California voters this November will decide whether to expand rent control statewide by repealing a 1995 law.
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act currently limits a local government’s ability to cap rents on newer properties and single-family homes.
Proposition 33, on the 2024 ballot, has reignited a long-running debate over how to address California’s housing affordability crisis, which lies at the core of issues ranging from homelessness to traffic congestion – and, ultimately, the quality of life.
Proposition 33 would allow cities and counties to enact or expand rent control ordinances to cover single-family homes, condominiums and properties built after 1995 or after a municipality enacted a rent control ordinance.
Supporters of the proposition, including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, argue that expanding rent control is critical to protecting tenants in a state where housing costs continue to soar.
Opponents, led by the California Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association, warn that expanding rent control could have the opposite effect by discouraging new housing development and reducing rental property values.
According to The Sacramento Bee, the association has funneled $27 million into a committee to defeat the measure.
Here are the arguments for and against Proposition 33 as presented in the state’s official voter guide:
Pro:
“The rent is too damn high. One million people have left California. Rent control in America has worked to keep people in their homes since 1919. California’s 17 million renters need relief. Homeowners and taxpayers benefit from stable communities. The California dream is dying. You can help save it.”
Con:
“Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. 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. Vote no on 33 to protect new affordable housing and California homeowners.”