By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
California voters will get a third opportunity to consider removing restrictions on rent control—the two previous times the initiative failed by a wide margin. While I generally support rent control and this measure would simply allow local communities to decide for themselves, I am skeptical that rent control as a standalone measure is going to achieve what we need.
On Thursday, Michael Weinstein, a controversial figure in his own right, who has backed the three campaigns to date, said at a press conference, “The situation has gotten so extreme and dire and catastrophic…. We can never give up, that’s the bottom line.
“The root cause of the problem,” said Weinstein, speaking back in May and referring to the housing affordability and homelessness crises, “is that the rent is too damn high.”
Known as the Justice for Renters Act, the initiative will simply repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Among other things, Costa-Hawkins prevents local governments from passing updated rent control policies.
CalMatters noted “recent state law put a California-wide cap on rent hikes of no more than 5% plus inflation with an absolute maximum of 10%.” However, “That ceiling is too high for the coalition of tenant organizers, labor groups and local Democratic politicians backing the ballot measure.”
Why did it fail? One problem is that while the housing crisis is omnipresent, renters remain a minority in California and analysis shows renters are far less likely to vote than homeowners.
There was confusion among the voters as to what the measure would do—in part because it doesn’t actually implement rent control, but rather opens the door for cities to do so.
Finally, the biggest factor is the millions that landlords and business groups pumped into defeating the measure.
Mike Nemeth, a spokesperson for the California Apartment Association said, “In recent years, we joined a broad coalition of pro-housing groups in soundly defeating similar measures…we will prepare to fight this latest proposition.”
The press conference featured labor, civil rights, senior and other organizers who represent the vulnerable people most impacted by rising rents.
As labor and civil rights icon Dolores Huerta put it, “We know this initiative will go a long way [to help people]. We need everyone to get involved.” She added, “Si se puede! The rent is too damn high!”
Ada Briceno of Unite Here noted “union membership can’t afford the unfair, excessive rents charged by predatory landlords in California.”
Ernie Powell, President of Social Security Works said, “We know that seniors are very vulnerable. Many are only on one income…”
Oakland City Council Member Dan Kalb added, “Elected officials need to have the tools” to address the housing affordability and homelessness crises. He added that we must repeal statewide rent control restrictions so local politicians can pass updated rent control policies.
Obviously this is a measure that will have some teeth, otherwise the Apartment Association would not be putting the money and energy into defeating it. But I would argue that the root cause of the housing is crisis is not that rent is “too damn high” even though it is. The root of the problem is a demand and supply issue that is not going to be solved by slowing the increase of rent.
Why I will support rent control is that it protects a specific group of people—long term renters who are either on a fixed income (particularly seniors) or who are not upwardly mobile, and therefore do not figure to have increased income in the future to be able to afford higher rents.
Rent control will cap increases to rent which is helpful in not forcing people on fixed incomes—particularly seniors—out of their homes.
But ultimately it is not likely to solve the rental affordability problem because it only affects long-term renters who remain in the same unit over time.
However, there is at least some academic support for the notion that rent control can be “an effective tool to keep people housed and to stabilize the housing affordability crisis.”
Researchers at the University of Southern California, UC Berkeley, and UCLA released key studies that backed this up.
A critical finding in the 2018 USC study, for instance, was that regulations “do not necessarily increase the rent of non-regulated units and may actually keep rent more affordable for all.”
Second, rent regulations have “minimal impact on new construction.”
Third, “rent stabilization increases housing stability, which has important health and educational attainment benefits.”
Fourth, “there is no conclusive evidence about the impacts on ‘mom and pop’ landlords.” Fifth, “rent regulations may deter gentrification.”
Still I worry that some supporters believe this is a fix-all. The reality is that rent affordability is a serious problem that we need to address. Rent control appears to be one important piece.
But in the long run we need sufficient housing supply, both for renters and potential homeowners, to take the pressure off the upward trajectory of costs.
I don’t see rent control as a substitute for building more housing, I see it working in tandem with increased supply to alleviate the problems we have seen over the last decade in California.
If by “housing crisis” you’re referring to long-term renters getting priced-out of their apartments, it absolutely will solve it.
Communities such as Davis (which has no rent control other than what the state already mandates) can already pass a rent control policy, under the conditions imposed by Costa Hawkins – similar to the policies enacted in San Francisco and elsewhere.
To my knowledge, Davis’ leadership hasn’t even considered it.
There’s the latest “challenge” – “pro-housing groups” are opposing rent control – in conjunction with those who are gouging renters in the first place.
No surprise there, given “who” backs them.
Folks, your “friends” are not always what they claim to be. Something that’s actually pretty obvious, when you look at who is funding them. It ALWAYS comes down to that.
