California Proposition 33: The Local Power to Control Rents Could Permanently Undermine Property Owners’ Rights
As we approach the 2024 election, California Proposition 33 has become a hotly debated issue for property owners and tenants alike. While it is presented as a solution to the housing crisis, there are serious concerns that Proposition 33 could impose severe, long-term limitations on property owners’ ability to charge market rents—especially when tenants move out. Under this proposal, local municipalities would gain the authority to not only cap rent increases during a tenant’s occupancy but also to control what property owners can charge when a new tenant moves in.
Proposition 33 in a Nutshell
Proposition 33 is designed to expand rent control across the state, allowing local governments to place restrictions on rent hikes for existing tenants. However, its most controversial aspect is that it also extends government control to what property owners can charge when a tenant moves out. Typically, rent control laws apply only while a tenant is occupying the unit, but Proposition 33 would give local municipalities the power to limit rent adjustments even between tenancies.
In practice, this means that property owners could face permanent restrictions on rent prices, regardless of market conditions or changes in tenant occupancy. The impact of this proposal is far-reaching, as it would significantly erode property owners’ ability to charge market-rate rents for their units—not just in the short term, but potentially forever
.
Key Provisions: Limiting Rent for New Tenants
One of the most concerning aspects of Proposition 33 is how it restricts property owners’ ability to reset rents when a new tenant moves in. Traditionally, when a tenant vacates a property, landlords can adjust the rent to reflect current market conditions, rising costs, or improvements to the unit. Proposition 33 would change that dynamic, allowing local municipalities to impose caps on rent increases when the property turns over to a new tenant.
This provision severely limits an owner’s control over their property, as they may never be able to charge market rates. Here’s how this could play out in practice:
Capping Rent Increases for Existing Tenants: Rent increases during an ongoing tenancy would be limited to a small percentage, often tied to inflation or a specific formula. Over time, this would prevent owners from adjusting rents to keep up with the rising costs of property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.
Controlling Rents Between Tenants: Even when a tenant vacates, Proposition 33 would allow local governments to set limits on how much the rent can be raised for a new tenant. This removes the flexibility landlords typically have to adjust rents to current market rates, meaning that rents could lag far behind the actual value of the property.
Long-Term Suppression of Rents: Over time, these restrictions could result in rents that fall well below market value, leaving property owners locked into lower revenue streams for years. In extreme cases, property owners may never be able to charge competitive rents again, especially in areas where municipalities choose to enact aggressive rent control measures.
Short-Term Ramifications
In the short term, the restrictions proposed by Proposition 33 would have a direct and immediate impact on property owners and the rental market:
Loss of Revenue: For property owners who are already contending with high costs of living and increasing property taxes, being unable to adjust rents to reflect market rates will result in a significant loss of revenue. In some cases, landlords may not even be able to cover basic maintenance or property costs.
Decreased Incentive to Maintain Properties: If rent prices are artificially suppressed, landlords will have less incentive to invest in property upkeep and improvements. Over time, this could lead to a decline in the quality of rental housing, leaving tenants in poorly maintained units.
Fewer Available Rental Units: Faced with dwindling returns and increased regulations, many property owners may opt to sell their rental properties or convert them into other types of housing, reducing the overall supply of rental units. This could further exacerbate the housing shortage in high-demand areas.
Long-Term Ramifications
The long-term consequences of Proposition 33 could be even more severe, as these restrictive policies take hold and permanently alter the rental market:
Permanently Depressed Rents: Over time, as rent controls limit what property owners can charge between tenancies, the cumulative effect will be a significant gap between actual market rents and what landlords are legally allowed to charge. Property owners could find themselves stuck charging below-market rates indefinitely, losing out on potential revenue and equity in their properties.
Decreased Housing Supply: With less incentive to invest in rental properties, both existing and potential landlords may leave the market altogether. Developers, too, could be discouraged from building new rental units if they know that rent control restrictions will limit their future profitability. This could lead to a shrinking pool of rental housing, further driving up demand and worsening the housing crisis.
Impact on Housing Affordability: While Proposition 33 aims to make housing more affordable for tenants, the unintended consequence of reduced housing supply could have the opposite effect. With fewer rental units available, competition for existing units will increase, pushing market rents for uncontrolled properties even higher. This could lead to an even more divided rental market, where a select few enjoy below-market rents, while others struggle to find affordable housing at all.
Property Value Decline: The cumulative effect of rent controls could also lead to a decrease in property values. Properties that generate lower rental income will be valued less in the real estate market, meaning that property owners could see their investments depreciate over time. This would have a ripple effect, negatively impacting property tax revenues for local governments and the broader real estate market.
Long-Term Uncertainty for Landlords: The expansion of local government control over rental prices could create a climate of uncertainty for landlords. If municipalities are given broad power to regulate rents, there’s no telling how much further they could push these restrictions in the future. This ongoing uncertainty could make it difficult for property owners to plan for the future or make sound investment decisions.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent for Property Rights
While Proposition 33 is being touted as a solution to California’s housing affordability crisis, its restrictions on property owners’ ability to charge market rents—both during and between tenancies—are cause for serious concern. By granting local municipalities the power to permanently limit rent prices, the proposition undermines the rights of property owners and could have disastrous long-term consequences for the rental market.
As Californians consider their vote, it’s important to weigh the immediate and long-term ramifications of Proposition 33. If passed, this proposition could result in suppressed rents, reduced housing supply, deteriorating rental units, and a market where property owners may never again have full control over what they charge for their properties.
For those who believe in protecting property rights and ensuring a healthy, competitive rental market, Proposition 33 presents a real threat that could harm both landlords and tenants in the long run.