Meet Maria, an elderly woman who owns a small condo. She rents it out to a disabled tenant and keeps the rent low for several years. While the rent helps cover her mortgage and maintenance costs, it’s also her safety net—money she depends on to make ends meet in retirement.
When her tenant decides to move out, Maria adjusts the rent to reflect the rising costs of upkeep and property taxes.
But what if the government told Maria that she had to keep the rent the same as what the previous tenant paid? And what if she had to charge the same low rent, even to a tenant with a good job and a high income?
That’s what could happen if an extreme ballot measure, Proposition 33, passes this November.
If Proposition 33 passes, local governments could impose rent control on all types of properties – even small rentals like Maria’s condo, apartments and privately-owned single-family homes.
Concerningly, it would open the door to the worst, most egregious kinds of rent control – such as charging homeowners a fee just for taking their homes off the rental market. And rent control isn’t tied to incomes – meaning well-off tenants would pay the same artificially low rents as low-income families.
In New York City, for example, there has been growing criticism over wealthy individuals holding onto rent-controlled apartments, benefiting from laws intended to protect low- and middle-income tenants. Many of these wealthier tenants live in desirable Manhattan neighborhoods and pay significantly less than market value for their apartments due to rent control laws. Under Prop. 33, Maria’s ability to manage her rental property would be taken away. The law would give local governments the power to impose rent control on properties as small as the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in your backyard. Maria, like many small landlords, would be stuck with below-market rents, struggling to keep up with rising costs.
It’s not just homeowners like Maria who would suffer—renters would, too. If property owners like Maria can’t charge rents that cover their costs, they’ll be less inclined to rent out their homes. That means fewer homes available to rent.
It’s a fact that repairs, safety upgrades, and other necessary improvements cost money. Inflation is real, and rents must reflect the costs that landlords pay.
As the executive director of the Southern California Rental Housing Association, I’ve seen firsthand how the balance between protecting tenants and maintaining a healthy rental market is essential. Proposition 33 would upset that balance, harming homeowners, renters, and our housing market as a whole.
Right now, small landlords are protected by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act—which Proposition 33 seeks to repeal. The current law provides crucial protections for both small landlords like Maria and renters. It allows property owners to adjust rents when a tenant moves out, and it exempts certain properties—such as single-family homes, condominiums, and newer developments—from rent control, encouraging the creation of new housing.
Rent control measures like those proposed in Proposition 33 are often promoted as a quick fix to the housing crisis, but they overlook the real problem: the lack of available housing. Instead of imposing rent control that discourages investment, we need policies that expand housing options for everyone and that encourage people to rent out their properties.
For Maria, and for the many small landlords and renters who make up the fabric of our communities, Proposition 33 is the wrong answer.
Alan Pentico, CAE, is the Executive Director of the Southern California Rental Housing Association.
