By Vanguard Staff
SAN DIEGO, Calif. — After years of litigation and advocacy, tenant organizers and Housing Choice Voucher recipients have secured two significant legal victories against the San Diego Housing Commission, forcing the agency to bring its rent increase policies into compliance with California law and increase public transparency regarding how taxpayer-funded housing subsidies are spent.
The legal victories stem from separate lawsuits challenging the Commission’s approval of rent increases that plaintiffs alleged violated California tenant protection laws while diverting scarce public housing funds to subsidize higher payments to private landlords.
In the most recent development, the San Diego Housing Commission agreed to release data documenting the rent increases it approved and funded after 20 months of public records litigation. According to the parties, the agreement will allow the public to monitor how government funds are being used by providing timely access to records showing rent increases approved and subsidized by the Commission.
The transparency settlement follows another successful lawsuit brought by the San Diego Tenants Union and community organizer Francine Maxwell. Maxwell and the union were represented by the National Housing Law Project in litigation challenging the Commission’s rent increase approval practices for Housing Choice Voucher tenants.
According to the plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleged the Commission administered its rent increase approval policy in a manner that disregarded California’s statewide rent cap as well as statutory notice requirements for rental units exempt from the cap.
The litigation concluded after more than two years, with the Commission bringing its rent increase policy into compliance with state law after earlier policy advocacy efforts had failed to produce changes.
“This is a hard-won battle for our community after spending years fighting for the San Diego Housing Commission to put tenants above the profits of landlords it does business with,” said Francine Maxwell.
“While we’re thrilled with these wins, it should not take litigation to force the Commission to follow state laws put in place to protect tenants,” Maxwell added.
The lawsuits centered on how the Commission administered rent increases within the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, which provides rental assistance to low-income households.
According to the plaintiffs, the Commission approved requests from private landlords for substantial rent increases while using limited voucher funding to subsidize those higher rents. They argued those practices reduced the number of families who could receive housing assistance because a greater share of available voucher funding was directed toward higher rents for existing units.
The plaintiffs further contended the Commission’s actions undermined the purpose of the voucher program by reducing the availability of assistance for other eligible households amid an ongoing affordable housing crisis.
Rafael Bautista, director of the San Diego Tenants Union, said the Commission’s practices had real consequences for vulnerable tenants.
“San Diego, like the rest of the country, is grappling with a housing crisis and limited voucher funds. Denying exorbitant and illegal rent increase requests from landlords is the bare minimum required of San Diego Housing Commission,” Bautista said.
“Yet, the Commission was disregarding tenant protection laws and imposing blatantly illegal rent increases, including a 97% increase on a 79-year-old woman who relied on full-time oxygen,” he added.
Bautista said the litigation represented an important step toward ensuring legal compliance but emphasized that tenant advocates intend to continue monitoring the agency’s actions.
“While this is an excellent outcome, we will continue to monitor the Commission’s full compliance with the law and its legal commitment to engage with us before making any future changes to a key aspect of its rent increase approval procedure,” Bautista said.
According to the plaintiffs, the Commission’s longstanding approval of substantial rent increases had broader impacts beyond individual voucher holders.
They argued that directing limited Housing Choice Voucher funding toward increasingly expensive rents contributed to longer waiting lists for housing assistance, increased housing instability and homelessness, and worsened housing discrimination by limiting the number of households that could be served through the program.
The National Housing Law Project represented Maxwell and the San Diego Tenants Union throughout the litigation challenging the Commission’s rent increase policies.
Attorney Parisa Ijadi-Maghsoodi, who represented the plaintiffs as the National Housing Law Project’s director of California advocacy, said the settlement has implications extending beyond San Diego.
“This outcome will ensure tenants receive the protections afforded to them under state law, preserve scarce public funds, prompt other housing authorities in the state to ensure compliance with state law, and advance the Housing Choice Voucher program’s true purpose—to keep the lowest income tenants and families stably housed,” Ijadi-Maghsoodi said.
In addition to bringing the Commission’s rent increase approval procedures into compliance with state law, the settlement establishes a mechanism intended to provide tenant advocates with advance notice of future policy changes.
Under the agreement, the San Diego Housing Commission must notify the plaintiffs and discuss any substantive changes to the agency’s 90-day notice requirement before implementing them. According to the parties, the 90-day notice provision is a key component of the Commission’s rent increase approval process.
The separate public records settlement also expands oversight of the Commission’s administration of public housing funds by requiring disclosure of information regarding approved rent increases. According to the parties, the agreement provides the public with timely access to data documenting how the Commission approves and subsidizes rent increases requested by private landlords.
The plaintiffs characterized the disclosure agreement as an important transparency measure that will enable tenants, advocates, journalists and members of the public to evaluate how public housing dollars are being spent.
Together, the two legal victories represent both a policy shift and an increase in public accountability for one of California’s largest public housing agencies.
Tenant advocates argue the outcomes reinforce that housing authorities administering federal voucher programs must comply with California’s tenant protection laws while ensuring that limited public resources are used to maximize housing stability for low-income families rather than subsidizing unlawful rent increases.
For the San Diego Tenants Union, Maxwell and the National Housing Law Project, the litigation also demonstrates the role that sustained advocacy and court action can play when policy reform efforts fail.
As Maxwell noted after the settlements, “This is a hard-won battle for our community after spending years fighting for the San Diego Housing Commission to put tenants above the profits of landlords it does business with.”
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
