California is on the verge of having statewide rent control.
Assembly Bill 1482—which will bar landlords from hiking rents more than 5 percent, plus local inflation, in one year—was approved this afternoon in the state Assembly on a 46-22 vote. Inflation varies by region, but averages about 2.5 percent in California.
The bill now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk; he has said he will sign it.
Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco), who authored the bill, says the rent cap is designed to prevent “rent gouging” and “egregious” increases.
It also includes a provision requiring landlords to have “just cause” when evicting a tenant. Examples include failing to pay rent and violating a lease.
It will apply to cities that don’t already have rent control laws and expand rent control in those that do. Lawmakers who support the measure say it will provide immediate relief to renters and help keep them in their homes amid a statewide housing crisis that has fueled a wave of homelessness.
“Folks are being asked to pay 50, 60, 70 percent of their net spendable income on rent, because landlords are raising the rents,” said Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica. “What’s someone to do in that situation?”
The California Association of Realtors, an influential lobbying group, opposed the bill, and Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) said his office was inundated with calls from local real estate agents over the past couple of days, urging him to vote no.
But he ultimately voted yes. “Even in affluent parts of my district, I’m hearing more and more stories of people who can’t keep up with rents,” he said. “We need to side with the renters on this one.”
But critics argue the measure will ultimately stymie construction of new housing, when California—and Los Angeles—desperately need more of it. They also say it will hurt mom and pop landlords who have “sweat” and “toiled” to buy property and rely on rental income.
Assembly Republican Leader Marie Waldron, whose district covers Escondido, said the better solution to California’s housing crisis would be to unravel “outrageous regulations imposed” on builders.
“Why would anyone look to invest in multifamily housing now?” she said.
But the bill would not apply to buildings that opened within the past 15 years, and it would exempt single-family homes, unless they’re owned by a corporation, and duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.
In cities such as Los Angeles that do have rent control policies, AB 1482 would cover units that are not already protected. Because LA’s rent control law only applies to buildings constructed before 1978, the bill would cover several hundred thousand newer units that opened in the nearly three decades from 1978 to 2004. (In the city of Los Angeles, rents are capped at 4 percent this year.)
The bill is modeled after a proposal from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, which found a cap of 5 percent, plus Consumer Price Index, would “provide meaningful protection” against “the most egregious rent increases.”
Chiu says it would also allow property owners to continue making profits. He points to data prepared by Housing Now that show “the median annual rent increase in California is far below this proposed cap.”
It’s also far below the amount that property owners have raised rents in Los Angeles County, where rents are up about 2 percent year over year, according to real estate tracker CoStar.
The law would be in effect from January 1 until 2030.
Read the full text of AB 1482 here.
Comments
The measure "would provide immediate relief to renters amid a statewide housing crisis that has fueled a wave of homelessness". That is NOT why we have a homeless crisis. Will this help all the out of the out of state people from coming becasue we have such lacks rules?? Will it stop the mentally ill and drug addicted get off the streets?? Lets continue to do everything but help the homeless crisis.
By neto111 on 09.10.19 1:13pm
Lots of homeless people lost their apartments because they could no longer afford them and were on a fixed income, like disability or social security.
By Greyvagabond on 09.10.19 2:38pm
Most are addicts and drunks. Trump is about to raze the camps according to WAPO.
By WarrenW42410262 on 09.10.19 3:07pm
Lol that ain’t happening.
And if you had to live on the streets, wouldn’t you drink, too? Casting blame and telling these people they deserve it doesn’t solve any problems. Doesn’t mean you have to think they are super awesome people who just had bad luck. Just be pragmatic about it.
By Greyvagabond on 09.10.19 3:22pm
I don’t think he said they deserve it, nor do I. but I don’t think they’re on the street because of rent increases. Their emotional problems are self evident and require much more serious remediation (and no, Trump is not the solution). Yes, pragmatism and not misplaced social ideology will lead us to a solution.
By kcp1 on 09.10.19 9:09pm
The crazies you see yelling on the street are a small, small percentage of the total amount of people who live on the streets. Most are quiet and unnoticeable and don’t want any sort of attention.
I agree we probably need more forceful tactics on literal lunatics, like having the ability to keep them on indefinite 5150 holds much easier. But a lot of the homeless are invisible. These include people with jobs who are living in cars because they’ve been priced out of the housing market.
By Greyvagabond on 09.11.19 1:54pm
You know what I’d do if I got priced out of my home? 1) Move. 2) Get a roommate. 3) Get a better job. 4) Get a 2nd job. 5) Live on a friends sofa.
I’m shocked how many people look to the government to solve their problems.
By Cream Of Toast on 09.15.19 3:40pm
Homeless people don’t have apartments. You can’t lose something you don’t have.
Excuses. People can move to another place with lower rent. CA is not a good place to retire if you’re strapped for cash.
Social security is supplemental to other savings. If you didn’t save and blew your $$$ early in life, it isn’t the responsibility of everyone else to take care of you.
By Constituents on 09.10.19 3:37pm
The fact is that roughly 20,000 people fall into homelessness, if only briefly, because they are unable to pay rent, every year. It takes city resources to hook them up with support and services to regain their footing. Those are resources that could be devoted to serving the chronically homeless, or to treating mental health or addiction issues. Preventing people from getting priced out of their apartments is how those resources get saved.