But again, cities don’t have to “wait” for this type of proposal to fail (under the combined weight of the well-financed attacks), to enact rent control under the limitations of Costa Hawkins. Many communities (other than Davis) have already done so.
Is Ron supporting rent control, or just using it to bash his supposed enemies?
I support rent control, and have noted that many times on here.
I’ve seen first-hand how it can benefit renters. And unlike Affordable housing, it doesn’t hold back renters from pursuing more income over time.
But again, “housing affordability” is SUPPOSED to be the issue of concern for the “pro-housing” groups that are opposing rent control.
Which tells you all you need to know about their ACTUAL interests, for those who haven’t put-together any connection regarding “who” is funding them in the first place.
That’s not exactly true. The Apartment associations are certainly not concerned about housing affordability.
Thought it was pretty obvious that I’m referring to this:
Though it would be useful if the source of this information “named names”.
It’s not because I think you are conflating “pro housing” with a whole host of things. As such, there is a difference between housing as a means and affordability as an end.
I also think you need to be careful here. You are vulnerable on this issue. If you want to castigate housing groups who do not support rent control even if they offer affordability as a reason to add housing, you’re guilty of the same thing. You oppose housing while claiming to care about affordability. Clearly rent control can help housing affordability but it’s not the only thing – yet it’s the only thing that you seemingly are willing to support. That’s your prerogative, but you have the same problem that the groups you are casting aspersions on.
That’s why I suggested that the source of this information disclose “who” (what groups) they are referring to, as well as who is supporting them.
This comment is unclear.
That’s odd, I don’t feel “vulnerable” regarding the issue at all.
“Affordability” is supposedly the goal of the “pro-housing” groups. And yet, they’re opposing a very effective tool regarding “affordability”.
The manner in which they’re described here (“pro housing groups”) is a more-accurate description than describing them as “advocates for affordable housing”.
I do not describe myself as an “affordable housing advocate”. I support rent control because it tends to prevent existing renters from being priced-out of their units. In a sense, it mirrors Proposition 13, for property owners.
But as far as the housing market in general (e.g., “for sale” housing), I’m fine with letting the market “decide”, even if that means that businesses or individuals who want to move to a given locale “think twice” before doing so.
I’m also “more than fine” with individual communities deciding how much growth they desire – even it if means that folks like me are priced out. That’s why I harbor no “ill will” toward communities that I’d much-prefer to live in, but cannot afford.
In other words, I seem to lack a sense of “entitlement” that some others seem to have, regarding this issue.
Again, I suspect that about half of the residents of Davis came from “somewhere else” in the first place (where they might have been, or are now priced out of).
There’s lots of areas that still welcome growth (both population, and economic growth) at this point. It’s not like there’s a “shortage” of such places, even as the entire country is experiencing significantly less population growth than it used to.
Eventually, all locales will stop growing. They’ll just do so at different points in time. It’s ultimately not even a “choice”. The only question being “how much” they want to screw-up the environment and their own locales, while they still have a choice.
Just happened across an article which shows the “type” of rent control that Davis could enact under current law:
https://www.marinij.com/2023/07/24/larkspur-poised-to-enact-rent-control-ordinance/
But again, I haven’t seen the Davis city council even discuss this at all. (And yet, the Davis city council supposedly puts a “high priority” on housing affordability and ensuring that existing residents don’t get priced-out. And since renters are really the only existing residents who can get “priced out”, the lack of action by the Davis city council doesn’t seem to make much sense.
A large proportion of Davis renters would not benefit at all from rent control, since Costa Hawkins exempts all units constructed after 1995 and specifically exempts single-family homes and condos. Coupled with the high turnover in multi-family units largely occupied by students and other young adults, any benefits of rent control locally would go only to a relatively small number of long-term renters who happen to live in older apartment buildings.
How many rental units would not be exempt?
It would control rent increases for as long as a student (or any other renter) lives in a qualified unit.
I understood that a primary goal for the city is to ensure that “local workers” (whatever that means) aren’t priced out. I assume that this (may) refer to long-term renters.
I have also heard of “shenanigans” where (for example) a new tenant moves in (while the original tenant is still there), which may prevent the apartment owner from “re-adjusting” the rent if/when the original tenant is no longer there. (In other words, no period of “vacancy”.)
But if Costa Hawkins is actually repealed at some point (the topic of this article), it’s going to change the entire situation. I fully expect that effort to fail again, for now. Which leads me to think that Davis should “do what it can” within the confines of the current system (as many other cities have already done).
Again, there’s renters “other than” students, but even students would benefit during their tenure – if they decide to rent in the city in the first place.