Proposition 10 boldly failed in the November 2018 election (with only a couple bay area counties voting “yes” in a majority). The battle over Proposition 10 was one of the most expensive in California history, and the “no” camp was ultimately successful in arguing that expanding rent control would “increase the states housing shortage, exacerbate overall affordability issues and hurt the investments of single-family homeowners”.
Not to be deterred, Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is back with Proposition 10: 2.0:
Titled the Rental Affordability Act, it would seek to expand the authority of cities to regulate rents by changing several provisions of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (including the name of the act itself, which must be synecdoche for “statewide unaffordable rental rates” for tenant advocates by this point.)
It would remove the “new construction” exemption, in favor of a 15-year phase-in period for newly built units. It would remove a lesser known provision that grandfathers in exemptions in local ordinances that pre-dated the act. Most sweeping, it would eliminate the language of “vacancy decontrol” and replace it with a state-wide policy authorizing local rent control ordinances. (This language would mostly be symbolic, given the landmark decision Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, where the Supreme Court first recognized this authority.) Finally, for cities administering a rent control ordinance, the Rental Affordability Act would restrict the rental rate to 15% above the rate for the previous tenancy (with no provisions evaluating the fairness of the previous rate – e.g., if it was leased to a family friend at a steep discount).
Unsurprisingly, the California Apartment Association has taken a position against the new initiative.
