Legislator Proposes California Law to Protect Renters from Becoming Homeless

Sen. Durazo’s SB 567 would boost safeguards for renters under the Tenant Protection Act of 2019

Hoping to build on California’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019, a state lawmaker from Los Angeles is working on a bill to prevent even more tenants from falling into homelessness in a state that continues to rank first in the number of unhoused people.

Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) on Friday, March 10, kicked off a campaign to promote Senate Bill 567, also known as the Homelessness Prevention Act, which aims to further protect tenants from unjust evictions and excessive rent hikes.

Inflation, combined with the end of COVID-19 pandemic-related eviction protections, have put many renters at risk of not being able to pay their rent and losing their homes, backers of SB 567 say.

“This is an urgent humanitarian crisis,” Durazo said during a news conference at the Aliso-Pico Recreation Center in Boyle Heights. “As we drive around Los Angeles, we see tents under the freeways, on the sidewalks and the storefronts. It’s become part of the city.”

Details of Durazo’s proposed legislation are being finalized, so a text of the bill is not yet available.

But in an interview after the news conference, the senator said she wants to further lower the cap that landlords can raise rent by, though what that number will be is still being ironed out. Under the existing Tenant Protection Act, rent hikes are capped at either 5% plus the local inflation rate, or 10%, whichever amount is lower.

“We’re open to something that’s reasonable, but clearly 10%, in this day and age with inflation, is far too much, and it’s a principal reason why people can’t pay and they end up on the streets,” Durazo said. “Even with the jobs that they have, they cannot afford to pay these kinds of 10% increases every year.”

She also wants to extend protections to tenants who are renting mobile homes or single-family homes.

In Los Angeles, the city council recently adopted additional tenant protections, including for the renters of single-family homes.

Supporters of SB 567 cite a 2020 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office which found that a median rent increase of $100 resulted in a 9% increase in homelessness nationwide.

California is home to more than 160,000 unhoused residents.

“This is immoral – the idea that in the richest subnational economy in the world, that we have over 160,000 people sleeping every day on the street,” said Christina Livingston, executive director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Proponents of Durazo’s bill say SB 567 would close loopholes to prevent no-fault evictions, expand the pool of renters with tenant protections, limit annual rent increases, and allow for accountability and enforcement.

Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO California, a sponsor of the bill, said one family is evicted every minute in California. In L.A. County, one person is evicted every nine minutes, he said, adding that most of them are people of color and immigrants.

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

Rent Control is a Great Idea If You’re Trying to Destroy a City. Keep It Out of Orange County.

Last year I moved from Orange to Costa Mesa. Nice city. Close to the beach, but cheaper than Huntington Beach. I’m negotiating with the landlord on the rent, which they want to raise if I renew. It’s called the free market.

But the city might impose its own rent control, on top that of existing state laws, most recently Assembly Bill 1482, the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019. In the bill’s language, it limited rent increases to “5% plus the percentage change in the cost of living … or 10%, whichever is lower.”

At the Feb. 23 City Council meeting, local residents complained about the high rents in the City of the Arts.

“This is now the second meeting in a row where we had people from the community come to speak about that issue,” said Councilmember Manuel Chavez, as reported in the VoiceofOC. “I think it’s important that as we look at the housing element, as we look at housing in Costa Mesa, we have every option on the table, including rent stabilization.”

They should just look north to Santa Ana. As the Register reported, last September the City Council voted 4-3 for measures that, among other things, “Cap rents at 3% annually or 80% of inflation, whichever is less, for buildings built in 1995 or earlier and for mobile home parks established in 1990 or earlier,” as well as tougher “just cause eviction” rules.

The action prompted a lawsuit filed in OC Superior Court Feb. 14 by the Apartment Association of Orange County, which represents 1,875 members and 100,000 rental units in OC. I’ve been to the AAOC’s meetings and most of its members are small, Mom & Pop landlords owning a couple of duplexes to supplement income, often for retirement. They also were hit hard by the COVID eviction moratorium.

Related: Rent control is the terrible idea that won’t go away

“The city is picking winners and losers. This is business, free enterprise. We encourage the city to work within the parameters of the market. But if there’s something else to help renters, we’ll talk with them,” said Dave Cordero, AAOC’s executive director.

The market already is alleviating this problem. The Register’s Jonathan Lansner reported Feb. 8, “California big-city rents fell for the fifth consecutive month in January.” Santa Ana was “down 0.6% in a year” to $2,115 a month, with “Costa Mesa off 3.5% to $2,461.”

It’s also worth noting in 2022 the highest rents in America, according to Fortune Builders, are New York City at $3,260, up 30.4%. And San Francisco, at $2,901, up 9.85%. The Big Apple adopted rent control in 1943 as a “temporary” measure during World War II, which ended in 1945, 78 years ago. The City on the Bay adopted it in 1979 during the Jimmy Carter stagflation era. Rent control obliviously has had the opposite of its intended effect.

“Rent control leads to less maintenance and renovation by landlords,” Raymond Sfeir, director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, told me. “This results in dilapidated housing in many cases, and uninhabitable buildings in others. And it leads to the conversion of apartment complexes to condo buildings. It creates disincentives to build apartment complexes. And it leads to higher rents of units not under rent control due to lack of supply.”

Click here to read the full article in the OC Register

As California’s Eviction Protections Wane, Renters Grow Uneasy

New bill would offer limited extension of eviction moratorium

Melissa Lopez struggled through unemployment, homelessness and illness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The single mother finally secured a one-bedroom apartment in San Jose for her young boy and adult daughter with help from nonprofit Amigos de Guadalupe.

But Lopez left her job as a security guard to take care of her son and her health and owed $9,000 in rent. She applied in October for California’s emergency rental assistance program. While she waited months to get approved, her landlord served her multiple eviction notices. State renter protections allowed her to fend off displacement.

On April 1, those protections are due to expire. Lopez is waiting on a second aid application, and might not be able to pay next month’s rent. “It’s been concerning,” she said.

A new bill could offer a reprieve for Lopez and tens of thousands of Bay Area renters still waiting for the state to review their applications for help. But millions of other tenants not covered under the new bill face uncertainty, upheaval, and even displacement as state courts open more broadly to eviction suits for unpaid rent.

For months, tenant advocates have warned of an “eviction tsunami” when state protections end. Landlords generally were prohibited from displacing tenants for failing to pay rent during the pandemic as long as tenants had applied to the state or another local government program for aid.

But the state program, Housing is Key, has been overwhelmed by applications. Tenants and landlords say the process is confusing, slow and often unresponsive to the needs of non-native English speakers. More than half of applicants are still waiting for their files to be reviewed, according to an analysis by the National Equity Atlas.

The gradual end of renter protections could put many California renters in peril – if they haven’t sought assistance and don’t pay April rent. Housing experts now expect a flood of evictions to hit courtrooms around the state in mid-April.

The new bill, AB 2179, backed by legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom, could offer three more months of an eviction moratorium for a fraction of at-risk renters: the estimated 366,000 California tenants who, like Lopez, are waiting for their requests for back rent and utilities to be processed.

At least 44,000 Bay Area renter families are still waiting on the emergency assistance program, according to the National Equity Atlas. Researchers estimate 740,000 California tenants – out of the state’s 17 million renters – were behind in rent in February.

The $5.6 billion state relief effort, funded by federal pandemic assistance, has distributed about $2.5 billion in the last 12 months. Separate, smaller city and county programs, along with private charities, have also handed out millions in aid.

The bill would mark California’s fourth extension of eviction protections, and is expected to be considered in committee Monday. It would extend the eviction moratorium through June 30 – but only for tenants with active applications in the state relief program. The bill would also pre-empt local efforts to impose new moratoriums in cities and counties, a provision broadly favored by landlords. Local restrictions being considered in San Jose and San Francisco, for example, would be illegal. Local protections in Oakland and Alameda County are already being challenged in court.

“We need to protect eligible renters who have applied for relief funds but haven’t received them yet, or who will apply before the March 31 deadline,” Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, said in a joint statement. “We made a commitment to those who are in line and they shouldn’t be harmed because of how long the process is taking.”

Debra Carlton of the California Apartment Association said the proposal would allow landlords to get rid of tenants who have a history of non-payment and who haven’t applied for the state program.  “The time has come,” she said. “We’re coming out of the pandemic.”

The proposed, limited extension is a let-down for tenant advocates. A coalition of nonprofits lobbied lawmakers to extend the relief program and accept new applicants until August and add state funding to the pot. An extension would help more families, they argued, while the pandemic threat still disrupts many workers. The statewide unemployment rate in February was 5.4%, above pre-pandemic levels.

“There’s still a lot of need,” said Francisco Duenas of Housing Now!, a nonprofit coalition of tenant advocates.

San Jose-based property manager Jeff Zell said the rental assistance program has been slow and cumbersome, but he’s been able to secure about $2 million in back rent for landlords. Zell, who manages about 2,100 units, said landlords are anxious to break ties with tenants who haven’t paid full rent for months.

Click here to read the full article at the Mercury News

California Lawmakers Propose Extending Eviction Protections

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Hundreds of thousands of California renters facing eviction next week could get another three months of protection under a bill top legislative leaders endorsed on Thursday.

The federal government sent billions of dollars to the states to help people who fell behind on their rent payments during the pandemic. California’s program will pay for 100% of people’s unpaid rent if they meet certain income requirements.

State law says tenants cannot be evicted as long as they have an application pending for rental assistance. But that law is set to expire on March 31. Meanwhile, so many people have applied for assistance that it is taking state officials longer than they thought to hand out the money.

As of Tuesday, just over 275,600 people had applications still pending, according to the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. That number doesn’t include assistance programs operated by local governments. State officials won’t be able to approve all of those applications by March 31. Starting April 1, anyone who has unpaid rent can be evicted.

At the last moment, state lawmakers have decided to intervene. Thursday, two lawmakers — Assemblymembers Tim Grayson and Buffy Wicks, both Democrats — introduced a bill that would extend eviction protections for people with pending applications through the end of June. Lawmakers plan to have public hearings on the bill next week before voting to send it to Gov. Gavin Newsom on March 31.

“The Governor strongly supports an extension that continues to protect tenants well into the summer and ensures that every eligible applicant is protected under this nation-leading rent relief program as it winds down,” his office said in an email Thursday.

The state has extended eviction protections multiple times during the pandemic, always over the objections of landlords who say they are being squeezed by, in some cases, going more than a year without receiving rent payments. Last year, Newsom said the chances of extending protections again were “very modest.”

Reactions to the bill were mixed. The largest landlord group, the California Apartment Association, supports the bill because, along with preventing some evictions, it would also stop local governments from passing their own, more stringent eviction laws.

“Consistency is very important,” said Debra Carlton, the California Apartment Association’s executive vice president for state government affairs and compliance.

California’s eviction assistance program will stop taking new applications on April 1, so the proposed law would only protect people who have applied for assistance by that date. The Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, a group that represents tenants, said lawmakers should also give people more time to apply. Anything less, they said, would be “a landlord bailout that results in thousands of families on the streets.”

The bill is expected to move quickly through the Legislature. Thursday, the Legislature’s top two leaders — Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, both Democrats — released a joint statement saying the bill “will receive quick action.”

“We made a commitment to those who are in line and they shouldn’t be harmed because of how long the process is taking,” Rendon and Atkins said in a joint statement.

The extension will benefit people like Jenise Dixon, whose application for rental assistance has been pending since October. Dixon says she has lived in the same rent-controlled Los Angeles apartment for 19 years. She said she worked in the entertainment industry, but hasn’t had steady work since the pandemic started and soon fell behind on her rent payments.

“I’m one step away from homelessness,” she said.

Click here to read the full article at AP News

Poll: 24% of Renters ‘Seriously Consider’ Leaving California

Few economic gaps in California are wider than the monetary gulf between renters and homeowners.

I just unearthed another example: A poll gauging the impact of the state’s challenging job market found 24% of California renters would “seriously consider” leaving for elsewhere in the U.S. vs. just 19% of homeowners.

The Public Policy Institute of California’s survey of 2,292 California adults conducted in late October offers vivid illustrations of how hard life can be as a Golden State renter, especially compared with homeowners. Not only are tenants typically poorer than owners, but their hopes of getting ahead are also diminished.

That’s not a good financial formula in a state where a typical apartment runs $1,967 a month — the second-highest rent in the nation, according to Apartment List. California renters pay an average 32% of their income toward rent — a monetary burden topped by only three other states, Census stats show.

The poll details how the usually tenuous finances of renters have been further muddled by the pandemic era’s business limitations and economic twists. California remains 900,000 jobs short of pre-pandemic employment levels with many of these lost positions coming from lower-paying industries that typically employ tenants.

Such workplace difficulties translate to 24% of renters having someone in their household losing a job in the past year vs. 16% of homeowners. And 17% of renters worry almost daily or more about future job losses vs. 12% of owners.

Now, most renters aren’t enjoying dream jobs with just 35% surveyed saying they are very satisfied with work vs. 38% of owners. One annoyance: Unstable hours are a pain for 21% of renters vs. 17% of owners.

Plus, a shortage of good-paying jobs further clouds the picture with 26% of renters saying it’s a “big problem” vs. 20% of owners. And there’s not much hope for career advancement — 42% of renters’ current workplace offers no growth opportunities vs. 37% of owners.

Cashed out

Employment impediments translate to money problems, with 22% of renters reporting worsening personal finances vs. a year ago vs. 15% owners.

No surprise, the cost of housing is a major headache with 39% of renters worrying almost every day or more vs. 16% of owners.

That’s likely because 24% of renters admit their households had difficulty paying rent vs. 10% of owners who had mortgage troubles. That’s in line with 26% of renters with serious worries about bills vs. 14% of owners.

Consider other renter-vs.-owner financial complications of the past year.

Medical? 23% of renting households put off getting healthcare help because of finances vs. 4% of owners. Food stamps? 26% of renting households got them vs. 9% of owners. Unemployment benefits? 33% of renters got jobless aid vs. 23% of owners.

Click here to read the entire article at OC Register

Rent Control Comes Roaring Back to Life in California

Rent ControlCalifornia legislators are trying to revive rent control. This week, state lawmakers introduced a package of new bills that would roll back existing state limits on the policy, and impose new regulations on how much landlords can charge tenants and when they’re allowed to kick them out.

The bills are light on policy meat at the moment, but there’s enough gristle to give us an idea where the legislature is headed.

“Millions of Californians are just one rent increase away from becoming homeless,” said Assemblyman David Chiu (D–San Francisco), one of the legislators who introduced rent control bills Thursday. “This legislation will help bring some peace of mind and predictability to renters, allowing them to plan for their future and stay in their homes.”

Chiu’s bill, AB 1482, is the most ambitious of the set. It would cap rent increases across the state at a yet-to-be-determined percentage, plus inflation. If this passed, California would become the second state behind only Oregon to have statewide rent control.

Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D–Alameda) introduced his own sweeping proposal with AB 1481, which would ban no-cause evictions and require landlords to show a government-approved reason for kicking out a tenant renting month-to-month. Yet again, the bill contains no specific set of government-approved reasons, though you can bet lobbyists and activists will help figure them out.

Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D–Santa Monica) introduced a bill which would allow local governments to impose price controls on single-family homes and rental units that were built more than 10 years ago. If passed, Bloom’s bill would overturn major portions of California’s Costa-Hawkins Act, which largely forbids local governments from passing their own rent control policies.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D–Oakland) has also introduced legislation that would create a statewide database of all rental properties.

This legislation comes a few short months after Proposition 10—a ballot initiative that would have repealed Costa-Hawkins and allowed cities to impose whatever rent control policies they wanted—was absolutely crushed at the polls. Nearly two-thirds of voters rejected the measure in November 2018.

That result, lopsided as it was, did not necessarily signal Californians’ absolute rejection of rent control as a solution to the state’s mounting housing affordability problem. In polls before the election, large pluralities of voters pointed to a lack of rent control as the source of high housing costs.

Post-election analysis pinned the blame for the loss on the confusing nature of the ballot initiative, and divisions within the ‘yes’ side, many of whom reportedly thought running a ballot initiative in 2018 was premature. A promise from then-gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom that he would take up rent control if Prop. 10 failed also lowered the stakes.

As one might expect when faced with an unprecedented degree of government regulation, landlords are not happy.

“The proposals outlined today distract from the solutions,” said Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, in a statement. “Applying rent control statewide and allowing rent caps on single-family homes and newer construction would only worsen our housing shortfall. We need to encourage new housing, not create policies that stifle its creation.”

Economists also generally take a dim view of rent control, saying that it discourages new construction by capping the return developers can expect from their investment. This is an especially acute risk in California, where ever-increasing land and construction costs make all but the ritziest developments unprofitable.

State politicians would be far better off attacking restrictions on new rental housing, whether that’s restrictive zoning, urban growth boundaries, or a cumbersome permitting process that gives development opponents ample opportunities to delay or sabotage projects.

SB 50, a bill that would upzone land near transit stops and in some wealthier neighborhoods, is a better approach. It has its flaws, but would allow more housing construction and improve on the status quo. Rent control, especially of the kind proposed yesterday, would be a huge step back.

This article was originally published by Reason.com

Kamala Harris Enthusiastically Endorses Rent Control

Rent ControlDemocratic presidential contender Kamala Harris shored up her progressive bona fides this weekend by endorsing Oregon’s first-in-the-nation statewide rent control policy, which became law last week.

“Earlier this week, [Oregon Gov. Kate Brown] made it easier for families to stay in their neighborhoods by enacting statewide rent control,” Harris tweeted yesterday. “No one should ever have to choose between paying their rent each month or feeding their children,” the California senator added.

Oregon’s new law caps rent increases at 7 percent plus inflation per year, and it imposes new restrictions on landlords’ ability to kick out tenants.

The law resembles the rent control system in San Francisco, where Harris was once district attorney. There, the price controls on rental properties resulted in exactly what most economists warn will happen: The supply of rental housing fell, and rents increased citywide.

That’s according to a 2018 study from three Stanford economists who looked at an expansion of San Francisco’s rent control in 1994. That year the city expanded its already existing rent regulations—which, as in Oregon, capped annual rent increases at 7 percent per year—to owner-occupied rental properties with four or fewer units, which had previously been exempted.

Because this expansion did not cover buildings that were constructed after 1980, the researchers were able to measure the effects of rent control by comparing very similar sets of housing in the same city. What they found vindicated a lot of standard critiques of rent control.

The Stanford study found that pre-1980 rent-controlled small apartment buildings saw a 25 percent decline in the number of tenants living in them compared to post-1980, non-rent-controlled buildings—often driven by landlords buying out or evicting their tenants and then converting formerly rent-controlled units to condos they’re able to sell at a market price.

The same study found that tenants in rent-controlled housing were more likely to be living at the same address ten years later, and that they saved anywhere from $2,300 to $6,600 a year on rent, adding up to some $2.9 billion in savings during the period examined in the study. That sounds like fodder for rent-control fans—except that the $2.9 billion saved by tenants in rent-controlled units was matched by a 5.1 percent increase in citywide rents, which cost tenants in non-rent-controlled buildings $2.9 billion.

San Francisco today is one of the most expensive places in the country to rent, with the average one-bedroom rent going as high as $3,000 a month. It also has a persistent and worsening homelessness crisis.

Harris’ enthusiastic endorsement of a policy that has failed so miserably in her own backyard is concerning, particularly as the senator has tried to present herself as a bold housing reformer.

Last summer, she introduced the Rent Relief Act, which promised refundable tax credits to folks earning as much as $125,000 per year and paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income in rent. As many pointed out at the time, this would if anything make housing more expensive by essentially subsidizing landlords for increasing rents without actually increasing the supply of rental housing.

There’s a broad consensus that high housing costs in and around many of America’s urban areas are the result of restrictions on new construction, and the best way of bringing prices down is to get rid of some of those restrictions. Instead, Harris is doubling down on counterproductive measures like poorly designed rent subsidies and price controls.

There’s not a lot any president can do about local restrictions on new housing supply. Land use decisions are almost entirely the province of state and local governments. But there is a lot that the feds could do to make America’s housing affordability problems worse. If a presidential candidate endorses statewide rent control, it’s not a good sign.

Christian Britschgi is an associate editor at Reason.

This article was originally published by Reason.com.

Proposition 10 Would Only Inflame California Housing Crisis

house-constructionThis November, Californians will see several taxpayer threats on the ballot, not the least of which is Proposition 10, titled “Local Rent Control Initiative.” This measure would open the floodgates to big government bureaucracies, burdensome regulations and a loss of property rights. The word must be getting out, because a poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California shows Proposition 10 lagging.

