Well, I believe in a free market, so all rent control is gov overreach imo. [To me, the answer is, get millions of illegals out, & that'll saturate the market with rentals, which will put the market back at a fair rate. And, we're not supposed to have monopolies, so I'm not sure why billionaires are allowed to buy everything, 🤔 And, I think counties should approve more development & single family homes built.] Ignore the double negative, grammar police. 😂
Yes, simply put it can stop an egregious increase in rent. It's really annoying to get a 60% increase in one month and then have a day to respond back with a letter proving your 30 days notice to leave. If you have ever been in that situation, then you are likely for it. It's not something a mom and pop would do anyway so I don't see how they will think it unfairly targets them. When properties are sold, its quite common for there to be a rent spike over 20%. As a renter, I just want to know what the next years cap will be; I don't think that is a bad thing.
Decrease property taxes and pass it on to the renters, How about cost of construction control, How about cost of maintenance control, How about cost of insurance control, How about cost of Liabilities control
I was a small time landlord in California. (I own a one bedroom condo in the city which I live in myself, plus one modest single family home in the countryside that I used to rent for income.) I preemptively stopped renting the single family home when my last tenants moved out based on the general direction state legislation was moving in. I'm not bothered by rent control per se since I've never raised anyone's rent by more that the amount currently prescribed by state or local law. But I was very much against any law that would take away my ability to re-inhabit my own home when the time came since the home was always meant to be my retirement destination. If these laws are meant to keep renters in their existing homes at a stable price, they may work. But the side effect is many people like myself are removing units from the market altogether.
Hey if you can afford the rent and mortgage on both, more power to you, but there a lot of landlords with more then one unit/home they are renting out, who rely on renters to pay mortgages and wouldn’t be able to afford to do this. So hopefully they would sell some units instead. Renters are tired of their rents going up 8-10% a yr, meanwhile owners taxes are locked in at 1% a year with a 2% appraisal growth a year. We’ve tried costa Hawkins for 30 years and have not seen the growth that is being promised in keeping it. If we had seen that amount of growth we wouldn’t be here in this situation today, with rents skyrocketing. Investors, banks, PE, developers, would never build enough to achieve what renters are asking for, which is that their rents don’t rise 8-10% a year, because building THAT much new housing would be just as detrimental to their profit as they argue rent control is. That’s why scarcity is manipulated to exist, it increases their bottom line. NIMBY, zoning, special permits can all be pushed by people with alternative motives. At least with a yes on prop 33 renters in majority renter zones can try to stabilize these increases. Which would also help stabilize the value of the market, helping to keep taxes lower, helping to keep the price to buy land, to develop on, cheaper.
I am a "Mom and Pop" landlord with only a duplex in Dana Point that I rent out under market rate already. I'm a hard "No" on Prop 33. Even though I don't think the city of Dana Point would not enact crazy rent control restrictions. I hope. Problem is, I don't now how crazy anything COULD be if Prop 33 passes.
Same here, I am a small landlord and my rents are under market. I live in a small town (Tehachapi), if rents were caped with no reduction in property tax and insurance, I might have to think about selling.
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
@@robertjones2820land lords having to sell their spare homes is the best argument one could make for voting YES on 33. “I rent under market value” is such a scam statement, you’re simply competing against other land lords who have outrageously inflated prices. For example, if “market value” is 2,000, on a place that should be 1,000, and you’re charging 1500, you are not charging “under market value”, you are charging 500 over what it should cost.
wow thank you for the video it helped a lot. Costa Hawkins has been aorund since 95 and it's pretty safe to say it didnt work. So I agree we should blow it up, let local counties enact their own rent control laws according to their needs and see what happens after that. Current laws just arn't working. I've seen to many of my friends get evicted due to their rent going way up that they could no longer afford to live there. This will help that. Yes on 33!!!
Hey how about you stop complaining and buy a damn house. If you live in expensive city either educate yourself so you can make more money or move to a cheaper city where you can afford a house. Stop looking for the government to solve your issues at that rate you’ll be disappointed your whole life.
A statewide rule seems smarter. Prop 33 would leave it to each municipality, so that's messy. I do support a law that covers all rentals, not just the old buildings - thats not really fair. I like Costa Hawkins. Every unit should begin at market price.
Let me see: Property insurance is up (companies leaving the state), utilities keep going up, trash service up, labor to fix things is up, prices of supplies are up; but they want the rent to stay the same-because companies are making record profits; but don't want to increase salaries and people can't afford it. I see. And I am the bad guy because: I worked my rear end off; many YEARS working TWO jobs back to back, to SAVE for a down payment; paid my debts on time to have good credit to obtain a mortgage; learned to fix many things in order to SAVE more money, paid that mortgage for many years faithfully to this date; the property has appreciated in value (because there are not as many available); and because the same government has depreciated the value of the dollar through printing out of thin air to give it to their "war machine" friends. And because I locked that mortgage payment years ago and I am able to rent it making a profit? Yeah, it is a HELL NO for me on Prop 33.
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
@@albundy3929 Who said it is easy? If you think landlords are evil...wait until big corporations buy up all the small landlords like me...(which is inevitably with all the new laws being approved).
@albundy3929 imagine being a top 10-5% earner for a "starter" home going for 950k-1.2M single family, or imagine paying 2-3x the rent amount to call it "homeownership" I'm in SoCal, I studied real estate as well, I'd like to think I know a bit about it here and there after 4 years of analyzing my local market. It's impressive to hire people at that wage, I'm sure there's lots of wisdom and truth to what you say, but times have changed. It's not that I'm not willing to "sacrifice" anything, I've sacrificed a lot, from time away from family, to personal life, things, etc. The harder you work the harder you're taxed, my savings don't catch up to inflation and I don't have an exciting amount of money to be stoked on a 20% annual return by investing either. More than 90% of new homeowners in 2023 completely regret it because they are worse off according to many studies. Something is broken, something isn't working for those who put in the work. It's frustrating
You have the freedom to move anywhere and negotiate any rental terms you like with a landlord that would agree to them. You don’t have to live in one of the most expensive places on the planet. You also have the freedom to buy a home instead. Why do you think it’s appropriate for the government, full of people with zero real estate experience to tell landlords what to charge? That’s a lot like health insurance companies telling doctors how to treat patients. Neither one makes any sense.
It is not landlord greediness, it is increasing property taxes, insanely increasing home insurances, highly expensive maintenance, nonsense profit tax and list goes on. I mean you have to have property in order to understand these costs. Another words everything rising equally except incomes.
@MelroseFurniture , yup..my hoa fees have gone up 3x in 5 years, plus there was a 1,500 special assessment, parts and labor have gone up, property insurance has gone up, then my property tax went up..
Thanks Christian. This is the best review I've heard/read on Prop 33. I like your ideas too. You bring much needed thoughtful leadership to a challenging situation.
It's too late, the rent has already been increased, and now, after only four years, they expect us to vote yes as if it will make a difference. Come on, the city is just trying to gather as many incentives as possible.
