OpEd: NO on 33

During the WeHo for the People candidate forum this past week, all the candidates were asked their position on Proposition 33. Seven candidates opted to answer YES on 33. I was the only NO on 33 among the candidates running for City Council.

Under current state law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act limits local rent control in three main ways. First, rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes. Second, rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995. Third, rent control laws generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in; instead, rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters.

Proposition 33 would eliminate the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and expand the right for local jurisdictions to apply rent control to all forms of housing. It could allow local governments, like the West Hollywood City Council, to apply rent control on condos or houses. It could put small mom-and-pop landlords out of business if they cannot raise the rent to market value when a tenant moves out from a rent-controlled apartment. For instance, a tenant next door to me is a long-term renter and pays $1,380 for a large two-bedroom apartment. The market price of that unit is more than twice that.

If a landlord cannot raise the rent to market value, there are both primary and secondary consequences. First, the landlord might not remodel an older unit if they cannot increase the rent. Second, owners of smaller buildings still face rising costs of property taxes, trash, water, and more—with no ability to offset those costs with increases after a tenant moves out—and may opt to sell the building.

Consider how that transaction would play out. The owner of the building sees no upside and opts to sell the building. At least one tenant will be forced to relocate (new owners are allowed to remove the last tenant to move in and occupy the unit). Or the building is sold and torn down for a larger project, and all the tenants lose their homes.

In West Hollywood, there are hundreds of these mom-and-pop buildings that have 2–4 units, housing thousands of residents. If rent control means a landlord can “never” raise the rent to market value after a long-term tenant vacates the property, these landlords will sell.

An independent analysis by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office also notes: “The effects of Proposition 33 would reduce the value of these rental properties, which would lead to a decrease in property taxes. The effects of the proposition would also increase the costs on local governments to carry out the new laws, which could range in the millions of dollars per jurisdiction.”

Every one of the candidates in this race has claimed they are for “small business” and for “renters.” But if your vote is YES on 33, say goodbye to the mom-and-pop landlords and those residents who live in those buildings too. Proposition 33, if applied to West Hollywood’s housing stock, is so dangerous to the diversity of our housing that sometimes I think it was invented by big corporations who want to force the little guy to sell. I’m afraid that I am the only candidate in this race who understands the consequences of Proposition 33. I’m NO on 33. Keep the mom-and-pop small business landlords alive. This proposition will just perpetuate the corporate takeover of our housing stock.