Renters Rights Advocates Support Affordable Housin...

Renters Rights Advocates Support Affordable Housing Act

Carroll Fife, a longtime Oakland activist, speaks at a rally in support of proposition 10, the Affordable Housing Act, which would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Photo courtesy of

California voters will decide this November on Proposition 10, a statewide ballot initiative that would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

“Costa-Hawkins repeal is one of the primary goals of the renters’ rights movement,” said Shanti Singh, communications and development coordinator for Tenants Together, on Wednesday’s “Your Call” radio show on KALW.

“We pushed very hard for that to happen with Assembly Bill 1506,  (but) it did not pass committee. So now we’re taking it directly to the voters because we know that is what California’s renters want,” said Singh.

Costa-Hawkins sets restrictions statewide on rent control. It exempts from rent control units built (or heavily renovated) after 1995, as well as single-family homes, and condos.

There has been a growing movement for the repeal of Costa-Hawkins, which could allow local governments to create their own rent control laws. Several tenants’ rights organizations, including Tenants Together, endorsed a similar bill last year introduced by Assemblymembers Richard Bloom, David Chiu, and Rob Bonta. It failed early on in the hearing process.

Bonta tweeted shortly after the vote: “I’m disappointed we came up one vote short on AB 1506 to repeal Costa Hawkins, but I’m grateful for the strong show of support at today’s hearing. Every great movement has a beginning, middle and end. We are in the middle!”

Activists who showed at the State Capitol building in January to support Assembly Bill AB1506 described Costa Hawkins in a press release: “It effectively limits local jurisdictions’ ability to address their specific housing issues and prevents them from stabilizing local communities,” the release read.

This year it will be up to the voters to decide. The California Democratic Party has endorsed Prop. 10, also known as the Affordable Housing Act.

The proposition is backed by over $12 million from supporters, including one major contribution by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
The anti-Prop 10 opposition committees have over double that funding, from several real-estate companies including Western National Group, Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential.

Opponents of the ballot initiative say the repeal would dissuade future developments, preventing more affordable housing projects from being built if landlords don’t find the industry sustainable or lucrative enough.

But proponents say that under Costa-Hawkins, it’s too easy for landlords to take advantage and displace tenants, “When I first moved into this home, the rent was $1850. Four years later my most recent notice is taking my rent to more than $3000,” said Blackstone/Invitation Homes tenant and ACCE member Renita Barbee living in Los Angeles. “My landlord Stephen Schwarzman is worth $12.7 billion while I’m on the verge of losing my home. Our elected officials need to prioritize homes for families like mine instead of unlimited profits for corporate giants like Invitation Homes.”


  1. Gavin R. Putland

    8 September


    Rent control doesn’t force owners to offer their properties “to let” at the allowed rent. Rent control doesn’t force land owners to build more housing. On the contrary, it discourages both, reducing the supply of housing and RAISING other rents! Exempting NEW buildings from rent control may avoid deterring construction, but it still doesn’t open up EXISTING buildings for tenants. Worse, it means that the stock of rent-controlled housing becomes a shrinking fraction of the whole — unless the exemption is only for a limited time, in which case you’re discouraging construction again!

    BETTER IDEA: Put a punitive tax on vacant lots and unoccupied housing, so that the owners can’t afford NOT to build housing and seek tenants! By reducing the owners’ ability to tolerate vacancies, a vacancy tax strengthens the bargaining position of tenants and therefore reduces rents.

    Such a tax, by reducing the cost of housing, would make it easier for employers to pay workers enough to live on. A similar tax on commercial property would reduce rents for job-creating enterprises. That’s GOOD FOR BUSINESS and GOOD FOR WORKERS.

    A vacancy tax is also GOOD FOR REALTORS because they get more rental-management fees for properties coming onto the rental market, plus commissions from any owners who decided to sell vacant properties to owner-occupants (who of course don’t pay the tax).

    Best of all, the need to avoid the vacancy tax would initiate economic activity, which would expand the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced, so that the rest of the city/state/country gets a tax cut!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *