CalMatters
By Lynn La, CalMatters
Sky-high rent is among Californians’ biggest concerns. Nearly 30% of tenants spend more than half their income on rent; and the median rent is $2,850 a month, 33% higher than the national average.
Two propositions on the Nov. 5 ballot address this issue — though one does so in a rather roundabout way.
The more straightforward one is Proposition 33, which would give local governments more control over rent caps. Currently, cities cannot limit rents on single-family homes, apartments built after 1995 and new tenants. Prop. 33 would change that, essentially ending the state’s “limits on limits.” Tenant advocates say that, if passed, Prop. 33 would keep more people housed.
But voters have rejected two similar ballot measures in 2018 and 2020. Landlord groups opposing this year’s measure say stricter rent control will make housing less profitable, worsening the housing crunch.
Learn more about Prop. 33 from CalMatters homelessness reporter Marisa Kendall in our one-minute video. And take a quiz from CalMatters data reporter Erica Yee to see how you might vote.
The measure is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which also poured tens of millions of dollars into the two previous rent control measures. To stop the foundation from bankrolling another one, landlord groups are backing Prop. 34.
It would require California health care providers (but really, just the AIDS Foundation) to spend at least 98% of revenue from a specific prescription drug discount program on “direct patient care” — or risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.
Supporters, including the California Apartment Association, say the ballot measure is a simple case of accountability, while the foundation argues it’s a political hit job.
To find out more, watch a video explainer from CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher. And take the quiz from Erica.
More on props: On Wednesday, CalMatters posted its first TikTok on a ballot measure: Prop. 32 to increase California’s minimum wage. Starring our politics intern Jenna Peterson, you can also watch it on Instagram.
Young voters: Jenna and Matthew Reagan, assistant editor of CalMatters’ College Journalism Network, talked to political analysts and young people about Vice President Kamala Harris and the presidential race.
Following President Joe Biden’s stunning withdrawal from the race, 72% of registered voters 18 to 29 said they were either “very likely” or “almost certain” to vote in the presidential election — up 8 percentage points.
But even with 41 million eligible Gen Z voters, that age group has historically voted at a far lower rate than every other age group.
Harris’ candidacy, however, is drumming up more excitement among young voters, who are boosting her campaign with coconut emojis, green-tinted Brat fancams and “Veep” memes.
- Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California: “I think all of the momentum and activities that we’ve been seeing can grab the attention of young people, maybe get them to give her a chance. She still has to have the goods.”
Democrats hope all that enthusiasm will help congressional candidates in California. For example, Republican U.S. Rep. John Duarte is clashing again with Democrat Adam Gray for the 13th District centered on Modesto. Duarte won in 2022 by just 564 votes, when the youth turnout was only 23%.
Read more on California’s young voters in Jenna and Matthew’s story.
November election: It’s not too early to get informed. Keep up with CalMatters coverage by signing up for 2024 election emails. Check out our Voter Guide, including updates and videos on the 10 propositions and a FAQ on how to vote. And read up on the history of ballot measures in California.
This article was originally published by CalMatters.
Invoking the myth of a free market, and supply and demand, is futile in Santa Barbara.
Because of desirability and limited space and resources, there will never be enough supply to meet demand.
Therefore, if you want affordability, you have little choice but rent control and/or price control.
If only it would work. Price controls, however, 100% of the time lead ultimately to a supply shortage. https://youtu.be/m_IulzK6b0E
YouTube, that arbiter of “truthiness” for the unwashed masses.
“I’m from the government and I’m here to help” the scariest words you’ll ever hear.
Why is there not enough housing? Government roadblocks and expense to building. Thank you SB for not allowing people to build over the years. Our government created the housing shortage.
Now the government wants to prevent free markets, steal from property owners and interfere with private property owners rights.
But let’s unpack rent control, which has failed in every city it has ever been implemented.
Let’s start with the simple. The government now requires every landlord to raise rents every year by the maximum allowed. Here I believe it’s 3% plus CPI with a cap of 10%. So now every tenants rent will increase by 10% every year.
How many tenants have enjoyed no or minimal rent increases for years? More than those who have been evicted for a renoviction.
Now with just cause it’s harder to remove a bad tenant. So now landlords will require cash reserves, high credit scores, complete references, etc…. No more being nice and taking chances on young or those down on their luck.
How did the government require rents to increase every year you ask?
Because a property’s value is directly tied to the cash flow, the rents received.
Most property owners break even on rent verse carrying expenses. The value is in appreciation of the property. Most landlords get rents to the point that the property is a wash and then don’t raise rents unless the unit goes vacant.
The old days a property sold based upon current market rent, not the actual rents.
Now properties are worth less unless the owner can get the rents up to market rate.