Voting "Yes" on Proposition 33 is critical to safeguarding renters' rights and addressing California's deepening housing crisis. Repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act would allow local governments to impose more robust rent control policies, protecting millions of tenants from sharp rent increases. These protections are vital, especially in areas where rent hikes drive vulnerable families to the brink of displacement. Without the ability to control skyrocketing rents, many renters could face eviction, potentially ending up homeless or living in precarious situations. The opposition, which includes MAGA Republicans and business groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is primarily concerned with protecting landlords' profits. Their "No" campaign often uses scare tactics directed at homeowners even though Prop 33 mainly impacts rental properties, not homeownership. Voting "No" would maintain the status quo, which leaves tenants vulnerable to rent gouging, potentially forcing them out of their homes and even exacerbating the homelessness crisis . By voting "Yes" on Prop 33, we can help prevent more people from being pushed into homelessness and ensure renters have the protections they need to stay in their communities.
Many landlords will sell their properties if government keeps telling them what to do with their property. Unless you're ready to buy your own house, be careful how you vote. I know many landlords who are planning on selling their rental properties to family members so they don't have to deal with this kind of crap. If you think there's a rental house shortage now, prop 33 will make it worse.
@ I already see so many buildings being built on my way to work. They stopped building that building in the DTLA skyline and it’s just abandoned now. I hear what you’re saying. You make so many valid points especially this affecting more than Los Angeles (which is where I live)
I think that the local government should use the taxes It receives to build several apartment complexes until the renters market becomes so plentiful that there’s excess and that excess will of option will cause them to compete and lower prices.
Vote No on 33 if you think government already has too much control over our lives. Or if you own a home, or if you ever want to own a home someday. Or if you don’t agree with communist principles.
Can anyone answer this question. RSO mom and pop duplex CALIFORNIA owner evicts for owner occupancy / the law is not clear when can you finally re rent for market value. The bulletin states that the family or owner must remain in the unit for two years and then re rent the unit at the previous rental rate, including the 4% of time it was off the market. BUT WHEN CAN YOU ACUTALLY GET MARKET RATE RENT BACK FOR THE UNIT.
@whereyallat2day I'm starting to think duplex owners should team up against this crap, & sell each other a unit for a month, & then sell it back, and then you'd be able to reset price. 😅
The biggest problem with housing is it is so difficult to build new housing if you want to solve the housing crisis speed up the permit process to build new houses.
I'm voting no. Because at least we have some control in writing. Voting yes is a Gamble, the way I see it. The only real solution is to increase a person's access to multi streams of income. I just moved here to San Diego and it's absolutely gorgeous. If everyone could afford to live here due to cheap rent, it would be overpopulated. We just have to figure out ways to make it affordable for those who really want to enjoy the privilege of being here.
Not much attention has been given to the text that Proposition 33 puts into the California Code. To me this text implies literally that AB 1482 will have no authority in California if Proposition 33 passes? The text that would be added to the code reads :"The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control." I live in a city where rent control/evictions law at the city level is maintained as no such laws and it follows state law by default. If Proposition 33 passes, then my city maintains its rent law status. Then the state law AB 1482 protection does not apply because the state must yield to the local law. Then my property owner pounces. Legally, this is what I understand when I read the text?
Very good question. The short answer is that eliminating Costa Hawkins will not automatically eliminate AB 1482. The civil code that Prop 33 redacts is in section 1950 and NOT section 1946 and 1947 (where AB 1482 "lives"). If Prop 33 passes, then the statewide rent control will stay in place, unless a local area puts tighter restrictions in place.
For me the mom & pop who own one or two rental units are not what is driving up rents. It's the corporations buying up everything and turning them into Air B & Bs or rental units for profit. Just my opinion.
Sorry landlords but private equity firms and ai algorithms are to blame for the downfall of your industry, not the renters. I'm voting yes for rent control on this one due to this very reason.
what you said makes no sense. "landlords" are not some ambiguous evil group... they are property owners on the hook for increased property insurance (35% this year) and increased property taxes.
@@chrissilkwood5439 if you don't know what is going on with private equity firms and ai algorithms in the housing market and how it is bad for landlords AND renters, you should probably do your research.
Nice summary of Prop 33. However, I keep wondering why there are no post assessments of Costa-Hawkins mentioned. If Costa-Hawkins is working as intended, why is there a shortage of housing @ unaffordable rents/prices in CA? On the flip side, why is there an assumption that local governments are going to be too restrictive if 33 passes - aren’t are local representatives smart enough to balance rent and vacancy control against a reasonable profit for landlords or new construction? Opponents to 33 say no, however, many of those same opponents support Prop 5 that gives more control on affordable housing to local governments.
Very good question! Maybe it shows that Costa Hawkins was too restrictive in the rent control that it allowed to remain (for example, the 640,000+ units in LA City) and it should have eliminated ALL rent control. Or maybe the shortage of housing and rents would be even worse had Costa Hawkins not gone into place. Hard to tell, but would be interesting. As for local governments being too restrictive if passed, we already have a shortage now with the current regulations, how would local governments be able to further restrict things AND increase construction? Prop 5 is not about local governments, it's about the people (voters), i.e. it allows 55% vote of the local electorate, rather than the current two-thirds approval requirement to pass certain bonds would have to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure. This makes it easier for people (voters) to vote on creating affordable housing. This does not contradict with a no on Prop 33...whatever leads to more housing, helps make housing more affordable.
Because the law passed I just raised my tenants rent. First time since 2020. I will now raise it the allotted 8.8% per year. He is paying $600. under market rate.
Why is there a shortage still? Look at the local level where housing is governed. CA's zoning is restrictive, local govts let people shut down housing projects for petty reasons, and then you have places like SF where it takes like 2 whole years just to get approved (SF has the longest approval process in the country which materializes as expensive af construction costs). This has been going on for decades. Only recently has there been any movement on increasing efficiencies in the housing market.
I voted yes on 33 because clearly what we have now is not good enough. The no on prop 33 ads say Gavin Newsom signed the toughest rent control in America into law - I say BFD 🙄 because lots of people are having a very difficult time finding affordable places to live. As far as vouchers and minimum wage increases you know republicans fight things like that because God forbid anyone (especially poor people but not their billionaire buddies) get anything more than they ‘deserve’.
Hope you're saving your money to buy your own house! Landlords are not going to want to rent anymore. No one is going to want to invest in rental property. Many would rather leave their rental homes vacant or just sell or rent to their own families. So save your money for a down payment, home repairs, property taxes, expensive California insurance, etc.
Is it proper for the owner to pass down his higher insurance costs and property taxes onto the tenant? In my case, this keeps happening. The place I rent is already paid off.
That’s the funny part. Rents are priced as if they have a mortgage to pay still but a lot of them are 100% paid off, only seeing a 1% property tax, 2% appraisal growth a year. I know the place I rent is paid off too yet my rent is priced as if they are still paying a mortgage, it’s still priced at this overvalued “market rate”. They never pass savings on down to the renter.
@@albundy3929cue the stats on the growing number of homeless. Housing is a necessity, you’re just a leech, profiting off a human necessity, acting like you’re doing the people a favor. Lmao you didn’t build shit. You just had more money than a younger generation.
Is it part of the LIHTC program? AKA affordable housing? Those are exempt from rent control and the rent increases are part of the contract with the Federal government. Is the building less than 15 years old ?
