With the cost of housing driving California’s emergence as the state with the highest percentage of impoverished households, it’s easy to see the appeal of rent control to key Democratic constituencies – starting with poor and lower-middle-income families, often minorities, who struggle paycheck to paycheck.

This was why a diverse coalition was able to easily gather enough signatures to place Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot. It would repeal a sweeping 1995 state law – known by the shorthand of Costa-Hawkins – that grandfathered in some rent control laws but made significant new such laws difficult to impose.

The most notable provisions of the law were its ban on rent control for units built after 1995 and for all single-family homes and condominiums. It also forbids what’s known as “vacancy control,” which requires landlords to leave rents unchanged when a unit becomes empty.

The eagerness to undo Costa-Hawkins was plain in July at a meeting of the California Democratic Party in Oakland, where 95 percent of the party’s executive board voted to back the rent-control measure. That comes with a party commitment to send email and direct mail endorsements of the measure to as many as 2 million Democrats in the state, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Newsom splits with Democratic Party, opposes Prop. 10

But with less than a month to the election, this early momentum hasn’t translated into strong support. The most important Democrat on the fall ballot – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the heavy favorite to succeed Jerry Brown as governor – is against rent control. While most of what might be called the Bernie Sanders wing of California Democrats is all aboard the Proposition 10 bandwagon, a significant number of prominent and/or elected Democrats are in opposition. This includes Newsom’s primary rival, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Assembly members Jim Cooper, Tom Daly, Adam Gray, Patrick O’Donnell and Bill Quirk.

A number of reasons appear to be driving Democratic opposition to a seemingly potent populist wedge issue. Newsom, who revels in his reputation as a policy wonk, has told newspaper editorial boards up and down the state that rent control actually would make the housing crisis worse.

In economic circles, the belief that rent control is counterproductive is the overwhelming consensus of Keynesians, supply siders and nearly all the factions across the ideological spectrum. In 1992, a poll of the American Economic Association showed 93 percent agreed with the statement that rent control “reduces the quality and quantity of housing.” A Stanford University study of rent control in San Francisco released last December reached similar conclusions.

Californians in communities with rent control don’t need to be told by economists that it doesn’t work well. As Ken Calhoon, an El Dorado County real estate broker, pointed out in a July commentary, “Rent control has been a long-time ordinance in the following cities: Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Campbell, East Palo Alto, Fremont, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks and West Hollywood. It’s not a coincidence that the two most expensive rental areas in our state, the Los Angeles and Bay Area regions, happen to have every city that has enacted rent control policies.”

Also helping the No on Proposition 10 campaign is an unusually broad collection of groups that includes not just the usual business interests but several construction unions and seniors groups and a long list of organizations with ethnic or racial affiliations, starting with the California NAACP.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll released two weeks ago showed Proposition 10 losing 48 percent to 36 percent, with 16 percent undecided. Among Democrats, it led narrowly, 46 percent to 43 percent.

Rent-control foes stake claim to populist label

In a state where even banged-up, aging two-bedroom apartments go for $2,000-plus a month in most urban areas, these results seem hard to fathom – especially  given that the Yes on Proposition 10 side is backed by such powerful, high-profile groups as the California Teachers Association, the California Nurses Association, several government unions and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, led by Los Angeles political activist Michael Weinstein.

But this may be a case where money and superior strategy – not the views of economists or California’s history with rent control – are overcoming the populist inclination of voters. The No on Proposition 10 campaign, which has had at least a 2-1 advantage in fundraising so far, has been advertising for weeks. A Google search for Proposition 10 returns results that are topped with a paid No on 10 link. It goes to a page with the simple message that the measure is bad for veterans and seniors, doesn’t reduce rent and doesn’t provide funds for affordable housing. Some of these claims are solid and some are non sequiturs – why would rent control be expected to reduce rent?

But they make the case that this is not a simple attempt by moneyed interests to allow them to keep exploiting renters – instead making a seemingly populist case for No on 10.

Meanwhile, as an Oct. 5 story in the Ventura County Star noted, there may be high-profile supporters of Yes on 10, but only one is offering significant financial support. While the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has donated more than $10 million, “the only other major contributors to the campaign are the California Nurses Association and the AFSCME 3299 union, which contributed $50,000 and $60,000, respectively.”

[contact-form]

A ballot measure that would repeal California’s 1995 state law limiting what properties can be subject to rent control seems certain to be on the November ballot after proponents submitted more than 565,000 signatures to state authorities last week, far above the minimum needed.

The measure’s lead sponsor is Michael Weinstein of the well-funded Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is working with tenants rights groups and social justice activists and which sponsored two 2016 state initiatives. At a news conference this week, Weinstein and his allies depicted rent control as an obvious solution to a housing crisis that has pushed rent and mortgages higher for years without drawing a vigorous response from local and state officials.

“The rents are too damn high and we need local control to solve the problem,” Elena Popp of the Eviction Defense Network said at a rally in Los Angeles, according to a published report,

The measure would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which banned rent control on housing units completed after its enactment and on existing single-family homes, duplexes and condos. The complex law imposed other limits as well, depending on rent-control provisions in individual cities.

