A housing crisis has plagued California since the 1970s, fueling numerous legislative attempts to curtail a dire lack of affordable housing over the years. Most recently on the 2024 California general election ballot, Proposition 33 was an effort to place a stricter statewide restriction on rent increases. Voters ultimately rejected this proposition, reflecting the complexity of discussions around affordable housing policy.
Today, 56% of renters in the state are rent-burdened, meaning that over 30% of their income goes to rent and utilities. Around 6 million more Californians fall into this category today than in 1970.
Rent control laws regulate the amount of rent that landlords can demand from their tenants, usually by limiting how much rent can be increased. Though the laws aim to make housing more affordable, their actual efficacy has been debated.
“Rent control discourages the building of new property,” social studies teacher David Pugh said. “Generally, it’s a short-term solution, but it doesn’t increase the supply of housing.”
Proposition 33 on this year’s state ballot is the third unsuccessful attempt in recent years to give local governments more control over rent regulation. The proposition was rejected by 60.0% of voters, similar to the results of Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020. Conversely, in mock elections held by Lynbrook social studies and economics teachers in their junior and senior classes, 359 of 598 students, or 60.0%, voted for it.
“Housing in California is too expensive,” senior Snehil Kakani said. “If Proposition 33 did pass, more people might be attracted to come live here. The people who are already living here could have used their extra money to provide for themselves and their families and have an overall better quality of life.”
Proposition 33’s supporters, who include labor and tenant organizations, emphasize the high cost of rent and tenants’ urgent need for immediate economic relief. As such, they favor granting local governments more power to restrict rent increases.
Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation — the main sponsor behind Propositions 10, 21 and 33 — compared rent control to public utilities. The government regulates public utilities, which protects consumers from unfair practices by private entities when they prioritize profit over public interests. Weinstein claims that rent should be regulated like a public utility; current rent protections are insufficient and give landlords too much power, and Proposition 33 provides a solution to the problem by adding more regulation.
“Rent control is a very appealing immediate solution to the housing crisis,” senior Arnav Shah said. “Since we’re in an area so affected by the crisis, we obviously want to support more immediate solutions to it.”
The proposition is also supported by many urban planners who analyze displacement and gentrification, in which existing residents are pushed out as wealthier inhabitants move in, as rent control allows renters to afford and stay in the same communities over a long time.
However, opponents of Proposition 33 state that rent control disrupts community demographics. They argue that tenants who can’t afford to move out of cheaper rent-controlled units end up occupying properties unfit for their needs. For example, if a large family lives in a small apartment to save on rent, they diminish their quality of life while taking up a unit that may be better suited for a solo tenant. According to a 2018 Brookings Institute analysis, this encourages developers to build higher-end non-rental properties that attract wealthier inhabitants, displacing low-income residents and gentrifying the area.
“Overall, price controls are too holistic to support stratification,” social studies teacher Jeffrey Bale said. “You don’t want the average person on the street who can afford apartments to get low-income housing — it is okay to have a higher rental charge if you live in an area where people make more money.”
The proposition’s critics include many in the real estate industry. They claim that laws like Proposition 33 lead to long-term housing scarcity — a consequence that, according to supporters, pales next to sky-high rents and homelessness rates today.
“Some supporters say, “Rent control’s not a very good way to keep rents low, but a bad way is better than no way,’” said Kelly Snider, a real estate developer and San José State University urban and regional planning professor. “‘So let’s do the bad way and help as many people as we can while we work on the good strategies, which take a lot of money and time.’”
Among economists, the leading consensus is that despite lowering rents in the short term, Proposition 33 doesn’t address a fundamental supply shortage. They predict that by reducing profits from rental properties, rent control discourages developers from building new units and landlords from maintaining existing ones.
Alternatively, reducing some regulations on new construction has been shown to encourage developers to build more rental properties. Some say lower rents are worth the sacrifice of convenient requirements, like parking spaces per unit. San José has recently encouraged the development of accessory dwelling units, or ADUs —small homes attached to larger main houses — that are cheaper for renters and more space-efficient for the city.
Despite speculation of a housing market burst, economists say the Bay Area is currently fairly stable. A market burst occurs when, after a period of rapid growth, overvalued prices plummet with a sudden drop in demand. But the rise in local rents is a result of a supply shortage, not frantic buying. A September KQED article found that Bay Area rents were cooling, and the average rent in San José decreased by 0.84% from September to October. These are signs of a steadier housing trend, not an incoming market collapse.
With Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Adam Schiff, both state Democrats, winning their respective campaigns, Californians can expect various changes to the housing market. Khanna’s initiatives include building more mobile homes. Schiff’s housing plans include expanding Section 8, a federal voucher program that assists low-income households with rent.
“Programs that help specific groups of people by providing subsidies to help pay for the rent are nice,” business teacher Andrea Badger said. “With rent assistance, the landlord is still getting the full value of the rent, so they are motivated to keep renting out that place — the goal being that ultimately, the tenants take over the rent.”
As the curtain falls on Proposition 33 and elected officials prepare to draft new legislative proposals, rent control seems destined to remain steeped in division and discourse.
“Rent control does help prevent displacement and gentrification, but it comes at the big cost of depressing the likelihood of new construction,” Snider said. “If you think that cost is worth it, then you’re for rent control, and if you think that cost is not worth it, then you’re against rent control. There is no clear-cut answer.”