Thing happened. I don't like thing. Thing is bad. Isn't Thing illegal? No? Let's make Thing illegal. Thus, the thought process of the majority of the American electorate. No careful review of both cause and effect. No reflecting on personal biases and conflicts of interest. Just if it's not good for me, it should be illegal.
Being a tenant living at the mercy of a landlord on a month-to-month lease is basically like homelessness+ to me, meaning that I regard it as being one step above homelessness, or almost a form of homelessness. When you live in a rented space, can you really call it your home? First of all, how do you define, "home"? For me, home should be a place of refuge and relative comfort and security from the elements, where your personal items remain relatively unmolested, where you can get a spot of privacy from the world, and perhaps most importantly, you know that you can remain there, and nobody can kick you out on a whim. Does a tenant have these things? Not in any meaningful way. At any time, for month-to-month tenants -- and the vast majority of us fall under this category -- a landlord can decide he wants us to vacate "his" property with only 30 days notice (with a perhaps a bit of variation depending upon the state law). It doesn't matter if you grew up there, raised your kids there, are unlikely to find a comparable lodging, are elderly, or if you are disabled. The landlord's "property rights" take precedence over all other concerns. Tenants live in a state of perpetual insecurity about their future. With the possible exception of a few scattered municipalities, landlords have no limits on what they can charge, and they'll raise it up as soon and as much as they can get away with, being unconcerned with whatever difficulties or hardships rent increases cause, or if it drives you out of your 'home.' Yes, there are sometimes laws regulating the rate at which they can legally increase rent on tenants already dwelling in a 'unit,' but if they really want to Jack the rent up, they have no qualms about kicking you out on the street, and putting the place back up for rent at a higher price per month. And as for privacy? Don't make me laugh. Landlords routinely do background checks, and credit checks on prospective tenants, and more and more are checking them out online, scrutinizing them on social media, to figure out if you're a good, obedient, law-abiding, non-radical type who won't cause any trouble and will accept routinely forking over massive amounts of money to live in a dwelling they own but don't live in. And that's just the initial evaluation. Supposing that you are allowed in, then the landlord, or his agents will be there watching, seeing when you come and go, what you do, who visits, and how long they stay. They could be carefully staking you out every day if they want to, and many do. Landlords don't want 'trouble maker’ tenants, they want meek, scared, obedient tenants who are afraid of them and law enforcement (who will readily remove people from 'their property’ should they desire it). Yes, tenants have a few scant legal recourses at their disposal, such as fighting eviction in court, but typically it just delays, rather than stops it. Additionally, with only 24 hour notice, they are legally entitled to enter 'their property’ whenever they want. Doesn't matter if you want them there or not. So much for privacy. Your privacy doesn't trump their property rights, after all.
Definitely no on 33. There's enough data to realize that rent control hurts affordability. The only people who benefit from this are people who have been renting and do not/can't move. The ones it hurt the most are people who have to move.
@HeartOfFaith4Jesus but if you're lucky to have been one of the renters already there, it's probably for way under market value. The only caveat is that you can't move. Otherwise, you'll have to pay the new rent controlled, driven market value.
ALL rent control causes higher costs for tenants. Why? All business enterprises pass on all costs of operation to their business. When they can’t do this legally, they quit the business. That is why there is a housing shortage and a rental housing shortage. Government or citizen citizen sponsored controls of services alway end in higher costs of the services or a loss of the service or product.
I came here looking for an unbiased opinion because I was truly undecided. This is good information but I also feel like it is slightly biased in favor of Costa Hawkins. Thanks for the information.
This one seems almost as complex and controversial as minimum wage increases. It's easy to have a biased answer, but it's truly not that simple. From what I've noticed though, prop 33 is a hard NO for most people.
rent prices are very competitive. putting controls on rent will mean landlords will have incentive to remove a home or apartment from the rental market and sell or turn it into a coop.not going to lower or control most rental prices.
Renters don’t care who owns the building they rent, they just care about their rents rising 8-10% a year. So if a landlord did sell to a coop, then that new owner, would still be subjected to the rent control laws passed in that city.
When the costa hawkins past, there were tons of developers building housing. What stopped construction was the 2008 financial crisis. Currently, housing is being built, and we have state wide rent stabilization. This is a balance that we need to maintain. Rents are high, well salaries are too damn low. Fight for fair wages.
What stopped building is all the regulation causing extortion lawsuits, slow permitting from cities that simply don't care about time value of money, NIMBY residents, and property taxes being pushed on the new builders far exceeding the burden they cause (due to the tax increase limit on existing housing - so they push unfeasible taxes/building fees on new builds).
I have ZERO sympathy for these leaches, I'm on SSDI the same month I get an increase because of the cost of living my rent get increase the same amount. i hope this gets passed
Christian, thank you so much for this clear and concise breakdown. I'm filling my ballot out right now (11/3/24). You're the man. Also, I listened to the WHOLE video. GOD bless you. 🎉😂❤
Part of me being the slightly elderly capitalist that does not want government interfering with how income should be earned - yet I see how the youth barely get by on the wages in California/. And we are losing good young minds to other states. I feel part of the solution is to lower property taxes as it is a % of our high home . I am swaying towards a yes
Landlords are going to sell! Get ready to buy your OWN house! I hope you have enough for a down payment, property taxes, property insurance, maintenance costs, closing costs, mortgage payments, etc.
@@rachele9566 I am a 95k earner, as of 2021 I had around 24k saved for a down,I now have 41k. Interest rates, mixed with wildly inflated housing prices, which have been exacerbated by corporate landlords buying millions of homes, make it impossible for me to buy a house where I live. Now they’re spending 150million on this bill to protect that investment into the commodification of housing, and them selling their houses is somehow going to be a bad thing for people like me? Fuck outta here 😆
Typical gov proposal, expands the optics that gov has more power while imposing upon the real authors of gov, the people. Authority comes from the authors. Who made who, did gov make the people or did the people make the gov.? Since when does the clay control the potter? Thanks Christian and Michelle and W.A. crew
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
Simple, the prop will raise the yearly limit on rent increases from 5% to 10%! That alone is a RED FLAG of greed in play. For those living on a fixed income that quickly translates to dealing with a potential $50 increase next year to $100. That then literally means someone like me on Soc. Sec. Disability estimating that I'll be forced into homelessness in less than 7 years from now. Add the ridiculous increases from PG & E that have already taken place & my ability to keep a roof over my head shortens the time frame even further....
