42 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
33 OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BACKGROUND
Rental Housing Is Expensive in California.
Renters in California typically pay about
50 percent more for housing than renters in
other states. In some parts of the state, rent
costs are more than double the national
average. Rent is high in California because
the state does not have enough housing for
everyone who wants to live here. People
who want to live here must compete with
other renters for housing, which increases
rents.
Several Cities Have Rent Control Laws.
Some local governments in California have
laws that limit how much landlords can
increase rents from one year to the next.
These laws often are called rent control.
About one-quarter of Californians live
in communities with local rent control.
Examples of places with rent control are the
Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
San Jose.
State Law Limits Rent Increases. In addition
to local rent control laws, a state law
prevents most landlords from increasing a
tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus
inflation (up to a total of 10 percent) in a
year. This law lasts until 2030.
State Law Limits Local Rent Control.
Another state law, known as the Costa-
Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-
Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in
three main ways. First, rent control cannot
apply to any single-family homes. Second,
rent control cannot apply to any housing
built on or after February 1, 1995. Third,
rent control laws generally cannot tell
landlords what they can charge a new renter
when first moving in. Instead, rent control
can only limit how much landlords increase
rent for existing renters.
PROPOSAL
Allows Local Governments to Expand Rent
Control. Proposition 33 eliminates Costa-
Hawkins. Under the proposition, cities and
counties can control rents for any housing.
They also can limit how much a landlord
• Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act of 1995) generally
prevents cities and counties from limiting
the initial rental rate that landlords may
charge to new tenants in all types of
housing, and from limiting rent increases
for existing tenants in (1) residential
properties that were first occupied after
February 1, 1995; (2) single-family
homes; and (3) condominiums.
• This measure would repeal that state
law and would prohibit the state from
limiting the ability of cities and counties
to maintain, enact, or expand residential
rent-control ordinances.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• Reduction in local property tax revenues
of at least tens of millions of dollars
annually due to likely expansion of rent
control in some communities.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
The text of this measure can be found on page 100 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
33 For the full text of Proposition 33, see page 100. Analysis | 43
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
may increase rents when a new renter
moves in. The proposition itself does not
make any changes to existing local rent
control laws. Generally, cities and counties
would have to take separate actions to
change their local laws.
Limits State Ability to Regulate Rent
Control. Proposition 33 prevents the state
from taking future actions to limit local rent
control.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Effects on Renters and Landlords. If
Proposition 33 passes, local rent control
laws probably would expand in some
communities. This could have many effects
on renters, landlords, and rental properties.
The most likely effects are:
• Some renters who live in properties
covered by rent control would spend
less on rent. Some renters who live in
properties not covered by rent control
would spend more on rent.
• Some renters would move less often.
• Fewer homes would be available to
rent. One reason for this is that some
landlords would sell their properties
to new owners who would live there
instead of renting it out.
• The value of rental housing would
decline because potential landlords
would not want to pay as much for
these properties.
The size of these effects would depend on
how many properties end up being covered
by local rent control and how much rents
are limited. These things would be decided
by future actions of local governments and
voters.
Reduced Local Property Tax Revenues.
A decline in the value of rental properties
would reduce the amount of property
taxes paid by landlords. This would reduce
property tax revenues for cities, counties,
special districts, and schools. With time,
these property tax reductions likely would
be at least tens of millions of dollars each
year (annually). This is less than one-half of
1 percent of all property tax revenue. About
half of the reduction would be property tax
revenues that would have gone to schools.
In some years, the state might give more
money to schools to cover their losses.
Increased Local Government Costs. If local
rent control laws expand, local governments
could have increased costs to carry out
these laws. These costs could range from
a few million dollars to tens of millions of
dollars annually. These costs likely would be
paid by fees on landlords.
Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.
Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT
CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
PROPOSITION
33 33
33 44 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
33 ★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 33 ★
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 33 ★
They’re at it again. Proponents of Prop. 33 have taken
millions of taxpayer dollars—money that is supposed to be used to help low-income HIV and AIDS patients—and spent it on yet another of their anti-housing crusades.
Once again, they are pushing a measure that will hurt small mom and pop landlords.
AHF, which has received billions of taxpayer dollars meant to serve patients, has diverted that money to pay for things that have nothing to do with healthcare—building their
own real estate empire, while housing people in slum-like conditions in buildings they refuse to fix, and being fined repeatedly for their misuse of funds.
Just like this measure, AHF is not what it appears to be. But don’t take our word for it. Read the stories that show AHF’s true colors:
One of the state’s largest slumlords https://www.latimes. com/homeless-housing/story/2023-11-16/aids-healthcare-
foundation-low-income-housing-landlords
Even allowing a blind tenant to fall down an open elevator shaft https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/
story/2023-01-20/ahf-madison-hotel-elevator- lawsuit-story While they claim to fight for tenants, they are throwing low- income tenants out on the street, while suing dozens of poor people in small-claims court: https://www.poz.com/article/ aids-healthcare-foundation-reportedly-houses-tenants-
squalid-conditions
Meanwhile, they are wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits to block new housing https://www.sfchronicle.com/
politics/article/Lawsuit-seeks-to-block-Scott-Wiener-s- rezoning-16480766.php and spending millions on political campaigns to push its no-growth agenda: https://www.
latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aids-foundation-political- spending-20170221-story.html
The state even terminated its multi-million dollar contracts with AHF, citing “improper negotiation tactics” https://www. latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-30/california-aids- healthcare-foundation-state-contract
And audits by LA County found AHF overcharged
taxpayers by millions https://archive.kpcc.org/blogs/
politics/2013/07/18/14304/aids-healthcare-foundation-
asks-judge-to-delay-la/
Don’t be misled by AHF’s latest scheme to fool California voters. Vote No on Prop. 33.
Michael Hedges, President
California Small Business Association
Julian Canete, President
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Rev. Dwight Williams, Chair
California Senior Alliance
Where will I live?—This is the question that haunts
California’s 17 million renters. 55% of Californians are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income
on rent and there is no end in sight. Rent increases are far outstripping pay increases. A starting teacher, cop, or fire fighter is paying half their salary to afford the average apartment in California’s cities. Many who live on a fixed income are one rent increase away from homelessness—
and seniors represent the fastest growing homeless
population. Something has to give. The affordable housing crisis is destroying the California Dream.
California, the Golden State, was once the land of
opportunity. However, things have changed dramatically.
Nearly one million people have left California in the last five years. If this mass exodus continues, it will have catastrophic consequences for our state. California faces a $68 billion deficit which will only get worse as young talented people leave and the needy remain.
We love California. It is a land of natural beauty. We are at the cutting edge of technological innovation with vast amounts of wealth. Yet, based on the cost of living, we are the poorest state in America. We have way too many seniors, single parents, low-wage workers, and veterans choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table.
The housing crisis is complex. There isn’t one magic bullet to solve it, but the place we have to start is keeping people in their homes. The only practical way to do it is to allow local government to enact and expand rent control because one size doesn’t fit all. What’s practical for Los Angeles doesn’t work in Los Gatos.
We need to build more affordable housing and preserve the affordable units we have. But while we are waiting, we need to protect tenants and keep them housed—when you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Rent control is an American tradition since 1919 and works well in many cities. It was largely shut down in 1995 when the landlord lobby convinced Sacramento to drastically
curtail it. Ever since, corporate landlords have made sure that the Legislature doesn’t modify the law no matter how bad things get.
We understand that mom and pop landlords have invested
their life savings into their buildings and can identify with the plight of their tenants. The CA Constitution guarantees them a reasonable rate of return. But it is the billionaire corporate landlords who are calling the shots and causing skyrocketing rents.
Even if you are not a renter, your quality of life and the value of your property are still harmed by the housing crisis.
Proposition 33 will return fairness to the equation. Visit www.yeson33.org
Supporters: California Democratic Party, Veterans’ Voices, California Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired
Americans, Housing Is a Human Right, American Federation of Teachers 1521, 2121, Tenants Together, Consumer
Watchdog, Coalition for Economic Survival, Social Security Works, Mental Health Advocacy, Housing NOW, ACCE,
UNITE HERE Local 11
Basil Kimbrew, Executive Director
Veterans’ Voices
Pauline Brooks, Board President
California Alliance for Retired Americans
William Arroyo, Board President
AIDS Healthcare Foundation / Housing Is a Human Right
33 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 45 EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT
CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
PROPOSITION
33 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 33 ★
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 33 ★
Who do you believe? The billionaire landlords behind the California Apartment Association which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing renter protections? Or do you believe the AIDS Healthcare Foundation—the largest AIDS organization in the world—Veterans’ Voices, the Coalition for Economic Survival, 100 local elected officials, and the cities of San Francisco, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood? The billionaire landlords will fill the airwaves and your mailbox with lies and deceptions paid for by extorting
exorbitant rents from people on social security or disability.
Our proposition is just 23 words. It allows cities to regulate rents the way they did until 1995 when Sacramento, at the demand of these same billionaires, took that right away— nothing more. Every city will decide for themselves whether or not they need rent control.
Academics and non-profits for hire will say anything the billionaire landlords want them to for a price.
Believe your own eyes. We are facing a $68 billion deficit made worse by the one million people who have left
California. More than half of California’s 17 million renters are paying more than 30% of their income on rent.
The billionaire landlords are using fear to get homeowners and renters to vote against your own interests. Homeowners will only benefit from healthy communities. Renters are desperate to remain in their homes.
Rent control is an American tradition since 1919. New
York and many other cities with rent control have only seen property values soar.
Vote Yes—the rent is too damn high.
Sandy Reding, President
California Nurses Association
Pauline Brooks, Board President
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Larry Gross, Executive Director
Coalition for Economic Survival
PROP. 33 IS A DEEPLY FLAWED SCHEME THAT WILL
INCREASE HOUSING COSTS AND BLOCK AFFORDABLE
HOUSING
If Prop. 33 seems familiar, it’s because nearly 60% of
California voters rejected the same flawed scheme in 2018 and 2020. Seniors, veterans, and affordable housing experts all oppose Prop. 33 because it will make the housing crisis dramatically worse. The Housing Action Coalition calls
Prop. 33 “deeply flawed and deceptively anti-housing. ” Here's why you should vote NO on Prop. 33:
FUNDED BY NOTORIOUS SLUMLORD
Prop. 33 was written and bankrolled by Corporate CEO
Michael Weinstein of AHF. The Los Angeles Times describes Weinstein as a “slumlord” with a long record of health
and safety violations and unfair evictions. State housing regulators cited his residents living in “squalid conditions, exposed to roach and bedbug infestations. ”
NOT WHAT IT SEEMS. PROP. 33 IS A TROJAN HORSE THAT
OVERTURNS STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS
Prop. 33 is misleading. The measure could effectively
overturn more than 100 state housing laws, including laws making it easier to build affordable housing, and fair housing and tenant eviction protections. It could also strip the Attorney General’s ability to enforce certain current housing laws. It’s why one of the state’s most notorious corporate “slumlords” is bankrolling Prop. 33.
WORSENS HOUSING CRISIS
Economists and housing experts at Stanford and UC
Berkeley say Prop. 33 will make California’s housing crisis significantly worse by reducing the construction of new affordable housing. Prop. 33 will make it harder to become a homeowner or find a place to rent, driving up costs for renters and home buyers.
ELIMINATES HOMEOWNER PROTECTIONS
Prop. 33 takes away basic protections for homeowners and allows bureaucrats, politicians, and regulators to tell single- family homeowners how much they can charge to rent out
a single room. Millions of homeowners will be treated just like corporate landlords and subject to regulations and price controls enacted by unelected boards.
WEAKENS RENTER PROTECTIONS
Prop. 33 undermines the strongest statewide rent control law in the nation signed by Governor Newsom and has no
protections for renters.
REDUCES HOME VALUES UP TO 25%
Non-partisan researchers at MIT estimate extreme rent
control measures like this result in an average reduction in home values up to 25%. Californians can’t afford to take another hit with the economic collapse threatening their home values and life savings.
OFFERS NO PROTECTIONS FOR SENIORS, VETERANS, OR
THE DISABLED
Prop. 33 has no protections for seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Veterans, seniors, and social justice organizations agree it’s the last thing we need right now.
OPPOSED BY A BROAD BIPARTISAN COALITION
Democrats and Republicans agree Prop. 33 will make
the housing crisis worse. Opponents include: California Small Business Association • California Senior Alliance • California Conference of Carpenters • California YIMBY • California Chamber of Commerce • Senate President Pro Tem Emeritus Toni Atkins • Democratic Assemblymember
Buffy Wicks • Marine Corps Veterans Association
DEMAND REAL HOUSING SOLUTIONS
We should Vote “NO” on Prop. 33 and demand real
solutions.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33. Learn more at
NoOnProp33.com
Ken Rosen, Economics Professor Emeritus
UC Berkeley
Jenna Abbott, Executive Director
California Council for Affordable Housing
Kendra Moss, Advisory Member
Women Veterans Alliance