If voters in California decide to endorse a proposed rent control measure on the ballot, it could lead to significant changes for many tenants in Berkeley, restricting the amount by which landlords can increase rent annually.
Leah Simon-Weisberg, an experienced tenant advocate and chair of the local rent board, expressed optimism, stating that families living in unsuitable units would gain the opportunity to relocate without facing financial strains that come with rising rents. “For some people, it will keep them housed,” she remarked.
In contrast, Krista Gulbransen, who leads the Berkeley Property Owners Association, views the potential measure as a regression. She alarmingly compared its implications to a return to the problematic real estate climate of the 1980s, arguing that it could bring more significant issues than nostalgic fashion trends of that era.
Proposition 33 is designed to rescind a California housing regulation that limits local governments’ authority to control rents, thus allowing city officials to make their own rules. While the majority of California cities may not experience immediate effects, some places like Berkeley possess existing local laws that could allow broader regulations, potentially leading to swift benefits for tenants, while presenting challenges for landlords.
Currently, over 30 cities in California have implemented some form of rent increase caps, with those limits ranging from 3% to 10% per year. Some have adjustments linked to inflation. At the state level, California restricts rent hikes for apartments and corporate-owned homes older than 15 years to an upper limit of 10% annually, a fact that many tenant advocates argue still leaves renters burdened by steep costs.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several cities established stricter rent controls due to rising housing prices, implementing regulations even for new tenants—a practice known as vacancy control. However, the introduction of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 1995 curtailed such approaches, also prohibiting rent control on single-family homes or those constructed post-1995.
Richmond City Council member Melvin Willis, who has been approached by constituents lamenting steep rent hikes, highlighted the discontent stemming from the exclusion of single-family homes from rent control. Willis described the uncomfortable conversations he has had with families facing doubled rents, only to explain that the rent cap does not apply to their homes due to the existing law.
Richmond’s current rent regulations specifically omit any housing “exempt from rent control pursuant to the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.” Willis and others advocating for affordable housing emphasize that if Costa-Hawkins is repealed, single-family homes excluded under that law could fall under the scope of rent control.
Nicolas Traylor, director of Richmond’s rent program, suggested a more cautious stance, indicating that the ordinance might refer to units genuinely exempt under Costa-Hawkins, as well as the kinds of properties like single-family homes excluded. Should Proposition 33 secure approval, he anticipates that the legal team overseeing the rent program would be tasked with determining the next steps.
In San Francisco, to eliminate uncertainty, city officials unanimously adopted legislation designed to activate rent control for an additional estimated 16,000 units if Proposition 33 passes. Mayor London Breed has indicated her intention to endorse this legislation, highlighting the proactive steps the city is taking.
San Francisco, along with other cities such as Berkeley, Oakland, and Los Angeles, has a rich history of rent control that current state laws limit significantly. Due to the grandfathering of exemptions outlined in Costa-Hawkins, buildings constructed after specific years become “new constructions,” thus falling outside rent control guidelines. In San Francisco, anything built after 1979 is exempt, while the threshold is 1978 in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles City Council member Hugo Soto-Martínez criticized this arbitrary cutoff, linking it to the ongoing homelessness crisis in the city and the continual loss of rent-stabilized housing. Recently, the council endorsed Proposition 33, showcasing the support for more progressive housing policies.
Landlords are growing uneasy about these developments, asserting that their operational costs, including utilities and insurance, have been on the rise, sometimes even exceeding inflation rates.
A real estate firm, Bornstein Law, cautioned its landlords in a recent newsletter about the potential approval of Proposition 33 and suggested they prepare for changes by considering raising rents to current market levels and proposing voluntary buyouts for tenants with below-market rentals.
Opponents of Proposition 33 argue that stricter rent controls could hinder new housing development, at a time when California desperately requires more housing availability. Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the campaign against Proposition 33, expressed concerns that the proposition may empower cities to circumvent supportive housing measures.
However, city activities offer insight that even places with a history of strong tenant protections could opt for moderate changes to their rent control policies that attract wider political support. In San Francisco, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin had initially considered expanding rent control to include units built before 2024 but compromised on a version covering housing constructed only before 1994, garnering backing from diverse factions within city governance.
The discussion around local rent control expansions will rely on collaboration not only among tenant organizations but also with broader civil society groups within communities, emphasizing community readiness for advocacy.
Manuel Pastor from the University of Southern California pointed out that while rent stabilization can prevent displacement effectively, introducing caps on rent increases for new tenants complicates predictions about housing market outcomes. He noted that previous attempts at vacancy control took place when multifamily units were more common and before the dramatic shifts brought about by the tech industry in Northern California.
Ultimately, geographical disparities should be expected, with more progressive coastal cities likely imposing stricter regulations, while inland areas might prefer leniency to stimulate development. Pastor concluded that both proponents and opponents of Proposition 33 might not fully grasp its complex implications, advocating for thorough consideration in addressing California’s housing crisis.