When LA city houses one homeless person it costs LA City taxpayers over $ 900,000 (look up prop HHH ) or equal to a mortgage , tax and insurance payment of $7,000 a month !! Yet these same politicians think that while the Minimum wage went up 90% in the last 10 years that a 22 % rent increase is fair to owners . As a Apartment Manager i can tell you 80% of tenants now pay so little they will never move out (worst case is a $700.00 a month for a 2 bedroom in Burbank adjacent Sun Valley and 2nd worst is 4 working age adults in a one bedroom paying $720.00 in that case they pay the rent in one work day and drink a case of beer daily) , do you think the owner can keep up with bills that are going up faster than Min. Wage ( they have almost pulled out all the Equity from down payment to stay afloat) ? Do you think the tenants will ever move out and free up some supply when they pay rents from 15 years ago ? Do you see any incentive to make more Apartment Housing for tenants by Owners ? Did you notice rents went down in 2008 with banners of 2 months free with a one year lease and do you wonder why that did not happen in this last cycle ? Hence why there is a housing shortage !! Is it OK to steal private property because the other guy is richer than you and it gets a yes vote by the majority (if that was ok why don't we vote and see if gasoline at 30% of market or $2.00 does not pass and let’s see how long gas stations stay open before we have to Nationalize Gasoline and become Venezuela ? I bet most renters are wealthy compared to the bums that do not work and live in the sidewalk , imagine they outvoted you and some politician decided to steal your car (to buy votes from the bums ) because it was for the greater good that the bum needs it to go look for a job and you could go buy another car with the job you already have, think it’s absurd well the stealing of Properties is worse than 5 years of work a car is, in fact it maybe many lifetimes of Equity being stolen. When big the Gov. has to be the new owner because no one wants to be the owner, well it’s not hard to see either taxes go up 50% since anything gov. does cost more or we become Cuba !
Hard no. Who reimburses owners for increased insurance and taxes while keeping rent the same? Rent control only helps a handful of renters lucky enough to find a rent control apartment... and they never leave. It also lowers property values for the area.
Its not like affordable housing has ever been good in the past. I was a single mom with a baby struggling. I tried to get into affordable housing and was never able to. All you get is decade long waiting lists, you have to reapply to each complex every year and just wait. Meanwhile children grow and affordable housing never calls.
I'm more confused. My rent on mobile home space rent goes up every fall and I'm on a fixed income. It just went up 40.00. If my son wasn't living here sharing the cost, I wouldn't be able to afford it.
So if cities enact more strict rent control, there will be no to little new construction in those cities because it’s not financially viable for landlords. It doesn’t make sense to me why any smaller cities would enact strict rent controls than to kill their own growth
Instead of rent control it should be a mortgage control otherwise I would rent my units a lot more less, I'm just covering the mortgage payment and yet they raised my property taxes and home insurance, there is no control there right
This probably won't be seen, but are local municipalities allowed to enact their own zoning laws concerning density? If so, it doesn't seem fair that a local municipality is allowed to restrict supply of resource (housing) but is not allowed to enact price controls on said resource.
I have six rental properties in the city of Orange. I bought my first property when I was 24 years old, $6 an hour, 80 hours a week, for 3 years. With the rent control that exist now in California. I raise the rent the maximum amount every year about $200. I used to be much more relaxed, I just didn't want them to move out so I would raise it $100 every two years or not at all, It didn’t really matter. It’s not that much more money for me compared to the equity. Now I raise it the maximum amount every year because if I fall behind, I will not be able to sell the property no one will buy it with low rents and the bank will not qualify a new buyer with low rents. Actually I think rent is cheap $3000 a month is nothing compared to $10,000 a month if you had to buy the property.
Prop 33 doesn’t do anything but repeal Costa-Hawkins. That merely gives municipalities the right to set rent controls - it does not force rent controls. My guess is that most cities (especially in SoCal) would not add additional renter protections. Developers preemptively whining about it being harder to develop under rent controls are projecting the fear that that they won’t be able to gouge renters any more in some places. Developers can simply invest somewhere else. For-profit developers have pillaged California into a nearly unlivable, expensive, cookie-cutter mess.
People 33 is a bad idea. Should renters who vote yes and become home owners, their investment won't grow in value. If it passes, It will go like this, should it pass.. 1st: Developers won't see the value in building more housing, and buyers won't see real equity growth. 2nd. Housing that does exist, will be our only supply, and that will come at a huge cost to buyers. 3rd, buyers (90% are usually past renters) won't see a growth in their investment 4th: The government will write all the rules so NO ONE TRUELY IS AN OWNER. 5th: We will be left out worse off than New York style rent control.
Will voting yes, stop investing firms (AIR B&B) from buying up and driving up the price single family homes. Ordinary families just want to afford one house to raise a family and NOT be working multiple jobs to do it.
4:50 wrong. It's definitely NOT all small time landlords. 7:15 wrong. How can you say 33 "will kill affordable housing?" You have a crysyal ball? No one knows what the impact will be. This would only allow cities to enact rent control. Then if they do, there are laws allowing for appeals by landlords of they go underwater, they have a way to supercede rent control. This could , COULD, help level the playing field for renters at risk of displacement, but it would still be up to the individual cities. Yes, some landlords would see less profits, and that's why they always spend millions to defeat this legislation. 7:20 wrong. "No" incentive to build? Cities aren't that stupid. Please speak accurately... say "building/ development MIGHT not be as profitable." Period. 8:50 (are you are speaking on the "PRO" side yet?). People are contestant struggling to increase wages... heck, minimum wage increase is on the ballot, at least for Oakland. But it's so incremental. One more dollar per hour? That doesn't exactly help with my 50% rent increase in our single family home. 9:30... hey, i thought you were going to discuss the "pro-33" side. This is a totally specious argument. Yes on 33 DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING... Allowing cities to tailor rent control for themselves. 9:50. No it doesn't decrease rent but cities will be able to show down the rent hikes for some buildings. 10:25 . Studies are out there but unfortunately you have to know who's funding them and spinning the results before you read and take the results with a grain of salt. Ugh. This video is a case in point! 11:08, wrong! Again with the "no incentive" to build. To be accurate, say "there could be less incentive" to build.
I sincerely appreciate the passion in your response and for watching the whole video! It may help to clarify AB 1482, the statewide rent control in place. Any LLC that owns a single family home or condo is subject to AB 1482 (unless the home received its certificate of occupancy less than 15 years ago). All of these homes (and duplexes and bigger that are older than 15 years) are subject to AB 1482 and have an annual rent cap of 5% plus CPI with a max of 10%. It sounds like you are in a home that is exempt from AB 1482, hence your big increase. Not everyone experiences this. Many rentals fall under AB 1482 rent caps. And 640,000 units in LA City under the RSO had no rent increases from March 2020 to February 2024 and then a 4% annual increase. Those are the current laws on the books right now. As for affordable housing and housing construction in general, we are already way behind construction levels under the current laws...do I really need to say "could" or "maybe" if rent control laws were even tighter? You don't need a crystal ball for that. It's easy to see. And yes, cities do create laws to stop housing being built...please read "The Color of Law." We still feel those ramifications in the housing market today. As for landlords being able to make a profit if they are upside down, please take a look at how tough the process is to apply for this (must use the NOI from 1977 or wait 2 years if you bought it and don't have recent records, plus other tough hurdles) 👉 housing2.lacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-and-Reasonable-Application-Packet-2023.pdf As for the studies, I understand some people assume the studies AGAINST rent control are flawed because of who is funding them (but again, that is a fallacy and you need to actually review the methodology and data to see if it's flawed)...I was asking for several studies showing that rent control DOES work...why not link those in the voter guide? No need to refute what I say, just bring some solid arguments and research showing how tighter rent control will help...then it's an easy yes.
The left of center Brookings Institute has studied the actual impact of rent control and it makes the problem worse for most over time. Economists left, right, center, and even socialist economists agree that rent control is bad policy.