For example, a 9 unit complex which should sell for $4,000,000 will sell for $3m bec the landlord has mot raised rents in years, some for a decade. Being nice to his tenants just cost him $1 million. Now he knows and will.raise rents every year by the maximum.
And building maintenance, that’s going to become an issue since there is less money being g made by the property owner. Tenant, you have mold in your unit from your packed closet, that’s your responsibility. You failed to clean your space. Watch as buildings start to fall into disrepair.
Most landlords are not corporations. They are mom & pop or a few friends that de used to buy income properties. They don’t have deep pockets. But the tenant associations demonize landlords.
Government dividing the people over an issue they created.
yeah, because the private sector always does what’s in the best interest of others….
Private entities do what is in the best interest of the customer and their capital. Otherwise they dont have customers or capital… The Gov on the other hand, does what is in the best interest of the bureaucrat and politician without any regard for capital – since they have none. It is not in their interest to protect or even create any value other than to act in their own selfish interests. Which they do. Over and over and over… solving nothing. creating nothing. Because they have no skin in the game, just words and self interests.
So one side is actually in play while the other is immune from any factors and conditions. This is called the “free market”.
Its amazing that you dont understand these things. But then again, you spend 16 hours a day here posting and arguing with a few random people. So obviously you have no time to learn about things you know nothing about or to improve your life or that of the community.
Have a great day arguing with strangers on the internet! While you’re at it 100000’s of your fellow Santa Barbarians / Californians / Americans are out working and creating a better future while you sit hitting refresh 100x a day while complaining and pontificating about everything to almost no one…
BROBRAH – yet here you are……
It’s so funny that you people have no concept of time. How long did it take you to type that out with your index fingers?
Do you have any clue what I do? No. You’re here bitching about me with no idea what my profession is and what I do and have done for the local community and for our planet as a whole. I’ll give you a hint though to calm your rattled nerves: It’s more than you do.
So true.
anyone with half a brain knows that letting the free market system with minimal government interference and control will allow the real estate market balance out with supply and demand meeting in the middle.
When government imposes exorbitant permits and fees and delays in permitting and rent control, is that in the best interest of others?
but of course the comment came from you so it is expected.
“half a brain?” BWAHAHA that’s hilarious coming from you, JIMBO.
I agree. The way rent control works landlords feel they must increase rents by what is allowed, currently 3% plus CPI. If they don’t they might never catch up to fair rent and not be able to get fair market value for their property when they sell.
Welcome to rent control!
And, without rent control, they feel they can raise rents whenever they want by whatever amount they want. Try another rationalization.
These laws prevent ruinous exploitation by landlords. If mom and pop aren’t misbehaving, no problem. There is no such thing as a free market in this world – that’s just another con myth.
When your eggs & groceries go up do you all file lawsuits suing the grocery store and the farmer and the shipper? No, why not? When the cost of your water bill goes up, do you sue the City who promised in open sessions to not raise your rates. No, why not?
Why is there a housing shortage?
Government has prevented free markets. That is well evidenced right here in SB. They prevent new construction.
But our population has not grown. Per Census.gov in the last twenty years SB City population has decreased and South Coast has increased marginally by only 4,000. Not exactly a population boom warranting a “housing crisis”.
Do you think people do not want to build and rent to tenants to make money?
Do you think builders should lose money building housing and renting below their building costs?
No builder, no project will brake ground with the governments numbers of inclusionary housing. It is not economically feasible.
The government controls the housing supply, why doesn’t the government build housing on government land?
Do you think renters take no responsibility in inflation and expenses going up? When interest rates go up, utilities, maintenance fees, taxes then rent goes up.
With these rent control placing caps on annual rent increases you agree every tenants rent should be increased annually?
As opposed to before when landlords adjusted rents to current market rate when they purchased and then did not increase rents for years.
Tenant exploitation? Was minimal considering SB is 60% tenants.
You seem to agree that the government can dictate property values. How do you feel about the government dictating how much your 401k or other savings can increase? It’s the same thing.
Tenants enjoyed below market rents, but when the time came for the rent to be adjusted to current market rate they get upset Direct your frustrations at the government where it belongs. They created this mess.
As a tenant, save money. Be happy your below market and have been protected for years.
If yiu can’t afford to live in SB, move. It’s not a right to live here. Again, government controls housing supply, not property owners. Put your frustrations in the right place. Property owners are not happy with the government either.
Do developers still build new housing in markets with rent control?
Good explanation of the problem that Prop 33 is attempting to solve, and of how Prop 34 was written in response. I appreciate all the links.
