Rent controllers and landlords have brought their incessant political duel to the Nov. 5 ballot. Despite California’s overwhelming housing crisis, voters should reject both sides’ proposals — Propositions 33 and 34. Neither will make matters better.
Prop. 33 would repeal a 1995 state law that mostly bans cities and counties from imposing rent controls. That might be good news for existing tenants, but the unintended consequence would be a decline in available rental units.
Prop. 34 is revenge from the landlords. A high-stakes political version of schoolyard taunting, it targets the main group promoting Prop. 33 and rent controls by cutting off its political resources. Such misuse of the initiative system sets a dangerous precedent and is of dubious constitutionality.
Contrary to what rent-control advocates would have Californians believe, the absence of local rent caps isn’t the cause of high rents. Rather, a lack of housing is to blame. Insufficient supply hits high demand and prices go up. As a result, California renters typically pay 50% more than tenants elsewhere. Rents in some parts of the state are more than twice the national average.
Prop. 33 would discourage both construction of new housing and converting existing units to rentals by limiting the ability of developers and landlords to recoup their costs. That would impact the supply of all housing, but especially affordable and middle-income housing where profit margins are tighter.
Things might even go sideways in some elitist communities that aren’t keen on allowing affordable housing. Local officials could manipulate rent restrictions to effectively block development.
It’s important to remember that Prop. 33 wouldn’t create rent controls. California already has them. State law limits landlords in most cases from increasing rents by more than 5% plus the rate of inflation per year, up to 10%. Prop. 33 would only let localities go further. Also, nothing now prohibits other tenant protections, like the ones that Sonoma County recently passed.
Prop. 33 is the third such attempt in four elections. Michael Weinstein, his AIDS Healthcare Foundation and their allies were behind them all. Voters wisely rejected the 2018 and 2020 versions, but only after expensive campaigns. Total campaign fundraising topped $100 million for each initiative.
Landlords, understandably, are getting tired of fighting the same fight over and over and spending so much money on it. They therefore filed Prop. 34 to muzzle Weinstein. It doesn’t mention rent control, but it surreptitiously targets AIDS Healthcare Foundation and would largely block it from using resources for political activities like ballot initiatives. The organization, which gets much of its revenue from the federal drug discount program, would have to spend 98% of that income on direct patient care.
It’s unconscionable that a $2 billion foundation can spend so much on political activities, but a vengeful ballot initiative is not the answer. Governance through elections should not become a hammer for silencing one’s political foes.
Californians are caught up in the middle while the two sides fight it out on the ballot again and again. Voters can send a message to rent controllers that no means no and to landlords that initiative bullies aren’t welcome here.
You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.