You didn’t give any reason to not vote yes on prop 33. Your argument that areas that don’t have rent control will build, okay, if they build too much tho, then that area will become a renter majority and if prop 33 passes, that city would then have the ability to enact rent laws at any time, or change them at any time. So even if a neighboring city that doesn’t have ren control builds, they could still have rent control down the line, also those new builds would have to price their builds competitively compared to a neighboring city that does. If the neighboring city has rent control, why would a renter move into a non rent control neighboring city in SoCal? Cities are touching in a lot of CA so there would be competition keeping the cost of rent, in new builds in non rent cities, down. Prop 33 offers flexibility to a city, offers the city the ability to enact laws that fits its vision for the success of its citizens. Some cities are 70% renters, every city should be aiming for a more equal % of renter/owner. If landlords don’t like the possibility of renters out voting them, they shouldn’t have bought in renter majority regions, sounds like a bad business call.
WHY IS RENT HIGH IN CALIFORNIA? Stop passing nonessential propositions. They are passed on as property tax. Property tax is RAISED EVERY YEAR with penalty for late payment. That is passed on as RENT. It's ok to punish scumlords but I know many, nice property owners who would love to rent out in laws in Nor CA but don't want to deal with pro squatter laws. Many were scammed. They rather wait for right candidates and keep the property empty.
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians middle class versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
Let’s stop LANDLORD take away our hard working money VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34 Prop 33 has nothing to do with housing problem Landlord play this game last few years But this time is not working Out government control of Landlord not rise rent to the point tenant become Homeless VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34 VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34
Yes or no on Prop 33? Your thoughts?
Well, I believe in a free market, so all rent control is gov overreach imo. [To me, the answer is, get millions of illegals out, & that'll saturate the market with rentals, which will put the market back at a fair rate. And, we're not supposed to have monopolies, so I'm not sure why billionaires are allowed to buy everything, 🤔 And, I think counties should approve more development & single family homes built.] Ignore the double negative, grammar police. 😂
Hell no
No
Hell Fng No!!!!
Yes, simply put it can stop an egregious increase in rent. It's really annoying to get a 60% increase in one month and then have a day to respond back with a letter proving your 30 days notice to leave. If you have ever been in that situation, then you are likely for it. It's not something a mom and pop would do anyway so I don't see how they will think it unfairly targets them. When properties are sold, its quite common for there to be a rent spike over 20%. As a renter, I just want to know what the next years cap will be; I don't think that is a bad thing.
Decrease property taxes and pass it on to the renters, How about cost of construction control, How about cost of maintenance control, How about cost of insurance control, How about cost of Liabilities control
yeah but that doesn't 'buy' votes compared to what leftist electeds will receive being 'advocates' and 'haters' of property owners for rent control...
I was a small time landlord in California. (I own a one bedroom condo in the city which I live in myself, plus one modest single family home in the countryside that I used to rent for income.) I preemptively stopped renting the single family home when my last tenants moved out based on the general direction state legislation was moving in. I'm not bothered by rent control per se since I've never raised anyone's rent by more that the amount currently prescribed by state or local law. But I was very much against any law that would take away my ability to re-inhabit my own home when the time came since the home was always meant to be my retirement destination. If these laws are meant to keep renters in their existing homes at a stable price, they may work. But the side effect is many people like myself are removing units from the market altogether.
Get a real job
Then the housing market declines as more product is becomes vailable.
Hey if you can afford the rent and mortgage on both, more power to you, but there a lot of landlords with more then one unit/home they are renting out, who rely on renters to pay mortgages and wouldn’t be able to afford to do this. So hopefully they would sell some units instead. Renters are tired of their rents going up 8-10% a yr, meanwhile owners taxes are locked in at 1% a year with a 2% appraisal growth a year. We’ve tried costa Hawkins for 30 years and have not seen the growth that is being promised in keeping it. If we had seen that amount of growth we wouldn’t be here in this situation today, with rents skyrocketing. Investors, banks, PE, developers, would never build enough to achieve what renters are asking for, which is that their rents don’t rise 8-10% a year, because building THAT much new housing would be just as detrimental to their profit as they argue rent control is. That’s why scarcity is manipulated to exist, it increases their bottom line. NIMBY, zoning, special permits can all be pushed by people with alternative motives. At least with a yes on prop 33 renters in majority renter zones can try to stabilize these increases. Which would also help stabilize the value of the market, helping to keep taxes lower, helping to keep the price to buy land, to develop on, cheaper.
You sound like a really fair man. Landlords aren't really too popular these days. God Bless you.
Communism is not the answer
I am a "Mom and Pop" landlord with only a duplex in Dana Point that I rent out under market rate already. I'm a hard "No" on Prop 33. Even though I don't think the city of Dana Point would not enact crazy rent control restrictions. I hope. Problem is, I don't now how crazy anything COULD be if Prop 33 passes.
.
Same here, I am a small landlord and my rents are under market. I live in a small town (Tehachapi), if rents were caped with no reduction in property tax and insurance, I might have to think about selling.
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
Same
@@robertjones2820land lords having to sell their spare homes is the best argument one could make for voting YES on 33.
“I rent under market value” is such a scam statement, you’re simply competing against other land lords who have outrageously inflated prices.
For example, if “market value” is 2,000, on a place that should be 1,000, and you’re charging 1500, you are not charging “under market value”, you are charging 500 over what it should cost.
wow thank you for the video it helped a lot. Costa Hawkins has been aorund since 95 and it's pretty safe to say it didnt work. So I agree we should blow it up, let local counties enact their own rent control laws according to their needs and see what happens after that. Current laws just arn't working. I've seen to many of my friends get evicted due to their rent going way up that they could no longer afford to live there. This will help that.
Yes on 33!!!
Hey how about you stop complaining and buy a damn house. If you live in expensive city either educate yourself so you can make more money or move to a cheaper city where you can afford a house. Stop looking for the government to solve your issues at that rate you’ll be disappointed your whole life.
A statewide rule seems smarter. Prop 33 would leave it to each municipality, so that's messy. I do support a law that covers all rentals, not just the old buildings - thats not really fair. I like Costa Hawkins. Every unit should begin at market price.
I’m still unsure
Same
Let me see: Property insurance is up (companies leaving the state), utilities keep going up, trash service up, labor to fix things is up, prices of supplies are up; but they want the rent to stay the same-because companies are making record profits; but don't want to increase salaries and people can't afford it. I see. And I am the bad guy because: I worked my rear end off; many YEARS working TWO jobs back to back, to SAVE for a down payment; paid my debts on time to have good credit to obtain a mortgage; learned to fix many things in order to SAVE more money, paid that mortgage for many years faithfully to this date; the property has appreciated in value (because there are not as many available); and because the same government has depreciated the value of the dollar through printing out of thin air to give it to their "war machine" friends. And because I locked that mortgage payment years ago and I am able to rent it making a profit? Yeah, it is a HELL NO for me on Prop 33.
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
😆 scum bag
@@albundy3929 Who said it is easy? If you think landlords are evil...wait until big corporations buy up all the small landlords like me...(which is inevitably with all the new laws being approved).
Times were so simple back then. I can't get a single-family home in my area making 150-200k annually
@albundy3929 imagine being a top 10-5% earner for a "starter" home going for 950k-1.2M single family, or imagine paying 2-3x the rent amount to call it "homeownership"
I'm in SoCal, I studied real estate as well, I'd like to think I know a bit about it here and there after 4 years of analyzing my local market.