By tmcclintock on 09.10.19 4:43pm
That’s 20,000, if only briefly, out of almost 40,000,000 in the state of California. Rent control isn’t the solution.
By kcp1 on 09.10.19 9:12pm
That’s 20,000 in LA county alone, and considering homelessness is the defining issue of this decade, yeah I think that’s a pretty big deal.
And again, no rent control measures in the works apply to any housing stock built prior to 1995, so the argument that this disincentivizes new construction is false.
By tmcclintock on 09.11.19 10:32am
It would change that to apply rent control to property older than 15 years old. It will put a damper on construction as people will know they only have 15 years before rent control takes over and there is also the chance of moving the goal posts again to apply to all buildings.
By LA Denizen on 09.11.19 2:14pm
It’s called SAVINGS. People chose to spend above their means instead of saving for a rainy day.
A minimal temporary social safety net is needed to offer second chances, but what LA offers such as permanent supportive housing is outrageous. Homeless services should help people move and/or get a job to reintegrate with normal society. It’s not our responsibility to indefinitely keep footing the bill for people who can’t live in LA on their own.
By Constituents on 09.12.19 10:49am
WHAT?
it costs $18 for a bus ticket from los angeles to phoenix, where you can rent a clean/modern 1br unit for $550 (even less if you go to texas).
spare me the bullshit. rising rents puts NOBODY on the street. NOBODY.
By Poofer Puncher on 09.11.19 8:13am
Lots of people being priced out of housing have jobs here, but don’t have the savings to just pick up shop and move to Phoenix on a whim chasing lower housing (in exchange for lower wages) far away from their family and whatever support structure they have.
By Greyvagabond on 09.11.19 1:55pm
Lots of people being priced out of housing have jobs here, but don’t have the savings to just pick up shop and move to Phoenix on a whim chasing lower housing (in exchange for lower wages)< – since they have jobs and are not paying rent they should quickly be able to save up enough to move.
whatever support structure they have. obviously they dont have a support system or they wouldnt be living on the street
By eathis on 09.11.19 5:00pm
The overwhelming majority of homeless people are mentally or alcoholics/addicts. Many are a combo of all 3. The whole "they’re homeless because they couldn’t afford rent" is a far left canard.
By Teddy Clarke on 09.11.19 4:49pm
This is a common talking point, but the actual evidence indicates that only a minority of the homeless are mentally ill or addicts.
According LAHSA, only 30 percent of people experiencing homelessness claim to suffer from mental illness, and only 23 percent report substance abuse. Since there is some crossover there (people can answer yes to both questions), it’s safe to say that a majority of people experiencing homelessness are neither mentally ill nor drug addicts.
http://www.lascandal.org/7-myths-homelessness-los-angeles/
By shrpblnd on 09.13.19 10:59am
The key phrase here is "claim to suffer". Very few alcoholics/addicts or mentally ill people claim they are what they are. To cite self reporting is a joke.
Every addict or alcoholic always has a bulls*** tale of woe.
By Teddy Clarke on 09.13.19 11:44am
Better than citing nothing at all, no?
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.13.19 12:32pm
Actually, it’s worse. Citing nothing honestly leaves the impression that one doesn’t KNOW the answer. Citing junk studies can and often does deceive. Remember, Socrates was the wisest man because he knew (and admitted) what he didn’t know!
By MyrnaMinkoff on 09.13.19 1:09pm
If only that was the case. Teddy absolutely knows that the overwhelming majority of homeless suffer from mental illness, addiction or both…while citing no evidence whatsoever.
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.13.19 2:00pm
So does the LA Times.
Mental illness, substance abuse and physical disabilities are much more pervasive in Los Angeles County’s homeless population than officials have previously reported, a Times analysis has found.
The Times examined more than 4,000 questionnaires taken as part of this year’s point-in-time count and found that about 76% of individuals living outside on the streets reported being, or were observed to be, affected by mental illness, substance abuse, poor health or a physical disability.
The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, which conducts the annual count, narrowly interpreted the data to produce much lower numbers. In its presentation of the results to elected officials earlier this year, the agency said only 29% of the homeless population had either a mental illness or substance abuse disorder and, therefore, 71% "did not have a serious mental illness and/or report substance use disorder."
By Teddy Clarke on 10.07.19 9:20am
Self reported data might not be the data you want but it’s the data we have. And it may be more robust than you think. There is a whole science around developing surveys and eliciting accurate responses. It’s really unlikely that they are asking people "are you mentally ill."
By CaliSon on 09.18.19 9:36am
It’s been covered previously on Curbed, but LAHSA relied on a survey utilizing self-reporting. Self-reporting surveys are generally suspect, but self-reporting surveys regarding subjects like addiction and mental illness are not just suspect, but garbage. Sadly, garbage gets repeated over and over again when someone believes it will further their agenda. See, for example, the "studies" that tobacco industry-funded "health" organizations used to pump out.
By MyrnaMinkoff on 09.13.19 1:07pm