Rent control is on the ballot for California voters this November.
I uh, get that tumblr isn't exactly sorted by geography, but this is a huge deal.
It's a huge deal even for people who don't expect to be personally affected by it -- rent control is a protection against the poorest people living in a city being forced out, and that's just bad for everyone. When you have a city where only medium well off to rich people live, you get their service employees coming in from a suburb an hour and a half away (blech) or else you get people stacked three to a room. Or people holding down a job or three while trying to earn enough to get off the street or, well, out of their parents' place or away from the abusive partner they can't afford to break up with. Point is, a lack of housing that people can just keep living in at the same price, means a lot of bad things for society, and we probably aren't going to socialize housing within the next ten years but maybe we can get rent control back.
proposition 33, put simply, allows for city councils to set rent caps on housing in their cities. this would repeal a state law known as the costa hawkins rental housing act that prevents local governments from controlling rent on single-family homes, homes built after 1995 (or earlier in some cases), and when tenants move out. if it passes, local governments could create whatever measures they want to limit annual rent increases, and the state couldn’t intervene. (source) now, what this actually MEANS is that landlords can’t endlessly raise rent prices for their own gains. for the last 30 years, california has imposed limits on the amount a city can interfere with rent prices via the costa-hawkins act (source). proposition 33 allows cities to individually control rent on any type of housing.
now, why is this relevant?
according to the public policy institute of california, around 30% of california renters spend more than half their income on rent. to put this in perspective, 44% of the 39 million people living in california are renters. that means 17,160,000 people rent somewhere to live in california. now, 30% of those people is about 5,148,000 people. think about that. over five million people who pay over half their income to live. (source) (source) on top of this, a study by UCSF has shown that californians are homeless because of sky high rent costs pushing people out onto the streets.
let’s move onto common arguments against prop 33, and why they either are irrelevant in the face of the issue specifically or why the benefits of proposition 33 being passed outweigh the negative effects it may have! please note that the current state of housing in california will be referred to as the status quo.
funded by notorious slumlord
no guarantee that living conditions are good
could decrease property value, further contributing to the shortage of housing available
eliminates protection for seniors, veterans, and the disabled
weakens renter protections
overturns over 100 state affordable housing laws
prop 33 would repeal the strongest rent control law in the nation
and now, let’s break all of these down!
“prop 33 is funded by a notorious slumlord” proposition 33 is supported & receives funding from corporate ceo michael weinstein who runs the AHF (aids healthcare foundation), whom the LA times describes as a "slumlord" with a long record of health and safety violations and unfair evictions. this is true! it is also, however, supported mostly by labor unions and nonprofit organizations representing renters and other groups. these include the voter information guide include the california democratic party, the coalition for economic survival, the california nurses association, california alliance of retired americans, the alliance of californians for community empowerment and tenants together. the sheer amount of support prop 33 has from groups & organizations that work to counteract exactly what AHF has been penalized for shows disregarding it entirely because of the organization isn't a choice to be made. more can be found regarding the issues with the AHF here.
“no real guarantee that living conditions will be good” regarding living conditions, let’s first take a look at the status quo: according to the U.S. government accountability office, “An estimated 15 percent of rental units in 2017—more than 5 million—had substantial quality issues (such as cracked walls and the presence of rodents) or lacked essential components of a dwelling (such as heating equipment or hot and cold running water), according to GAO’s analysis of American Housing Survey data. The share of units with deficiencies was relatively stable from 2001
to 2017. Serious deficiencies more often affected households with extremely low incomes or rent burdens. In addition, lower-income households rented approximately two-thirds of the units with substantial quality issues and nearly 80 percent of units lacking essential components.” (source). this argument really only has one thing going for it, but proposition 33 is intended to deal with rent costs and nothing else. there is already an issue with living conditions. proposition 33 being voted either way will do nothing to change this issue. therefore, it’s an irrelevant argument and can thus be disregarded. this is something only further legislation can change.
"prop 33 could decrease property value, contributing to the shortage of housing available" the only source for this that i could find was from the chair of UC berkeley’s fisher center for real estate and urban economics, who appears in a no on 33 ad and has argued that costa hawkins needs to be preserved or construction will slow and landlords will pull rental units off the market. this echoes the view of many economists at California’s elite universities and elsewhere that rent control reduces rental supply, a view that’s backed by some empirical studies. however, other economics and policy researchers see rent control as part of the solution to housing insecurity. according to a report by the federal housing finance agency, “Rent regulations support those who need it most, including those who are not being adequately and safely served by the current set of regulations that provide landlords substantial market power in the housing market"
"proposition 33 eliminates protection for seniors, veterans, and the disabled" this claim is from a no on 33 video ad and is not true. prop 33 doesn’t contain any language regarding seniors and veterans, and the law it would repeal, costa hawkins, doesn’t either. (source)
"proposition 33 weakens renter protections" renter protections, in california specifically, are defined as the right of residential tenants to be protected from certain rent increases and possibly protected from certain types of evictions. (source) proposition 33 is a law regarding rent, not evictions, and thus eviction as part of the definition is irrelevant for this specific case. in looking at this definition, we can clearly see what it promises is in fact only an affect that is increased by prop 33 being put into affect.
"proposition 33 overturns over 100 state affordable housing laws" ken rosen, a UC berkeley business school professor, makes this claim in a no on 33 video ad. opponents of prop 33 argue that it would give cities who don’t want to build housing a way to undercut new development by mandating rents so low that developers couldn’t afford to build. they say that could make it hard to enforce recent state laws aimed at addressing the housing crisis, such as the “builder’s remedy” that relaxes zoning rules in cities whose housing plans haven’t been approved by the state. a spokesperson in a no on 33 ad claims that “a city would be able to create the economic conditions to basically ignore those laws and requirements," but that’s not the same as repealing those laws. and California courts have held that rent control policies are unconstitutional if they don’t allow landlords to earn “a just and reasonable return on their property” — meaning any city that tries to force landlords to charge obviously unfeasible rents could face legal challenges.
"prop 33 would repeal the strongest rent control law in the nation" no on 33 campaign ads make this claim, saying the proposition would erase california’s “progress on housing” by getting rid of a law signed by governor gavin newsom. newsom signed a law in 2019 that caps rent increases in california at 5% plus the rate of inflation, or a maximum of 10%. prop 33 in fact doesn’t repeal this law, which is set to expire in 2030. it would, however, add this sentence to state law: “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.” proponents say cities need this flexibility to keep annual rent increases below 10%, a rate they say still puts a big burden on tenants. (source)
so, to summarize: proposition 33 is a law proposed that would repeal a law previously passed, which, if passed, will allow cities control over how high landlords can charge their rent. over 5 million californians spend more than half their income on rent alone. proposition 33 is a proposed legislation that deals specifically with rent prices being high. while there are many incredibly significant with things other than simply the rent when you look at the california housing situation, this law is incapable of dealing with them. what prop 33 does do is effectively provide a solution to the constant rent increases many tenants face regularly. the housing crisis in california is solvable, and proposition 33 is a step towards that.