It's impressive to hire people at that wage, I'm sure there's lots of wisdom and truth to what you say, but times have changed.
It's not that I'm not willing to "sacrifice" anything, I've sacrificed a lot, from time away from family, to personal life, things, etc. The harder you work the harder you're taxed, my savings don't catch up to inflation and I don't have an exciting amount of money to be stoked on a 20% annual return by investing either.
More than 90% of new homeowners in 2023 completely regret it because they are worse off according to many studies.
Something is broken, something isn't working for those who put in the work. It's frustrating
Maybe if the greedy landlords weren't increasing rent by 8% EACH YEAR, we wouldn't be so fed up.
Not all landlords are greedy..
You have the freedom to move anywhere and negotiate any rental terms you like with a landlord that would agree to them. You don’t have to live in one of the most expensive places on the planet. You also have the freedom to buy a home instead. Why do you think it’s appropriate for the government, full of people with zero real estate experience to tell landlords what to charge? That’s a lot like health insurance companies telling doctors how to treat patients. Neither one makes any sense.
It is not landlord greediness, it is increasing property taxes, insanely increasing home insurances, highly expensive maintenance, nonsense profit tax and list goes on. I mean you have to have property in order to understand these costs. Another words everything rising equally except incomes.
@MelroseFurniture , yup..my hoa fees have gone up 3x in 5 years, plus there was a 1,500 special assessment, parts and labor have gone up, property insurance has gone up, then my property tax went up..
I’m not greedy. I rented a room for $600. You couldn’t get anything around here (CA) near work for that price.
Thank you for this video. You gave great examples and explained prop 33 i was struggling to find an easy understanding for it.
I personally voted NO on prop 33
And u voted for the right choice!
Thanks Christian. This is the best review I've heard/read on Prop 33. I like your ideas too. You bring much needed thoughtful leadership to a challenging situation.
It's too late, the rent has already been increased, and now, after only four years, they expect us to vote yes as if it will make a difference. Come on, the city is just trying to gather as many incentives as possible.
Thank you!!!! I learned something new today: The fallacy of origin 6:44
Thanks! That's a big one that politicians love to misuse!
Voting "Yes" on Proposition 33 is critical to safeguarding renters' rights and addressing California's deepening housing crisis. Repealing the Costa-Hawkins Act would allow local governments to impose more robust rent control policies, protecting millions of tenants from sharp rent increases. These protections are vital, especially in areas where rent hikes drive vulnerable families to the brink of displacement. Without the ability to control skyrocketing rents, many renters could face eviction, potentially ending up homeless or living in precarious situations. The opposition, which includes MAGA Republicans and business groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, is primarily concerned with protecting landlords' profits. Their "No" campaign often uses scare tactics directed at homeowners even though Prop 33 mainly impacts rental properties, not homeownership. Voting "No" would maintain the status quo, which leaves tenants vulnerable to rent gouging, potentially forcing them out of their homes and even exacerbating the homelessness crisis . By voting "Yes" on Prop 33, we can help prevent more people from being pushed into homelessness and ensure renters have the protections they need to stay in their communities.
Many landlords will sell their properties if government keeps telling them what to do with their property. Unless you're ready to buy your own house, be careful how you vote. I know many landlords who are planning on selling their rental properties to family members so they don't have to deal with this kind of crap. If you think there's a rental house shortage now, prop 33 will make it worse.
Do we need more homes? I see many for rent in the city. They’re all just over $2000 for a studio apt
Yep! Add another 50 or 100 of those to the market at the same time and prices won't stay at $2000 for a studio...📉
@ I already see so many buildings being built on my way to work. They stopped building that building in the DTLA skyline and it’s just abandoned now. I hear what you’re saying. You make so many valid points especially this affecting more than Los Angeles (which is where I live)
NO on Prop #33…. Come up with a better proposition next year.
I think that the local government should use the taxes It receives to build several apartment complexes until the renters market becomes so plentiful that there’s excess and that excess will of option will cause them to compete and lower prices.
Vote No on 33 if you think government already has too much control over our lives. Or if you own a home, or if you ever want to own a home someday. Or if you don’t agree with communist principles.
Can anyone answer this question. RSO mom and pop duplex CALIFORNIA owner evicts for owner occupancy / the law is not clear when can you finally re rent for market value. The bulletin states that the family or owner must remain in the unit for two years and then re rent the unit at the previous rental rate, including the 4% of time it was off the market. BUT WHEN CAN YOU ACUTALLY GET MARKET RATE RENT BACK FOR THE UNIT.
@whereyallat2day I'm starting to think duplex owners should team up against this crap, & sell each other a unit for a month, & then sell it back, and then you'd be able to reset price. 😅
Only problem with that is the increased property tax
@@carolynroberts2924 I know. There's no getting around gov sticking their hand in your pocket. 😅
The biggest problem with housing is it is so difficult to build new housing if you want to solve the housing crisis speed up the permit process to build new houses.
I'm voting no. Because at least we have some control in writing. Voting yes is a Gamble, the way I see it. The only real solution is to increase a person's access to multi streams of income. I just moved here to San Diego and it's absolutely gorgeous. If everyone could afford to live here due to cheap rent, it would be overpopulated. We just have to figure out ways to make it affordable for those who really want to enjoy the privilege of being here.
Not much attention has been given to the text that Proposition 33 puts into the California Code. To me this text implies literally that AB 1482 will have no authority in California if Proposition 33 passes? The text that would be added to the code reads :"The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control." I live in a city where rent control/evictions law at the city level is maintained as no such laws and it follows state law by default. If Proposition 33 passes, then my city maintains its rent law status. Then the state law AB 1482 protection does not apply because the state must yield to the local law. Then my property owner pounces. Legally, this is what I understand when I read the text?
Very good question. The short answer is that eliminating Costa Hawkins will not automatically eliminate AB 1482. The civil code that Prop 33 redacts is in section 1950 and NOT section 1946 and 1947 (where AB 1482 "lives"). If Prop 33 passes, then the statewide rent control will stay in place, unless a local area puts tighter restrictions in place.
Thanks Christian for this video! Very helpful.
For me the mom & pop who own one or two rental units are not what is driving up rents. It's the corporations buying up everything and turning them into Air B & Bs or rental units for profit. Just my opinion.
Sorry landlords but private equity firms and ai algorithms are to blame for the downfall of your industry, not the renters. I'm voting yes for rent control on this one due to this very reason.
what you said makes no sense. "landlords" are not some ambiguous evil group... they are property owners on the hook for increased property insurance (35% this year) and increased property taxes.
@@chrissilkwood5439 if you don't know what is going on with private equity firms and ai algorithms in the housing market and how it is bad for landlords AND renters, you should probably do your research.
Nice summary of Prop 33. However, I keep wondering why there are no post assessments of Costa-Hawkins mentioned. If Costa-Hawkins is working as intended, why is there a shortage of housing @ unaffordable rents/prices in CA? On the flip side, why is there an assumption that local governments are going to be too restrictive if 33 passes - aren’t are local representatives smart enough to balance rent and vacancy control against a reasonable profit for landlords or new construction? Opponents to 33 say no, however, many of those same opponents support Prop 5 that gives more control on affordable housing to local governments.
