California Proposition 33: Letting California cities pass stronger rent controls

About a dozen cities in Southern California have some form of local rent control. That list includes Los Angeles, Inglewood and Santa Ana.

But a 1995 state law puts limits on what kinds of rent regulations cities across California can impose. The goal of Proposition 33 is to repeal that law and allow cities to enact tougher forms of rent control.

Official title on the ballot: Proposition 33 — Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

You are being asked: Should Prop. 33 be passed to repeal current state law and prohibit the state from limiting the ability of cities and counties to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control ordinances?

Understanding Prop. 33

The debate around rent control will always be contentious. Does it provide crucial stability and keep vulnerable renters housed, as tenant advocates argue ? Or does it cause broader disinvestment in a city’s apartment stock, leading to less affordable housing overall, as many economists argue ?

This guide will not resolve that debate for you. But we will note one thing that is not up for debate: Rents are unaffordably high for many Californians.

About 56% of L.A. area renters are “burdened” by housing costs, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. This means they pay more than 30% of their income on housing, a level deemed unaffordable by government standards. Close to a third spend more than half their income on housing, leaving little left over for other necessities like food, healthcare and transportation.

Prop. 33 supporters blame these burdens on state law. They argue housing would be cheaper if cities had more leeway to regulate rent hikes. Opponents say rent control is a policy that doesn’t work. They think the state’s housing affordability crisis needs different solutions.

The history behind it

Starting to feel like you’re stuck in a weird California electoral time loop, voting on the same issue year after year?

That’s understandable. Similar measures have already appeared on the ballot twice, in 2018 and 2020 . Both times, California voters rejected them by wide margins.

Proponents believe the third time might be the charm. But real estate industry opponents are, yet again, spending big to kill the measure.

How it would work

Prop. 33 would repeal the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act . This 1995 state law is the reason why cities can’t impose rent control on certain types of housing.

If you’re renting a single-family home or condo in California, you’re excluded from local rent control rules , thanks to Costa-Hawkins. Local rent control also doesn’t apply to anyone living in an apartment built after Feb. 1, 1995 (or even earlier in some cities, such as L.A. where the cut-off date is Oct. 1, 1978), again because of Costa-Hawkins.

Another big element of Costa-Hawkins is known as “vacancy decontrol.” This provision allows landlords to charge whatever the market will bear once a unit becomes vacant. Renter advocates argue this is why long-term tenants — who tend to pay below-market rates after years of rent increase limits — are often pressured to leave so landlords can dramatically raise rents for their units.

Prop. 33 would scrap all those restrictions and allow cities to pass tougher forms of rent control. The proposition itself would not impose any new rent controls, but it would allow cities to enact their own new forms of local rent control.

What people who support it say

Like the previous two failed attempts at repealing Costa-Hawkins, Prop. 33 is backed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation . The L.A.-based group’s president Michael Weinstein is a frequent supporter of housing-related measures.

Proponents of Prop. 33 argue different parts of California require different housing regulations, but state law imposes a one-size-fits-all approach. They say local governments should have more power to regulate the crushing rents that are driving people out of state and putting many on the brink of homelessness .

What people who oppose it say

Landlord groups, realtors and business advocates argue voters have soundly rejected similar proposals twice. They say expanding rent control could reduce property values and hurt small landlords and single-family homeowners who rent out their properties.

Opponents have also taken aim at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an organization they say should be spending funds on patient care, not ballot measures. They point to the organization’s track record as a landlord. The L.A. Times has reported on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s troubled record with properties on Skid Row.

What state analysts say

According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 33 could result in “reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.”

Follow the money

Supporters led by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation have contributed more than $16 million in support of Prop. 33.

Opponents — including the California Apartment Association, the California Association of Realtors and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles — have raised more than $38 million to fight Prop. 33.

Stay tuned: We will have more campaign finance data as we get closer to the election.

Further reading

• Rent Control Explained: The History Of LA’s Controversial Tenant Protections [ LAist ]
• How much can my rent go up right now? Here’s your LA rent hike cheat sheet [ LAist ]
• California rent control is back on the ballot this November — twice [ CalMatters ]