"THIS LAST TUESDAY, CALIFORNIANS VOTED BY NEARLY A 2 TO 1 MARGIN AGAINST PROPOSITION 10, A SEEMINGLY SIMPLE INITIATIVE THAT WOULD’VE REPEAL THE 1995 COSTA-HAWKINS BILL AND ALLOW CITIES TO ENACTED MORE EXTENSIVE RENT CONTROL." -- ZEKE GERWEIN
This last Tuesday, Californians voted by nearly a 2 to 1 margin against Proposition 10, a seemingly simple initiative that would’ve repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins bill and allow cities to enacted more extensive rent control. Prop 10, however, had become the subject of a $75 million panic among groups of property owners such as the California Association of Realtors, Essex Property Trust, and Wall Street’s Blackstone Property Partners towards ensuring that Prop 10 is not passed. Everyone had seen the ads: they were on Youtube, major freeways, and all the major California newspapers. Most of them featured older people, veterans, or struggling families, all of whom urge the viewer to vote no on Prop 10 because it “makes a bad problem worse”. Many of the advertisements claimed that Prop 10 has no protection for seniors, veterans, or disabled people.
Proposition 10 was a proposed repeal of the 1995 Costa-Hawkins bill, which took away local government’s right to allow rent control on any housing built after that year. If passed, Prop 10 would’ve allowed cities to set more extensive rent control and protect tenants from rent hikes and displacement, an exceedingly pertinent issue in the age of explosive rental and property costs. Californians pay $700 more in average rent than the rest of the United States and the cost of paying for a rental unit takes up a quarter of the average Californian’s monthly income. This compared to about 15% nationwide. Proposition 10 would offset the skyrocketing increase in the value of rental units and mitigate the fear of displacement that has become ubiquitous across the state. It was endorsed by a long list of progressive organizations popular throughout the state including the ACLU, the Sierra Club, and the California Democratic Party.
So why did it lose by twenty five points?
One obvious reason is the overwhelming flow of money from property owners into the state, who outspent the Yes on 10 campaign by a margin of 3 to 1. Another reason, says Ronald Flannery of the East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO) and Causa Justa Organization, is the myth of the California Dream.
“[Homeowner’s] right to a good return on their investment is literally written into the state Constitution,” Flannery told the Telegraph. “There’s this myth that people have of some sort of California Dream. That we have this great economy and anyone who works hard can buy a house, everyone’s making money here, that you can succeed as long as you have land.”
But a dream like that has little backing in reality in a state where nearly half of the population lives in rented housing.
Most of the exegesis behind the ads attacking Prop 10 claimed that it would slow construction and threaten the availability of rental units. There was also significant implication that Prop 10, which realtors labelled the “Anti-Homeowner Initiative.” Non-partisan fact checks, however, reveal that in the past the availability and construction of housing in California is contingent largely on the state of California’s economy. No correlation has been found between rent control ordinances and housing availability.
“People should see the plain justice of rent control,” Flannery said. “The Costa-Hawkins bill [which Prop 10 would repeal] makes no sense. All single family homes are exempt from rent control. Duplexes and triplexes are exempt. It’s ridiculous.”
Living in the Bay Area, most people have had family members or friends affected by the absurdly high cost of housing. The Costa-Hawkins bill, which allows formerly rent controlled units to return to market rates after vacancy, gives landlords a greater incentive to evict their tenant. Units built after 1995, exempt from rent control entirely, leaves working or middle class tenants subject to the whims of the market.
“We can’t fight fire with fire,” Flannery said when I asked him before the election if he thinks that Prop 10 would pass. He referred to the funding disparity between the opponents and proponents of Prop 10. “But money only buys you so much. In activism we have the saying that we’re ‘Losing Forwards.’ No matter what happens we’ll have energized countless communities towards housing justice and we’ll hopefully be ready for a more just housing system in the future.”
For more information in how to get involved in the fight for fair housing, Flannery recommended referring to Casua Justa’s website.
So why did it lose by twenty five points?
One obvious reason is the overwhelming flow of money from property owners into the state, who outspent the Yes on 10 campaign by a margin of 3 to 1. Another reason, says Ronald Flannery of the East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO) and Causa Justa Organization, is the myth of the California Dream.
“[Homeowner’s] right to a good return on their investment is literally written into the state Constitution,” Flannery told the Telegraph. “There’s this myth that people have of some sort of California Dream. That we have this great economy and anyone who works hard can buy a house, everyone’s making money here, that you can succeed as long as you have land.”
But a dream like that has little backing in reality in a state where nearly half of the population lives in rented housing.
Most of the exegesis behind the ads attacking Prop 10 claimed that it would slow construction and threaten the availability of rental units. There was also significant implication that Prop 10, which realtors labelled the “Anti-Homeowner Initiative.” Non-partisan fact checks, however, reveal that in the past the availability and construction of housing in California is contingent largely on the state of California’s economy. No correlation has been found between rent control ordinances and housing availability.
“People should see the plain justice of rent control,” Flannery said. “The Costa-Hawkins bill [which Prop 10 would repeal] makes no sense. All single family homes are exempt from rent control. Duplexes and triplexes are exempt. It’s ridiculous.”
Living in the Bay Area, most people have had family members or friends affected by the absurdly high cost of housing. The Costa-Hawkins bill, which allows formerly rent controlled units to return to market rates after vacancy, gives landlords a greater incentive to evict their tenant. Units built after 1995, exempt from rent control entirely, leaves working or middle class tenants subject to the whims of the market.
“We can’t fight fire with fire,” Flannery said when I asked him before the election if he thinks that Prop 10 would pass. He referred to the funding disparity between the opponents and proponents of Prop 10. “But money only buys you so much. In activism we have the saying that we’re ‘Losing Forwards.’ No matter what happens we’ll have energized countless communities towards housing justice and we’ll hopefully be ready for a more just housing system in the future.”
For more information in how to get involved in the fight for fair housing, Flannery recommended referring to Casua Justa’s website.