Very good question! Maybe it shows that Costa Hawkins was too restrictive in the rent control that it allowed to remain (for example, the 640,000+ units in LA City) and it should have eliminated ALL rent control. Or maybe the shortage of housing and rents would be even worse had Costa Hawkins not gone into place. Hard to tell, but would be interesting.
As for local governments being too restrictive if passed, we already have a shortage now with the current regulations, how would local governments be able to further restrict things AND increase construction?
Prop 5 is not about local governments, it's about the people (voters), i.e. it allows 55% vote of the local electorate, rather than the current two-thirds approval requirement to pass certain bonds would have to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure. This makes it easier for people (voters) to vote on creating affordable housing. This does not contradict with a no on Prop 33...whatever leads to more housing, helps make housing more affordable.
Because the law passed I just raised my tenants rent. First time since 2020. I will now raise it the allotted 8.8% per year. He is paying $600. under market rate.
That was my thought
Why is there a shortage still? Look at the local level where housing is governed. CA's zoning is restrictive, local govts let people shut down housing projects for petty reasons, and then you have places like SF where it takes like 2 whole years just to get approved (SF has the longest approval process in the country which materializes as expensive af construction costs). This has been going on for decades. Only recently has there been any movement on increasing efficiencies in the housing market.
I voted yes on 33 because clearly what we have now is not good enough. The no on prop 33 ads say Gavin Newsom signed the toughest rent control in America into law - I say BFD 🙄 because lots of people are having a very difficult time finding affordable places to live. As far as vouchers and minimum wage increases you know republicans fight things like that because God forbid anyone (especially poor people but not their billionaire buddies) get anything more than they ‘deserve’.
Yes on rent control
Wake up!
Hope you're saving your money to buy your own house! Landlords are not going to want to rent anymore. No one is going to want to invest in rental property. Many would rather leave their rental homes vacant or just sell or rent to their own families. So save your money for a down payment, home repairs, property taxes, expensive California insurance, etc.
Is it proper for the owner to pass down his higher insurance costs and property taxes onto the tenant? In my case, this keeps happening. The place I rent is already paid off.
@@albundy3929 yes!
That’s the funny part. Rents are priced as if they have a mortgage to pay still but a lot of them are 100% paid off, only seeing a 1% property tax, 2% appraisal growth a year. I know the place I rent is paid off too yet my rent is priced as if they are still paying a mortgage, it’s still priced at this overvalued “market rate”. They never pass savings on down to the renter.
@@albundy3929cue the stats on the growing number of homeless. Housing is a necessity, you’re just a leech, profiting off a human necessity, acting like you’re doing the people a favor. Lmao you didn’t build shit. You just had more money than a younger generation.
Senior apartment complex
Sold to a for profit from a not for profit. They cut services and are raising rent greater than 10%
Is this legal??
Is it part of the LIHTC program? AKA affordable housing? Those are exempt from rent control and the rent increases are part of the contract with the Federal government. Is the building less than 15 years old ?
Thing happened. I don't like thing. Thing is bad. Isn't Thing illegal? No? Let's make Thing illegal.
Thus, the thought process of the majority of the American electorate. No careful review of both cause and effect. No reflecting on personal biases and conflicts of interest. Just if it's not good for me, it should be illegal.
Voted NO!!
Why can't there be a specific bill Dividing the mom and pop landlords and the corporate landlords?
@@IsraelN626 Good question! That's what the Tenant Protection Act is trying to do right now...
Thank you for this
Being a tenant living at the mercy of a landlord on a month-to-month lease is basically like homelessness+ to me, meaning that I regard it as being one step above homelessness, or almost a form of homelessness. When you live in a rented space, can you really call it your home? First of all, how do you define, "home"? For me, home should be a place of refuge and relative comfort and security from the elements, where your personal items remain relatively unmolested, where you can get a spot of privacy from the world, and perhaps most importantly, you know that you can remain there, and nobody can kick you out on a whim. Does a tenant have these things? Not in any meaningful way. At any time, for month-to-month tenants -- and the vast majority of us fall under this category -- a landlord can decide he wants us to vacate "his" property with only 30 days notice (with a perhaps a bit of variation depending upon the state law). It doesn't matter if you grew up there, raised your kids there, are unlikely to find a comparable lodging, are elderly, or if you are disabled. The landlord's "property rights" take precedence over all other concerns. Tenants live in a state of perpetual insecurity about their future. With the possible exception of a few scattered municipalities, landlords have no limits on what they can charge, and they'll raise it up as soon and as much as they can get away with, being unconcerned with whatever difficulties or hardships rent increases cause, or if it drives you out of your 'home.' Yes, there are sometimes laws regulating the rate at which they can legally increase rent on tenants already dwelling in a 'unit,' but if they really want to Jack the rent up, they have no qualms about kicking you out on the street, and putting the place back up for rent at a higher price per month.
And as for privacy? Don't make me laugh. Landlords routinely do background checks, and credit checks on prospective tenants, and more and more are checking them out online, scrutinizing them on social media, to figure out if you're a good, obedient, law-abiding, non-radical type who won't cause any trouble and will accept routinely forking over massive amounts of money to live in a dwelling they own but don't live in. And that's just the initial evaluation. Supposing that you are allowed in, then the landlord, or his agents will be there watching, seeing when you come and go, what you do, who visits, and how long they stay. They could be carefully staking you out every day if they want to, and many do. Landlords don't want 'trouble maker’ tenants, they want meek, scared, obedient tenants who are afraid of them and law enforcement (who will readily remove people from 'their property’ should they desire it). Yes, tenants have a few scant legal recourses at their disposal, such as fighting eviction in court, but typically it just delays, rather than stops it. Additionally, with only 24 hour notice, they are legally entitled to enter 'their property’ whenever they want. Doesn't matter if you want them there or not. So much for privacy. Your privacy doesn't trump their property rights, after all.
Loved this video, really helped me understand this whole thing. Im voting NO on prop 33 😊
Definitely no on 33. There's enough data to realize that rent control hurts affordability. The only people who benefit from this are people who have been renting and do not/can't move. The ones it hurt the most are people who have to move.
.
yeah people will never ever move.....this is bad
2k 1 bedroom apartments are no affordable, that’s currently
@HeartOfFaith4Jesus but if you're lucky to have been one of the renters already there, it's probably for way under market value. The only caveat is that you can't move. Otherwise, you'll have to pay the new rent controlled, driven market value.
not biased information at all!!!
ALL rent control causes higher costs for tenants. Why? All business enterprises pass on all costs of operation to their business. When they can’t do this legally, they quit the business. That is why there is a housing shortage and a rental housing shortage. Government or citizen citizen sponsored controls of services alway end in higher costs of the services or a loss of the service or product.
This is such illogical nonsense
There is a housing shortage because douche bags like you own multiple homes lol
I came here looking for an unbiased opinion because I was truly undecided. This is good information but I also feel like it is slightly biased in favor of Costa Hawkins. Thanks for the information.
Super helpful video, thank you! 🙏🏻
Rent is getting out of control. It's like every time we vote No, they raise the rent. It's about time we say Yes!