Proposition 10 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a law that was enacted after a compromise was worked out between dozens of different interest groups. Costa-Hawkins stopped local governments in California from enacting a hodge-podge of different rent control laws, each with its own big bureaucracy. The law prohibited rent control on newly constructed buildings, single-family homes and condominium units. It also guaranteed the owners of existing rent-controlled buildings the right to raise the rent on a unit to market value for new tenants when the former tenants moved out.

Proposition 10 would allow cities to enact any type of new rent-control law. New bureaucracies could impose new rules, fees and price controls on old buildings, new buildings, small buildings, garage apartments, granny flats and even single-family homes and condos. Proposition 10 would make California’s well-documented housing crisis even worse by discouraging investment in rental housing and incentivizing conversions or even demolition of existing rental property.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warns this measure could hurt California taxpayers, predicting a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in state tax revenue. That would mean less money for schools, roads and emergency services. …

To read the entire column, please click here.

Mobile Home Rent Control Measure Passed in L.A. County

Mobile HomesLos Angeles County Supervisors approved a mobile home park rent-control ordinance on Tuesday for unincorporated areas that will limit rental pad inflation to 3 percent a year — the latest sign of high housing costs in L.A.

The Los Angeles Times reported the supervisors approved the Mobilehome Rent Regulation Ordinance by a 3-to-1 vote. It initially provides a 180-day temporary limit on rent increases to maximum of 3 percent a year for annual or short term leases. The ordinance is scheduled to come back before the supervisors next month for another vote to make it permanent.

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who sponsored the rent control measure that will impact about 8,500 mobile home tenants, told Southern California Public Radio that she proposed the ordinance because skyrocketing apartment rents are spilling over to mobile home pad rentals.

Hahn argued that with 100 California communities already having passed rent control laws to protect mobile home tenants, “If we believe in affordable housing, and we believe in keeping these people from being homeless, we should really protect people who are in our mobile home parks in L.A. County.”

Hahn claimed that LA County needs an immediate temporary ordinance to stop mobile home operators from raising rents before a study is conducted to measure if tenants are rent-burdened. But the language of her ordinance states that it can be “extended or replaced by the Board of Supervisors.”

According to a June report from Apartment List, the median rental price for a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles was $1,750, and $1,360 for a one-bedroom unit. That was up 3.2 percent, about the same as inflation in the last 12 months, but down from the 6 percent average annual rate since 2015 that had been more than triple the rate of inflation.

Patricia Boerger of the Manufactured Housing Institute told Curbed late last year: “Mobile homes in the 1960s were for young people who were starting out and making their place in the world. Anything after 1976, though, can’t be called a mobile home.”

With the average sales price for a new manufactured home approximately $292,600 less than a site-built home, mobile homes are  a form of low-cost housing for 18 million Americans with an average income is about $28,300 a year and 13 percent on food stamps.

According to the Mobile Home Park Homeowners Allegiance, most residents own their mobile home but rent a pad from a landlord. Allegiance member Kort & Scott Mobile Home Parks, for example, is one of the largest operators in California and has 13 parks in Los Angeles County. K&S monthly pad rents in L.A. County range from a low in Carson of $398 at Laco Mobile Home Park and $420 a month in Carson Gardens Trailer Lodge, to a high of $1,700 a month at the Royal Western Mobile Home Park in Gardena.

Jarryd Gonzales, spokesperson for the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, told SCPR before the vote that the mobile home park owners do not believe that a crisis exists: “We’re saying take a wait-and-see approach, as opposed to rushing right in and limiting increases on rent, and going on in with a rent control ordinance.”

Gonzales argued that rent control could have unintended negative consequences, including cutting off capital improvements, or potentially causing mobile home park operators to shut down, evict the tenants, and sell their property.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Rent control fuels costliest fight on California 2018 ballot

Rent ControlA Los Angeles-based health care nonprofit known for funding controversial ballot measures is waging an expensive battle with the real estate industry over rent control in California.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has poured more than $12 million into a November initiative it’s spearheading to let cities and counties regulate rental fees in buildings that state law currently shields from such control.

A $10 million contribution the foundation reported Wednesday made the initiative the most expensive on the 2018 ballot so far.

Started in 1987 to provide hospice care to AIDS patients, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has grown into a global health care organization similar in size to Planned Parenthood. The group also has waded into politics, bankrolling measures ranging from prescription drug pricing to housing policy, as well as lobbying at the state and federal level. …

Click here to read the full article from CNBC