Proposition 33 is the solution that California, and specifically San Diego, needs to stop greedy landlords from demanding huge rents from their tenants, because these demands crush San Diegans under astronomical rental prices and drive others who can’t keep up out of their homes and onto the streets.
If Proposition 33 is to pass this election cycle, it would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act that prohibits cities and counties from enacting rent control on any units built after 1995 and any single family homes. The proposition states that “the state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.”
Passing this proposition should be a top priority for any and all renters in California because currently, for units built after 1995 and for single family homes, there is no regulation or law setting limits on how much landlords are allowed to charge.
Granted, because the US runs on a system of free market capitalism, landlords can charge whatever price they see fit and if their tenants are unhappy, they could easily find new tenants, as housing is in immense demand right now. And although the landlords may argue that it is completely within their right to try to extract as much profit from their tenants, as that is the nature of capitalism, in some cases like this one government intervention into the free market is what is best for the greater good of our country.
Rent control began during WWII when the federal government enacted rent freezes in certain cities where affordable housing became scarce due to the war, though these were quickly removed after the war. Rent control appeared later in California, in the late 1970s during the economic period of “stagflation” — when affordable housing became increasingly scarce.
Some opponents of rent control claim that it may actually increase the amount paid in rent for units overall and will disincentivize developers from building new housing. According to the Mercury News Editorial Board, “Rent control discourages investment in new housing, constrain[s] supply and driv[es] up overall housing costs.” This quote appears in bold letters in the center of the Vote No on Prop 33 homepage.
But according to a research paper named “Forty Years of Rent Control: Reexamining New Jersey’s Moderate Local Policies after the Great Recession,” in New Jersey, which has been a national leader in tenants’ rights since the 1960s, this is not the case. The paper states that from 2000 to 2010, there was no observable difference in new construction or changes in property values between rent control and non-rent control cities, according to a summary on the paper in The Journalists Resource by Clark Merrefield. The paper also found that on average, monthly rents were $63 higher in non-rent controlled cities ($1,090 versus $1,027).
On top of making housing more affordable for many renters, rent control measures also help tenants remain in their units for longer periods of time because they are not crippled by unreasonable rent increases. According to many studies, this continuity of residence is very beneficial for renters’ economic well-being and physical, emotional, and mental health. Another study also found that housing stability has been associated with greater educational achievement among children.
Proposition 33 is one of the most important ballot initiatives this year, evidenced by campaigns for and against it spending a total of $161.9 million — the largest amount of money being poured into any of the ballot initiatives. Of that money, $43 million has been spent by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in support of the proposition, while $83 million has been spent by the California Apartment Association (CAA) on the opposing side, making the two organizations the proposition’s biggest donors.
The CAA, a group of landlords, real estate, and residential equity firms adamantly oppose the measure because they know that it will cut into their already enormous profits. The head of the company’s Board of Directors Barry Altshuler’s company Equity Residential brought in $2.735 billion in revenue in 2022 alone. These humongous revenue margins are also what allows the CAA to spend so much money on ballot initiatives like this one.
It is also important to note that the CAA has donated $44.5 million in support of Proposition 34 which seeks to halt the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s ability to donate to political campaigns, such as Proposition 33.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation supports this measure because they believe that housing is a human right and a public health issue that needs to be solved, hence the name of the coalition that they created called “Housing is a Human Right.”
Homelessness is a devastating problem on both a humanitarian and economic level. In San Diego alone, more than 10,000 people experience homelessness. Many of them are forced onto the streets because of astronomical rent prices from greedy landlords and retail firms like those that run the CAA.
So please take a stand and vote FOR Proposition 33 to create a more equitable society that puts the needs of the people above the wants of the absurdly wealthy.