Endorsement: No on Proposition 33. This rent control measure could make the housing shortage worse
Proposition 33 could create all kinds of unintended consequences. Cities that are antigrowth and don’t want any new housing built could use their authority over rent control (diabolically) to require that developers set extremely low rent caps on new apartment buildings, which would make new multifamily housing financially unfeasible.
Or a well-intentioned city trying to keep rents affordable could impose “vacancy control” when rents stay capped even after a tenant moves out, or they could put rent control on new construction. Both could have a chilling effect on the one thing that will ultimately solve the problem of rising rents: building more housing, especially affordable housing.
Endorsement: Prop 33 promises a solution to the housing crisis. It would almost certainly make things worse
Prop 33 isn’t reasonable.
It goes beyond simply repealing Costa-Hawkins. It also explicitly blocks the state from limiting the ability of local governments to “maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.”
According to Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor and California housing law expert, this clause is a Trojan horse that local governments could exploit to make it nearly impossible to build new housing. That’s because courts, including the California Supreme Court, have interpreted “rent control” to include price controls established through inclusionary housing ordinances, which require a certain percentage of units in a development to be affordable.
Supporters say this is intended to protect local decision-making on key housing policies.
But that’s a recipe for disaster. Because, unfortunately, as we know all too well here in San Francisco, most local California governments can’t be trusted on housing.
Endorsement: No on Prop. 33. Expanding rent control will destroy California’s rental market.
Californians should contemplate how bad things will get if the state eliminates Costa-Hawkins. As the Legislative Analyst’s Office explains, that 1995 law exempted single-family homes and units constructed after 1995 and forbade “vacancy controls.” Currently, landlords can adjust the rent to market rates after a tenant vacates the property. With vacancy controls, the government would dictate what owners could charge a new tenant.
What happens if a property owner is losing money and is not allowed to raise the rent or adjust rents upon vacancy? We asked that question to Prop. 33’s supporters during a recent editorial-board meeting. Those owners would have a process to appeal to an administrative law judge for the right to charge a rental price that enabled them to make a slim profit.
Endorsement: No on Prop. 33. Rent control makes problem worse.
The evidence is overwhelming that rent control is counterproductive. This view isn’t just held by free-market acolytes. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, the progressive columnist for The New York Times, has written that “rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and — among economists, anyway — one of the least controversial.”
Surveys have routinely shown that virtually all economists agree that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing,” as the American Economic Association noted in 1992.
The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board urges a “no” vote on Proposition 33.
Editorial: Should local politicians control your rent? It’s Prop. 33’s question for California
California’s decades-long failure to build affordable and middle-class housing has created a crisis that has left renters feeling like second-class citizens. The question is whether abandoning state rent control laws for different solutions in each California city is the answer. It is not. That’s why Proposition 33 makes no sense and deserves a no-vote.
Prop. 33 is the third attempt in six years to expand rent control via the initiative process. (Voters rejected two previous attempts.) This time, supporters are touting a local control solution they hope appeals to more voters.
But taking rent control out of the hands of the Legislature may have some unintended consequences. The expanded rent control ideas proposed by backers are way outside core competence of local governments. Imagine your city setting the rent for every vacant apartment building or rental house in town and then charging mightily for its financial wisdom. That is what Prop. 33 would do.
Editorial: Californian voters should reject rent control ...
Proposition 33 is so broad that key Democratic housing advocates, including state Sen. Toni Atkins, the party’s former leader in the Senate, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, oppose it. They fear the measure grants autonomy to cities that they could use to undermine recent state mandates for more housing.
Indeed, some city leaders opposed to housing mandates are looking to Proposition 33 as an escape hatch. If it passes, they could set rent limits so strict that no developer would want to consider construction.
It would be an extreme example of the underlying principle: Expanding rent control would only exacerbate the state’s housing crisis.
Editorial: Our View: Vote NO on 33
The value of rental housing might decline because potential landlords would not want to pay as much for rental properties, when the returns on their investments are low. That could reduce the amount of available rental units and reduce the amount of property taxes collected to fund local public services.
If local governments expand their rent control programs, the cost of administering these programs also will increase.
With so many uncertainties, voters should reject Proposition 33. Rent control should be a local decision. However, the state also should have a voice in determining how far these controls can go. VOTE NO.
Editorial: Vote NO on Proposition 33 ...
To address California’s housing crisis and hold down rents, the state needs to add supply by incentivizing more construction. But rent control discourages investment in new housing, constraining supply and driving up overall housing costs.
Prop. 33 is so broad that key Democratic housing advocates, including state Sen. Toni Atkins, the party’s former leader in the Senate, and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, oppose it. They fear the measure grants autonomy to cities that they could use to undermine recent state mandates for more housing.
Expanding rent control would only exacerbate the state’s housing crisis. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 33 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot.