Printer-friendly version
By Branda Gorgies
Photos by Eric Brehm and Ivan Bandura on Unsplash and Creative Commons via Bing
August 16, 2023 (California) – The “Justice for Renters” Act is officially on the November 2024 ballot. If approved by voters, it would repeal a law that bans rent control statewide on most housing, allowing local governments to enact ordinances to limit rent hikes.
The act repeals the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which limits the use of rent control. Costa-Hawkins ,completely prohibits rent control for certain types of housing (single-family homes, condominiums and newly built apartment units). The existing law also prohibits vacancy control (also known as “strict” rent control), or prohibiting landlords from changing pricing to reflect market conditions until a unit is vacant. The Justice for Renters Act would repeal all this, allowing cities or counties to enact both rent controls and vacancy controls.
Arguments in favor
A coalition of California renters, housing advocates, elected officials and social justice organizations met on July 27 in a ZOOM press conference. Multiple speakers shared their satisfaction with the act being put on the ballot. This is the third time this act has been put on the ballot, a reporter noted, then asked what makes the third time the charm? .
Many of the speakers responded, highlighting the fact that in recent years, things have gotten worse. Statewide, the homeless population continues to grow, even after the state spent nearly $10 billion between 2018 and 2021 to aid this crisis. COVID-19 also shined a light on these struggles, as the unemployment rate rose and many people started living paycheck to paycheck. The middle class is shrinking, leaving many people in either poverty or riches. As these issues get worse and more people are paying attention, the coalition hopes this will push voters to see the “root cause of the homeless and affordability crisis in California,” said Michael Weinstein, one of the speakers and president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
The coalition also aims to get more renter votes. Many speakers claimed that in past attempts at the bill, corporations and landlords have fear-mongered renters out of voting for this bill through pricey campaigns. But coupled with the increased awareness and the preparation to push back against any possible fear-mongering, those backing this bill are assured it’ll make it through and “restore democracy to a process that hasn’t had democracy in it for years,” as Clifford Tasner, president of the Southern California charter of Americans for Democratic Action, put it.
A specific concern was brought up about groups that are more vulnerable to the housing crisis and poverty, particularly senior citizens and veterans. Although the poverty rate in California has dropped since 2014, California ranked 10th in the percentage of residents 65+ years old in poverty in 2021, with 11% of the senior population in poverty. California also has the highest veteran population, with 1.5 million vets in California(there are nearly 18 million nationally), but the state disproportionately has 31% of the nation’s homeless veteran population.
What about alternative solutions (i.e. more housing, improved government aid, etc)
Some of the coalition members believe that Costa-Hawkins is the primary issue when it comes to the housing crisis in California. In other words,
California is a “renter state” with a “landlord legislature,” according to Soli Alpert, Berkeley Rent Board member.
Esther Malkin,founder of Monterey County Renters United, mentioned that the state can’t build enough housing fast enough to stabilize rent. Carlos Marroquin, the national director of the Food for Health program at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, stated that “change comes from the ground up,” and part of that is repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act.
In terms of government aid, it was stated that there aren’t enough government resources out there to help everyone.
AB-1482, a statewide bill, limits how much an owner can increase rent to 5% a year. This bill came into effect in 2020 after being approved in 2019, but it sunsets in 2030.
Many of the speakers contended that if the Justice for Renters Act makes it through, it’ll be the minimum of what needs to be done. They say that organizing on the local level is necessary to establish rent control and different legislation. As of now, even if a city wants to enact rent control, they’re not able to due to the limitations Costa-Hawkins places on them. Passing the act won’t impose rent control statewide, but it “allows local government to allow or expand rent control,” Susie Shannon, policy director of Housing is A Human Right, said.
The coalition also wants to bring national attention to this issue; with California leading the way to show that tenants can stand up for themselves against unfair housing and rent regulations. They want others to ally themselves with renters too, such as homeowners who are always faced with the possibility of becoming renters or who might’ve been renters themselves in the past.
The arguments against
The opposition to this act mostly comes from landlords. Christine LaMarca, past president of both the Southern California Rental Housing Association and the California Rental Housing Association, was kind enough to explain the opposing side’s argument and plan.
A lot of money has gone into a campaign against this act, and it’s worked. LaMarca stated that the same will happen again to bring this proposed legislation down. Those against the act are aware that it’s a costly pursuit, but want to educate the public on the alleged consequences of passing the Justice for Renters Act.
When it comes to decreased availability of housing, it goes hand in hand with the issue of driving away developers. For example, while building one apartment unit should cost, at most, $300,000, in California, it can go up to $600,000, sometimes even $1 million. LaMarca argues that this act wouldn’t allow developers to set the rent at the rate needed to make back the money they spent.
She put bureaucracy at fault for the increased cost, asserting that the restrictions and regulations the government puts in place, like AB-1482, can slow down the process and increase the cost. With this act on top of that all, it’s predicted that it would be even harder for housing developers to work in California.
Costa-Hawkins in a way incentivizes developers to come to California and invest in producing housing here. It allows developers to set the rent at market prices instead of government regulations. In the case of efficiency, government involvement is also said to get in the way. LaMarca disagreed with the claim that there can’t be enough housing built fast enough to give access to everyone who needs it. LaMarca claimed that if other states and cities can meet their estimated housing requirements, California can too, as long as the bureaucracy of it all is settled.
Lastly, LaMarca wanted to make it clear that landlords and the people opposing this act do care and empathize with renters. Although housing is a for-profit industry, LaMarca wants society to recognize that owners still care about their renters and try their best to keep costs low. She’s aware that each side has a lot to their arguments, but believes this act won’t solve anything, but will make things worse than they are now.
Recent comments