Should Albany voters approve Measure O? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Albany voters should approve Measure O on November 3, 2026.

The measure would change how the city handles some rules about homes and land.

What supporters say

• Measure O would remove a rare rule that requires nearby voters to approve some zoning changes.
• The City Council could then weigh citywide housing needs, not just one neighborhood vote.
• People could still speak at public meetings before the Council makes a choice.
• The measure could help Albany update housing plans when needs and rules change.

What critics say

• Measure O would not approve any project or promise that anyone will build a home.
• The measure would give nearby residents less direct control over changes in their neighborhood.
• We are not sure whether Measure O would lead to more homes or change housing costs.
• We are also not sure how the measure would affect Albany neighborhoods.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; stronger proof matters more.

Measure O would change how Albany handles certain changes to R-1 zoning. Voters must decide whether to give the City Council more flexibility or preserve a rule requiring approval from nearby residents.

The case for

Measure O would remove an unusual barrier to zoning changes. Under the current system, a proposed R-1 change requires verified approval from at least half of resident voters living within 300 feet. Measure O would replace that requirement with the city’s regular process: public notice, hearings and adoption of a zoning ordinance. 1

That would not end public participation. Residents could still speak at noticed hearings. But it would shift final authority from nearby voters to the City Council, which could consider broader citywide planning needs rather than relying on a separate neighborhood approval campaign for each covered change.

The strongest argument for the measure is therefore greater government flexibility, not an immediate promise of new homes. Research generally finds that restrictive land-use rules can limit housing construction or increase prices. Studies of California ballot measures have also found a negative relationship between voter-approval requirements and infill housing production (see Figure 1). Another study of relaxed land-use rules found effects on housing supply and rents, although it did not forecast what Measure O would do in Albany (see Figure 2).

That broader evidence gives Measure O a plausible housing rationale. California’s housing rules require local governments to plan for housing opportunities and avoid unnecessary regulatory constraints. Albany’s housing element has been certified as complying with state law, while regional housing targets assign cities obligations by affordability level. Measure O could make it easier for officials to adjust zoning as those obligations and housing conditions change. 2

The case against

Measure O does not approve a single project or guarantee a single home. It sets no unit target, affordability requirement, financing plan or construction deadline. The city’s official analysis describes flexibility and housing availability as goals, but does not estimate how many units might result, what they would cost or whether rents would fall. 3

General research about zoning reform cannot answer whether Albany’s future councils would use this new authority, whether developers could finance projects, or whether construction would actually occur. The measure creates capacity; it does not ensure that capacity produces housing.

Opponents also have a concrete concern about lost neighborhood control. Residents would retain hearings, but they would no longer have the power to block an R-1 zoning change simply by withholding the required support of at least half of nearby resident voters. That is a meaningful shift toward City Council control, not merely an administrative change. 4

The local effects are also uncertain. Available studies examine broader zoning systems, other reforms or statewide patterns—not Albany’s particular R-1 rule. They do not reliably predict consequences for traffic, infrastructure, displacement, property values or neighborhood design. The record does not show how often the existing procedure has blocked zoning changes, what changes officials would pursue after Measure O, or how the city would handle potential local costs. 5