A stronger version of California’s rent control bill is primed to head to the Senate floor. But its passage is not guaranteed, even with the governor’s support.
Late Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Assembly and Senate leadership announced a deal to strengthen Assembly Bill 1482, including reverting the amount that landlords across the state would be able to raise rent in one year, reducing it from 7 percent plus inflation to 5 percent plus inflation.
“With the governor and the pro-tem and the speakers’ support, we have a lot more people in support of the bill than we did last week,” says Jennifer Kwart, a spokesperson for Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco), who authored the bill. “But tenant bills are hard, and it’s still an uphill battle.”
With two weeks before the end of the Legislative session, AB 1482 is up against a tight deadline. Because of the changes, it will have to pass the Senate and the Assembly—again—by September 13.
When AB 1482 was approved in the Assembly in May, the renter protections were not as strong. Not only was the rent cap higher, but the bill was set to expire in three years. Under the deal announced Friday, it would expire in 10 years.
Those weaker provisions came about under negotiations with the California Association of Realtors, a powerful lobbying group.
The bill now more closely resembles how it looked when it was introduced in February, before the Assembly approved it, and the realtors association is urging its 200,000 members to tell their local lawmakers to vote against it.
“The proposed version of AB 1482 headed to the Senate floor will not incentivize production of rental housing or help more people find an affordable place to live,” the association’s president Jared Martin said in a statement.
The governor’s amendments are being drafted into the bill now, and it could face a vote in the Senate as soon as early as next week, Kwart says.
The city of Los Angeles has had a rent control law in place for 40 years; it typically caps rent around 3 or 4 percent. AB 1482 would not override local rent control policies, but it would extend to apartments and other homes not already covered by them, including newer buildings.
Comments
Doubling down on some of the policies (rent control) that are causing high rental prices in the first place. Sounds like more good policy. I’m sure they will be able to legislate their way out of the housing crisis.
By LADude on 09.03.19 3:13pm
I feel so naive. What could be the reasoning behind this? It cant just be stupidity.
By Nacho2403 on 09.03.19 3:22pm
Voters like free stuff.
By justinwjones on 09.03.19 8:27pm
same old game, comrade.
this round’s played by extra chromosome totin’ mental midgets. these millennial retards haven’t gotten the memo.
By Poofer Puncher on 09.09.19 9:19am
I’ll say thing about state-wide rent control; I’m far, FAR more likely to move out of my currently-rent-controlled apartment if I can reasonably anticipate my rent in a new place over the next five years. Moving into a non-rent controlled apartment is a HUGE risk.
By Greyvagabond on 09.03.19 3:35pm
We need this to stop displacement. Keep an eye on the state senate, and note who is getting big money from real estate developers and lobbying groups.
By keenplanner on 09.03.19 4:06pm
Rent control is like saying we are going to increase employment by making it harder for people to get fired. In fact what happens is that it mostly just becomes harder to get a job in the first place and unemployment increases (such as in France). For people with mediocre credit, a criminal history, or an eviction they’ll never be accepted into an apartment in the first place.
By LA Denizen on 09.03.19 4:17pm
I’m not sure if it is 100% accurate, but I like that analogy.
By Greyvagabond on 09.03.19 5:48pm
We don’t need this to stop displacement, we need an adequate supply of housing to stop displacement. Rent control just breeds renter NIMBYs who are entirely content to pull up the ladder behind them, and screws over all lateral/future renters who now have a much harder time meeting upped security deposit amounts, credit score and income requirements, etc.
By disqusted on 09.04.19 1:29pm
why don’t the politicians just admit they can’t really make California affordable – too damn many people. quality of life is really getting shitty
By LAoneWay on 09.03.19 5:07pm
Too. Damn. Many. People!!! Thanks for saying it… now if we could just get the politicians to do so.
By umineko on 09.04.19 10:35am
Ya think it’s bad now just give it another 10 years…
By MonrovianSurfNutz911FAQ2Serious! on 09.04.19 10:11pm
An actress paid $28.43 for a 2-bedroom apartment in Manhattan. The rent control allowed to raise her rent $1.98.
She was killed, and the unit will cost $5,000 now.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/us/new-york-apartment-rent-control-actress-trnd/index.html
By Ivan III on 09.03.19 5:12pm
great read
By MonrovianSurfNutz911FAQ2Serious! on 09.04.19 10:17pm
Good. It is an industry that is out of control.
By ByeByeLA on 09.03.19 5:57pm
The only thing wrong with this bill is that it does far and away too little. 5% rent hike, when there is zero inflation? How can that be justified, that’s just gouging. This is a bill to gouge renters! And then adding on inflation on top of that – -what was the 5% for!?
Why in hell are they NEGOTIATING with the Realtors Assn.! Who elected the Realtors as the representative of the people of California?! I see NO negotiations here with the renters who are supposed to pay this!
No, the people yelling that this will stop new development, this will prevent people from renting — that isn’t simply wrong, it is manipulative scare tactics. Hey, if it were right, we would not be talking of this bill as there would be no problems out there since there have been no limits on rent hikes on all the properties that will be affected by this. Clearly, the assertions of disaster here have already been proven 100% to be wrong, we already have disaster under the no-limits approach the people here are demanding. The assertions here that what has already failed as miserably as can possibly be wills ave the day are not merely disingenuous, they are outright dishonest and cruel.
