California voters reject Proposition 33, a measure to expand rent control across the state, AP projects
California voters have rejected Proposition 33, a statewide ballot measure that would have expanded the amount of control local government has over residential rents.
Proposition 33 aimed to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, allowing city and county officials to determine rent control for more residents. The nearly three-decade-old law places restrictions on local governments seeking to implement rent control on housing built after 1995, most single-family homes and on how much new tenants pay.
Watch: Proposition 33 | What to know
Proposition 33 attempted to change that and would have given local governments significant power to set rent controls.
According to the California Voter's Guide, Proposition 33's fiscal impact would have constituted a "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." A number of major California cities currently have some form of rent control, including Los Angeles, Oakland, West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Berkeley.
Who supported Proposition 33?
The measure was supported by the California Nurses Association, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Coalition for Economic Survival and TenantsTogether and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has spent tens of millions of dollars in previous elections to support other attempts to implement stronger rent controls, put more than $46 million into the Proposition 33 campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Proponents said that the measure would help stop predatory landlords that unfairly charge tenants and set unaffordable rental rates.
"It just gives local communities the right to enact rent control in whatever way they think is best, and that could include excluding new construction" said Susie Shannon with the Yes on 33 campaign. "It could include, you know, helping out seniors on a fixed income, or veterans, so it's whatever kind of iteration they'd like to see, but it's very reasonable and it doesn't affect zoning or new construction."
Who opposed Proposition 33?
Opponents of the proposition disagreed with that assessment.
"Prop. 33 would take the market out of the equation and put the government in charge of putting in place price caps and making it so developers and those who are building housing have no incentive to build that housing," said Nathan Click with the No on 33 campaign.
Click said that Proposition 33 would hurt California when it comes to addressing the ongoing housing crisis.
"Study after study from UC Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, have shown that measures like Prop. 33 constrict the supply of affordable housing, constrict or prevent people from building more housing," Click said. "Ultimately they find increases in the amount of folks experiencing homelessness on our streets because there's simply not enough affordable housing."
One such study from Stanford University from 2019 found that while rent control in San Francisco kept people living in their homes instead of being displaced, landlords responded "over the long term by substituting to other types of real estate, in particular by converting to condos and redeveloping buildings so as to exempt them from rent control."
Opposition to the measure included the California Council for Affordable Housing, Women Veterans Alliance and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Similar ballot measures have been previously rejected by voters in 2018 and 2020.
"California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws," said the state's voter guide.