A number of propositions are on the ballot in California’s general election of November 5. The Peace & Freedom Party endorses a YES vote on Proposition 33 and a NO vote on Proposition 34, both critical measures for the provision of affordable housing in our state. Our reasoning is as follows.
- Proposition 33: Vote YES—Allow Rent Control Expansion
- Proposition 34: Vote NO—Do not restrict the AIDS Healthcare Foundation
You may ask why we group a measure about housing with one ostensibly about healthcare. The answer pertains to another question that applies to most of the propositions: What is the motivation and who is the money behind it? We will get to these questions later in this article.
Prop 33 is also known as the Justice for Renters Act. It allows cities to expand rent control by repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act, which was passed by the California State Legislature in 1995. Repealing Costa-Hawkins does not automatically impose strong rent control statewide. Costa-Hawkins prevents local jurisdictions from passing rent control ordinances that suit their needs. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would return decision-making to the people.
Costa-Hawkins does not allow rent control on single-family homes or any unit which is “separately alienable” (meaning it can be bought and sold on its own, like a condominium). In many communities, that is much of the housing stock. Yes on Proposition 33 would enable cities to limit annual rent increases for detached houses and condominium units of larger buildings as well as for traditional apartment units.
Passing Proposition 33 would also allow cities to enact rent control for newer buildings. Currently they can’t apply rent control to anything built after 1995, or whatever year the city first passed rent control, which in some places was the early 1980s.
Finally, Prop 33 would also allow vacancy control, limiting rent increases when a tenant moves out and a new one moves in. This is designed to reduce the incentive landlords currently have to harass long-time rent-controlled tenants to get them to leave, since currently they’re able to reset rent-controlled units to market rate rents once they’re vacated.
Before Costa-Hawkins passed in the state legislature in 1995, only five cities in California had vacancy control. In those cities (Berkeley, Cotati, East Palo Alto, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica), when a tenant moved out the rent stayed controlled at the same level as though the tenant had remained, and did not go to market level. This was particularly important in Berkeley, because of the high turnover in a college town. Rental rates in Berkeley have gone through the roof since the passage of Costa-Hawkins.
Rent control is not imposed from above. The ordinances are passed by local elected officials or by a vote of the people. In Berkeley, it was passed by popular vote in 1983 and is administered by an elected board. In some other cities, the board is selected by the city council or an elected body administers the program.
Rent control does not prevent landlords from recovering costs associated with maintaining the property. Rent control ordinances contain provisions for landlords to recover such costs, and cities with rent control have staff that assist both landlords and tenants to navigate the regulations and other issues.
Allow local jurisdictions to pass controls on rent that suit the needs of their population. End the unfair limits on rent control imposed by Costa-Hawkins. Vote YES on Proposition 33.
The Proposition 34 Connection
This is not the first time repealing Costa-Hawkins is on the ballot. Proposition 33 is similar to 2018’s Prop 10 and 2020’s Prop 21. And they were all sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sees affordable housing as essential in the battle against AIDS.
Prop 34 looks like a reasonable measure to ensure that healthcare money is used for healthcare. In reality, it bans exactly one organization from funding propositions: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Prop. 34 is backed by the California Apartment Association, which is cleverly trying to stop the main funder of rent-control measures from continuing this effort.
If you are thinking that a healthcare organization should not meddle in issues around housing, consider this: Why is an association of landlords suddenly taking an interest in providing healthcare? Follow the money! Vote NO on Proposition 34.