But the bill will have things fail only less miserably, because the bill does not make for a fair returns, rather than a gouging return. And I note, most rent control laws guarantee a reasonable return no matter the limits otherwise, typically a 10% profit level — far and away a better return than on most investments — as if you are not getting that, you simply show it and you are allowed to raise rents enough to get that. These rent control limitations are allowing for far and away more than that. And people here scream as if they will be losing money, its not enough — and they know they are lying, because they collect the rent every month.
Right now in SoCal, 5% plus inflation would be a rent hike of 9%! On the typical one-bedroom apartment going for $2,000 a month — which is the common rent now — that would be a rent hike of $180 a month, or $2,160 rent hike for the year! That is after-tax money, so equal to more like about a $3,800 cut in your paycheck, just the hike. That hike would take your rent to $2,180 per month, or $26,160 a year of rent — and you own nothing for that, for that you simply face eviction! Again, that’s after-tax money. That would be more like $40,000+ of your paycheck to the landlord! And they are screaming for you to pay MORE!
By me1004 on 09.04.19 8:04am
Though I have offered a similar opinion here in the past, I can see the other side. It’s worth remembering that the original rationale for rent control laws was to provide a stop-gap to allow time for development to happen, this has obviously not been the case. The elephant in the room is exclusionary zoning, a policy that needs to be changed at the local level and necessarily takes many years to change. Proposals like this give ammunition to the ‘slippery slope’ crowd; can you guarantee the allowable increase won’t just be adjusted downward or more aggressive "tenant protections" won’t be instituted? If you were a developer, could you trust the regulatory environment to remain stable in the medium and long term?
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.04.19 8:31am
Where on Earth are you getting that rent control laws guarantee a reasonable return typically 10%?
By LA Denizen on 09.04.19 9:16am
"No, the people yelling that this will stop new development, this will prevent people from renting — that isn’t simply wrong, it is manipulative scare tactics."
You must be new around here. The Curbed drama queens have mastered those scare tactics. They also like to blame all of our housing ills on the NIMBYs, when it’s the developers, speculators and YIMBYs that are against anti-gouging rent control measures and restricting Airbnb rentals to owner-occupied only. Most NIMBYs are Boomers and had it just as hard buying a house as the Millennials are having, makes no sense to make them scapegoats.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/06/how-do-boomers-and-millennials-really-stack-up
You add those things up and it’s clear the clowns on Curbed don’t give a shit about more affordable housing, or protecting tenants, they just care about new high-end construction. The speculators and developers to get rich and the YMIBYs because they think this new development will create luxury units for them in Silver Lake at far lower prices and rents than they are seeing today. Point out to them that rents don’t trickle down in a high-demand city like LA and they cry up a storm.
They point to Oregon as a model state when it comes to upzoning, nevermind that Oregon has millions of acres ripe for development that are off-limits (nature preserves, etc..) and just approved a state-wide rent control bill that is similar to AB 1482. They do the same thing with Seattle — put it on a pedestal for adding more housing then try to bury the fact that they did it without having to upzone one single R1 lot.
LA is putting the best policies of both places to work and that’s why you see so much construction going on. It ain’t gonna slow down one bit because of AB 1482.
By calzada on 09.04.19 10:01am
Portland/Seattle =/= Los Angeles
Have you considered the UGB?
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.04.19 10:18am
me1004 let me introduce you to "Sean" one of the more whiny commenters on Curbed. He/she is…
With a profile like that it’s no wonder that he/she thinks everyone on Curbed wants to date him/her, please be forewarned on that.
As for UGBs I consider all of our lovely front and back yards, with their trees and cooling vegetation, part of the UGB in LA, like most normal people do who have lived here all their lives.
Unlike places like Seattle and Portland we have mile after mile run down commercial to redevelop into housing and we’re doing just that. No need to touch our urban UGBs that are the envy of the world (and YIMBYs and developers for obvious reasons).
By calzada on 09.04.19 10:36am
Typical.
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.04.19 10:54am
We don’t need to introduce you to any new commenter, you immediately peacock around and loudly proclaim "I’m an obsessive crank with no credibility!" within a few paragraphs of your first reply.
By disqusted on 09.04.19 1:34pm
me1004 meet disqusted. He works for real estate interests as an attorney and has his head so far up Senator Scott Wiener’s ass that he can taste what he had for lunch. Had the nerve to try telling us homeowners that our home values would go up if only we let the developers build 6-story crackerboxes on the block. We shut him down on that and the insane upzoning bill "SB 50" got shelved.
The only people he has fooled are dumb Millennials. He tells them rents will trickle down if only we let the developers build more housing. The top urban planning professor at UCLA put the kibosh on that claim and even the YIMBYs don’t really believe it anymore but he curries their favor by defending them on Curbed.
This guy is a developer shill and fraud. As you can see from his post above he is a very bitter person and enjoys making c*nty comments on Curbed, it’s like a pastime or something.
By calzada on 09.04.19 4:00pm
I wonder why you can’t just speak for yourself instead of talking/imagining about other people (that you don’t know). Disgusted and I both have our points of view, but I think we both add something to the discussions we chime in on. You’ve done the same oftentimes, but you do tend to veer into creepy territory sometimes.
I hope everything is okay with you Calzada, but please, again, leave me out of your comments.
Disgusted and I are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves.
By LosFeliz$ean on 09.04.19 5:09pm