Land Wasn’t on the Ballot. But Land Issues Were Everywhere

Pundits and analysts are busy sharing their hot takes on the seismic results of the 2026 election. While the headlines from November 3 are, appropriately, about Congress, political strategies, and the President, the thread running through the whole ballot was affordability. Americans grappling with the high cost of living brought those concerns to the polls, and housing—the biggest expense for the typical household—factored into numerous races and ballot measures.

Down the ballot, that concern took the form of land use questions: Who gets to build, what gets built, and who pays for the public services that come with development? A number of these decisions, normally left to councils and planning boards, went to voters instead.

The most lopsided results came on data centers. These facilities are the backbone of our digital way of life. They are also often noisy, hot, and demanding, consuming vast amounts of land, water, and power. And their proliferation is dizzying, with capital investment growing from $40 billion in 2025 to about $370 billion in 2026. On Election Day, voters from California to Maine did not hide their distaste for them: All but one of 41 measures to restrict data center development passed. The clear message is that communities want to be engaged and make sure data center development aligns with community needs.

But a moratorium is a pause, not a plan. It is now up to local leaders to write zoning standards, set conditions on incentives, and understand the natural resources demanded by these facilities before negotiations with data center companies begin. A timely new Lincoln Institute report does just that—providing model ordinances and sample risk instrument templates that can help communities protect their interests and derive benefits for residents when they decide to allow data center development.

Voters reacted more selectively to property tax proposals, which is notable given that it is the most stable, powerful revenue tool for local governments. In some places, anti-tax sentiment, demands for relief, and housing affordability pressure collided on the ballot, and results were mixed. Most notably, Florida’s Amendment 3 raises the non-school homestead exemption to $250,000 by 2028 and cuts the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10 percent to 5 percent. Its passage means local governments in the Sunshine State could lose nearly $12 billion annually, according to an analysis from the state legislature. Elsewhere, North Carolina voters approved a requirement that the legislature limit local levy increases. But Wyoming rejected a 50 percent exemption on primary residences, and Oklahoma voters kept their existing limits on assessment increases.

Affordability concerns are real, but when it comes to property tax relief, policymakers need to weigh trade-offs carefully. Lincoln Institute research shows assessment caps deliver the largest cuts to homeowners whose property values have risen the most, and they create disparities between longtime and new homeowners. Homestead exemptions are generally better, and fixed-dollar versions can introduce an element of progressivity. Better still are circuit breakers to direct relief to households with the heaviest burdens relative to income, and generous homestead exemptions should be state-funded, with localities reimbursed. Bills should follow spending needs rather than property values, so rates should fall when values surge. The goal is relief that is targeted, funded, and transparent, to avoid undermine the revenue needed to provide essential local services.

Voters’ desire for relief from rising bills is understandable, but they also showed they will pay for housing. California’s $11.25 billion affordable housing bond passed, as did a novel type of revenue bond measure to support down payments for qualified homeowners. Other housing bond measures passed in Rhode Island, Charlotte, and Buncombe, North Carolina.

Land itself was not on the ballot, but many of the election’s most consequential questions were ultimately about land policy: where housing can be built, how communities respond to the rapid expansion of data centers, and how property taxes balance affordability with the need to fund public services. Voters sent a clear message that they care deeply about these issues and want a greater voice in shaping them. Decisions about growth, housing, infrastructure, and taxation increasingly sit at the center of economic opportunity and household affordability. As community leaders move on from campaign promises to governing, they need to continue paying close attention to how land-related policies affect residents’ daily lives and long-term prosperity.

Robert Puentes is president and CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: People standing in line at a voting booth in the United States. Credit: Rawpixel via iStock/Getty Images Plus.