The arguments against Prop 33 don’t really make sense to me at this point. People build homes to sell and to live in. The degree to which rent control might disincentivize the building of homes seems way overstated, if in fact it even exists. Cities and counties should have the ability to control or at least influence the cost of housing for their residents. I am in favor of reasonable controls on rental prices (including significantly tighter restrictions on short-term rental availability, which doesn’t seem to be addressed by either of these propositions), and I’m saying this as a rental property owner of 39 years.
The rents are too damn high.
The issue is that government makes building costs prohibitive.
For example it can take two years to break ground because of government delays.
In the meantime a builder has to pay the mortgage and taxes on land that is sitting empty. That’s a big expense.
It is costly to hire architects, structural engineers, etc. Then random people on the city architectural board of review subjectively scrutinize a project based upon what they personally like. Sending projects back the drawing board costing more in architect fees, government fees and time to resubmit.
For example, the Capitol Hardware building has submitted plans for 76 units years ago. Years. It was designed to create more affordable housing for the East Side. Lower sales price of units. One rejection was because the ABR thought the foe brick exterior accents looked cheap. Ah, it’s not a private property in Montecito. Yet they wanted Montecito finishes that costs a lot of money. And it’s supposed to be affordable. Will the city pay for high end finishes on affordable housing, nope. But they expect the builder to build Montecito high end on the East Side and then sell the properties for East Side pricing.
Let me ask you this, try going into Mercedes and tell them you want an S550 for the cost of a Honda Accord. That is what the government is telling you is ok to do.
The City Council pushed for 24% inclusionary housing. It was approved. Guess what, the project makes zero financial sense so the builder will not build it.
Great job government. Putting up road blocks to new housing.
These are just two examples. There are numerous others from ABR not liking the fence material, that was changed them the ABR changed its mind back t9 the original material, then they complained about the color. A fence held up that project for six months. Six months of mortgage, property taxes and architect fees over a fence!
Thank you government.
Rent is high because the government prevents new building and makes it exhorbitantly expensive to build. The costs have to assumed by someone or it doesn’t get built. In the end the renter loses because of government.
Rent control is another way the government will screw the tenant. But the tenant thinks government is here to help. What a joke, government does not help.
Rent controls don’t work that has been proven many times over, it only results in even higher rents from the get go to cover the expenses that may or.may not be incurred when properties cannot ever be adjusted again for price increases. Properties are unaffordable, so are property taxes and insurances and let alone if there needs to be updates or something needs to be fixed. If the last few people who either inherited a property from family or moved out of the area due to limited job availability or a sick parent they take care of elsewhere and are now renting their homes are getting rent restrictions, they will not be able to sustain keeping their own place. The result is the owners likely sell to yet another corporation since they have the cash power and landlords who are middle class become even more rare in Santa Barbara. Do you all want middle class owners to not own so corporations can dictate everything including all the tacked on fees they will create along with their extensive legal team? That will be one of the consequences…if there are rent controls on top of the restrictions that have been put in place last year summer regarding rent laws, nobody can give a renter a break anymore because it is unaffordable for ow erst. Do you all really want to deal with mind numbing g applications to corporate management companies in hopes they pick you but really could care less about you as a person? Rent control means corporations that may bulldoze homes down to make room for generic apartment buildings that all look the same all across the country. Did you all not move here because of the charm and uniqueness of this town? I did and I like for it to stay this way even if it means there will be some bad apples in the bunch. I go out of my way to not be treated by some corporation like a number but choose private landlords who treat me like a human being. Yes rents are super high, so are properties for purchase, closing costs, property taxes, insurances etc…for anyone who has calculated through if they should buy or rent in town, you will quickly come to one conclusion. It makes no sense fu ancially to buy here but is a lot cheaper to rent. Go on realtor or Zillow and run the nu.bers and you will quickly see that being a small landlord here is barely making it or substituting a lot of the rent income with ones own wages to not loose the property. I personally find dealing with a small landlord much more pleasant and much easier to stomach than corporations that are driving quality Santa Barbarians out.
Um, but the issue here is rent control.
And very few landlords in SB are hurting, judging from the enormous rents.
Sorry Anon. your comment about “very few landlords in SB are hurting, judging from the enormous rents” is just a misinformed opinion and likely very wrong. Do you have any facts? No, you know what they say about opinions….
Most mom and pop owners (like me) are barely making a few dollars with rising insurance, taxes, rehab costs, etc.
There are dozens of practically empty churches around Santa Barbara that take up enormous parcels of land and pay almost nothing to the state or the county. There are 1000’s of them in the state. They’re In every city. In every town. They are empty and providing no value to the community at large.
This is where you will find the land to build the fabled “affordable housing”.
Yes, tax churches/cults!
California has not had a free market housing economy in decades, so the market that is currently failing is the market as currently regulated.