects, they should make their recommendations to the Legislature and ask for amendment of the law rather than freeze into the State Constitution (already too voluminous) provisions relating to local governmental administrative procedures. The people already have adequate control through election of their representatives in the State Legislature, city councils, and boards of supervisors, and through the exercise of the initiative, referendum and recall. This proposed measure is an attempt to discourage the construction of new low-rent housing projects (in which veterans have preference) by setting up a slow, cumbersome and costly procedure to make use of federal funds that would in any event be expended in other states without in any way benefiting taxpayers of California. In a national emergency it may become necessary to quickly provide housing for industrial workers in certain areas. In the event of an atomic bomb attack emergency housing would have to be provided immediately for local residents. Elected representatives of the people in the State Legislature, in city councils and boards of supervisors should be free to act promptly to meet pressing needs in any contingency, rather than be placed in a legal straitjacket. This proposed constitutional amendment is not in the public interest. Vote NO on Proposition No. 10. ”

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 1950, at least 204,672 valid signatures were required.

See also

1950 Measures

• 1950 Measures
• Ballot measure process on the ballot
• Housing on the ballot
• 1950 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• California Voter Guide (November 1950)