Its passage came in the mid-1990s after developers backed by Republicans, planners and some community activists made the case that rent control laws adopted by 15 California cities after World War II – most notably Los Angeles and San Francisco – had had the effect of stifling new construction and leading landlords to skimp on renovations and repairs.

Economists and housing experts generally continue to see rent control as having a long-term negative effect on housing costs by making shortages more likely. A 2016 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed with this conventional wisdom.

But with average monthly rents for two-bedroom apartments soaring past $2,500 in most Southern California coastal counties and above $4,000 in San Francisco and parts of Silicon Valley, public interest in rent control increased. In November 2016, eight measures to control housing costs were considered by Bay Area communities. Four passed, included laws capping annual rent hikes in Oakland, Mountain View, Alameda and Richmond.

Focus on housing stock plays better with policy wonks than public

The idea that rent control is no real long-term solution to a problem that is rooted in a shortage of housing units remains the view of some prominent Democrats. Most notably, Gov. Jerry Brown supported 2017’s Senate Bill 35, which makes it more difficult to use regulatory tactics to block properly zoned housing projects with at least some affordable units. According to one analysis, SB35 will compel more than 97 percent of California’s local governments to build more housing.

But this medium- and long-term approach to addressing the housing crisis has played better with policy wonks than the general public. Frustration over California housing costs has been a staple of social media and in the letters sections of newspapers for years.

This has caught the attention of elected officials. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti once appeared to be in the camp of those who saw adding housing stock as the key to slowing or stopping the increase in rent and mortgage costs. In 2014, the possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate committed his administration to approving 100,000 new housing units by 2021 and has bragged about already being nearly three-quarters of the way to his goal.

But Garcetti surprised some political observers by coming to this week’s L.A. rally for the statewide rental control initiative and offering strong support. According to a City News Service report, Garcetti used one of the favorite talking points of activists – depicting rent control as a way for average citizens and City Hall to scale back the power of corporate and other interests. “I’ve always believed that those who live closest to a given block or a street know what’s best. Local government should have control over their own city,” he said.

In a statement, Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, offered a starkly different assessment: “This ballot measure will pour gasoline on the fire of California’s affordable housing crisis. It will do exactly the opposite of what it promises – instead of helping Californians, it will result in an affordable housing freeze and higher costs.”

The California housing crisis remains an intense focus in the state Legislature, with lawmakers touting dozens of bills they argue could bring relief to residents stressed by high rents and mortgages.

But if some progressives get their way, the state will embrace a traditional, if deeply controversial, tactic – rent control – to address the problem.

An initial effort to bring rent control to the table was launched in February by Assemblyman Richard Bloom, D-Santa Monica, with the introduction of Assembly Bill 1506. The measure would have scrapped the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1995 state law that put sharp limits on local rent controls. Not only could such restrictions not be put on newer housing, the law essentially exempted single-family houses, duplexes and condos from rent-control laws in place in 15 California cities. Bloom’s measure would have greatly expanded the number of homes that could be subject to rent control, including new stock.

But earlier this month, Bloom abruptly announced he wouldn’t pursue AB1506 this year and would bring a revised version up next year. The Sacramento Bee reported the decision was driven by intense opposition from the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors.

Nevertheless, some groups – starting with the Los Angeles-based tenants’ rights group Coalition for Economic Survival – are pressing for other politicians to take up the cause. The coalition says there is a moral, humanitarian and economic case for sharply expanding the 600,000-plus older units in the Los Angeles area now subject to rent control. The group’s executive director, Larry Gross, told LA Weekly that the 1995 law that Bloom sought to replace punishes low-income families by allowing rent-controlled units to be increased to market levels when someone moves out.

The San Francisco-based group Tenants Together continues to feature a web page urging support for AB1506 and depicts the Costa-Hawkins law as a favor done for special interests with no consideration for how it affects Californians’ lives.

From rent-controlled home to Airbnb listing

Meanwhile, several Los Angeles landlords are facing a possible crackdown from the City Council over allegations that they forcibly evacuated renters in rent-controlled units using provisions of a 1985 law that allows such evictions if the properties are being taken off the rental market. But instead of doing so, some landlords allegedly began renting the units on websites for short-term rentals like Airbnb. Initial approval has been given to a new city law tightening up eviction procedures.

Such allegations about bad behavior by landlords suggest why rent control could prove a resilient issue: It provides a target to blame for those upset with the housing crisis.

Anti-landlord sentiment was strong in two Bay Area  communities – Mountain View and Richmond – which approved ballot measures in November that seek to limit rent increases and make evictions more difficult. Local unions and social-justice groups endorsed the measures. If such Democratic factions offered support at the state level, rent control would likely find a sizable constituency.

These dynamics reflect why Dan Schnur, director of the Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, told the Los Angeles Times that the “rent control debate is very quickly assuming a central place in the broader discussion of affordable housing.”

A large majority of economists agree that rent control is counterproductive because it discourages new construction and maintenance of existing housing, and prominent Democrats such as California Gov. Jerry Brown and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio have said adding housing stock provides the only long-term path to housing affordability.

But for Democrats who agree with Bloom that the housing crisis is taking a toll on many Californians’ quality of life, a housing policy that focuses on the long term may not have as much appeal as something with the immediate impact of rent control – whatever its history.