We’ve all seen those aspirational images of California’s future: cities bursting with greenery under blue skies, families walking together looking safe, happy, and healthy. But turning that vision into reality often requires making difficult choices that aren’t always obvious when we talk about our shared goals. For example, you might want to use a vacant lot for a new park in your community. But if we build a new park there, then we can’t build more housing. Which would you prioritize over the other? The same thing happens with our tax dollars. We only have so much money available, so do we spend it on healthcare or education? Or do we raise taxes to collect more revenue, even if it means individual households will have less money to spend?
New survey data from California voters reveals how people think about these tradeoffs, highlighting the kinds of tough decisions that policymakers and communities must navigate when trying to improve everyday life.
Survey results point to three key areas of tension that can serve as a useful starting point for understanding the tradeoffs voters face when pursuing policy outcomes.
State versus Local Control
Californians broadly agree on major goals like the need to build more affordable housing, expand access to good jobs, and ensure quality education. But questions remain regarding who should make decisions about how to pursue these outcomes. Should local communities retain control, even if that leads to delays or creates inequities across the state? Or should the state step in with top-down mandates, which might ensure faster progress but could override local community input?
In our survey data, voters expressed strong support for state action in some areas. For instance, a majority (67%) want to equalize property tax distribution for school funding rather than rely on uneven local tax bases. At the same time, 58% favor local flexibility in school curriculum requirements, showcasing how support for state versus local control can vary even within a single issue area like education.
Fast versus Fair
How do we balance the need for speed and progress with a desire for equity and safety? California urgently needs more housing, but should we fast-track construction, or take time for deeper community engagement and careful environmental review? Should the state reduce licensure requirements for specific healthcare practitioners, in order to increase access to care? And what about increasing caregiver ratios for childcare and eldercare facilities in order to offer services to more people?
On these questions, while many voters support expanding job responsibilities for certain healthcare workers to increase access, they draw the line at compromising safety. A large majority (79%) want to maintain licensing requirements for childcare and eldercare providers, even if relaxing those rules would create more capacity for children and elders who need services now. Similarly, 71% prefer keeping minimum staffing ratios for childcare and eldercare rather than increasing workers’ caseloads to serve more people.
Public versus Private Services
Who should provide essential services—private companies or the government? Many core services in California, from healthcare facilities to energy markets, are operated by private entities, with mixed results. Investor-owned utilities like PG&E have faced criticism for unaffordable rate increases that outpace inflation. Meanwhile, hospitals in rural areas are closing at accelerating rates because low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and rising costs make them unprofitable.
Voters in our survey show clear preferences when it comes to public and private service provision on some issues. Two-thirds (67%) support raising taxes to develop government-owned energy infrastructure that could lower and stabilize costs, rather than relying on for-profit utilities with volatile pricing. Support for greater government involvement in healthcare is even stronger, with 76% of respondents supporting taxpayer funding to keep healthcare facilities open in underserved communities.
Even when voters support more government participation in providing essentials, though, they are not enthusiastic about sacrificing personal conveniences. This is clear in the case of transportation: 65% support expanding public transportation, but only 43% support charging drivers a fee during peak traffic hours to fund transit buildout. When the rubber meets the road, voters may be reluctant to accommodate certain approaches to achieving broader goals, especially if it means bearing the costs of change.
The data suggest that, while many voters might want to accelerate the supply of essentials like housing, they also want to balance this with a fair and equitable process for moving the state forward. These data are only the start, though, and a broad set of questions remain related to when and how voters are willing to make hard tradeoffs:
How can communities and policymakers understand and articulate these trade-offs?
How can Californians be better informed about what goes into these policy decisions?
And how can both state and local governments be more transparent in their decision-making?
A survey like this cannot provide final answers, but it can help reveal the questions that deserve further attention.