This one seems almost as complex and controversial as minimum wage increases. It's easy to have a biased answer, but it's truly not that simple. From what I've noticed though, prop 33 is a hard NO for most people.
This is great, thank you!!!
Oh no! If landlords sell their properties then who will live in them??? Oh right. People who own their home.
Oh, no...
No on 33
rent prices are very competitive. putting controls on rent will mean landlords will have incentive to remove a home or apartment from the rental market and sell or turn it into a coop.not going to lower or control most rental prices.
Renters don’t care who owns the building they rent, they just care about their rents rising 8-10% a year. So if a landlord did sell to a coop, then that new owner, would still be subjected to the rent control laws passed in that city.
Love You Jimmy.
Can you run?
Thanks so much for this breakdown! Appreciate it, this has been a real irritation!
When the costa hawkins past, there were tons of developers building housing.
What stopped construction was the 2008 financial crisis.
Currently, housing is being built, and we have state wide rent stabilization. This is a balance that we need to maintain.
Rents are high, well salaries are too damn low. Fight for fair wages.
What stopped building is all the regulation causing extortion lawsuits, slow permitting from cities that simply don't care about time value of money, NIMBY residents, and property taxes being pushed on the new builders far exceeding the burden they cause (due to the tax increase limit on existing housing - so they push unfeasible taxes/building fees on new builds).
Cheap track homes trusses on 24 inch centers. I just called it all garbage and be happy.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Audio was on my end, thank and good job
@@ALLworldCONSTRUCTIONLLC much appreciated!
VOTE NO ON PROP 33!
Yes
What option hurts landlords? I want that. I don’t care if it’s a billionaire or mom and pop. Both have more money than me.
Thank you for this explanation.
I have ZERO sympathy for these leaches, I'm on SSDI the same month I get an increase because of the cost of living my rent get increase the same amount. i hope this gets passed
What are you going to do when the owner decides to sell?
@@rachele9566 they won't because this house will need too much work for it to be worth selling
@rachele9566 they can rent from me. I'm not a greedy landlord.
Appreciate you for doing this.
I’m voting yes on prop 33
Christian, thank you so much for this clear and concise breakdown. I'm filling my ballot out right now (11/3/24). You're the man. Also, I listened to the WHOLE video. GOD bless you. 🎉😂❤
Part of me being the slightly elderly capitalist that does not want government interfering with how income should be earned - yet I see how the youth barely get by on the wages in California/. And we are losing good young minds to other states. I feel part of the solution is to lower property taxes as it is a % of our high home . I am swaying towards a yes
Sound cutting in and out every few seconds
All these landlords crying about not being able to gouge their tenants is awesome 😂 YES ON 33
Landlords are going to sell! Get ready to buy your OWN house! I hope you have enough for a down payment, property taxes, property insurance, maintenance costs, closing costs, mortgage payments, etc.
@@rachele9566 I am a 95k earner, as of 2021 I had around 24k saved for a down,I now have 41k. Interest rates, mixed with wildly inflated housing prices, which have been exacerbated by corporate landlords buying millions of homes, make it impossible for me to buy a house where I live. Now they’re spending 150million on this bill to protect that investment into the commodification of housing, and them selling their houses is somehow going to be a bad thing for people like me? Fuck outta here 😆
Typical gov proposal, expands the optics that gov has more power while imposing upon the real authors of gov, the people. Authority comes from the authors. Who made who, did gov make the people or did the people make the gov.? Since when does the clay control the potter?
Thanks Christian and Michelle and W.A. crew
It's called communism. Allowing the government to tell you what to do with your own property. My property, my choice. Reject communism, vote no on prop 33!!!
Thank You
Simple, the prop will raise the yearly limit on rent increases from 5% to 10%! That alone is a RED FLAG of greed in play. For those living on a fixed income that quickly translates to dealing with a potential $50 increase next year to $100. That then literally means someone like me on Soc. Sec. Disability estimating that I'll be forced into homelessness in less than 7 years from now. Add the ridiculous increases from PG & E that have already taken place & my ability to keep a roof over my head shortens the time frame even further....
Great explanation. Thanks.
When LA city houses one homeless person it costs LA City taxpayers over $ 900,000 (look up prop HHH ) or equal to a mortgage , tax and insurance payment of $7,000 a month !! Yet these same politicians think that while the Minimum wage went up 90% in the last 10 years that a 22 % rent increase is fair to owners . As a Apartment Manager i can tell you 80% of tenants now pay so little they will never move out (worst case is a $700.00 a month for a 2 bedroom in Burbank adjacent Sun Valley and 2nd worst is 4 working age adults in a one bedroom paying $720.00 in that case they pay the rent in one work day and drink a case of beer daily) , do you think the owner can keep up with bills that are going up faster than Min. Wage ( they have almost pulled out all the Equity from down payment to stay afloat) ? Do you think the tenants will ever move out and free up some supply when they pay rents from 15 years ago ? Do you see any incentive to make more Apartment Housing for tenants by Owners ? Did you notice rents went down in 2008 with banners of 2 months free with a one year lease and do you wonder why that did not happen in this last cycle ? Hence why there is a housing shortage !!
Is it OK to steal private property because the other guy is richer than you and it gets a yes vote by the majority (if that was ok why don't we vote and see if gasoline at 30% of market or $2.00 does not pass and let’s see how long gas stations stay open before we have to Nationalize Gasoline and become Venezuela ? I bet most renters are wealthy compared to the bums that do not work and live in the sidewalk , imagine they outvoted you and some politician decided to steal your car (to buy votes from the bums ) because it was for the greater good that the bum needs it to go look for a job and you could go buy another car with the job you already have, think it’s absurd well the stealing of Properties is worse than 5 years of work a car is, in fact it maybe many lifetimes of Equity being stolen. When big the Gov. has to be the new owner because no one wants to be the owner, well it’s not hard to see either taxes go up 50% since anything gov. does cost more or we become Cuba !
Almost Anytime they include the words justice, fair, inclusion, separation as an American you should probably vote No !
Why is it always california.
Hard no. Who reimburses owners for increased insurance and taxes while keeping rent the same? Rent control only helps a handful of renters lucky enough to find a rent control apartment... and they never leave. It also lowers property values for the area.
Wake up. You’re so brainwashed and misinformed man
Its not like affordable housing has ever been good in the past. I was a single mom with a baby struggling. I tried to get into affordable housing and was never able to. All you get is decade long waiting lists, you have to reapply to each complex every year and just wait. Meanwhile children grow and affordable housing never calls.
I'm more confused. My rent on mobile home space rent goes up every fall and I'm on a fixed income. It just went up 40.00. If my son wasn't living here sharing the cost, I wouldn't be able to afford it.
I voted yes! I'm tired of these fast good mascots pedaling their garbage food on our kids!
So if cities enact more strict rent control, there will be no to little new construction in those cities because it’s not financially viable for landlords. It doesn’t make sense to me why any smaller cities would enact strict rent controls than to kill their own growth
less development and habitat loss.. that's enough for me.
perhaps, people can practice birth control.
thanks😀
Instead of rent control it should be a mortgage control otherwise I would rent my units a lot more less, I'm just covering the mortgage payment and yet they raised my property taxes and home insurance, there is no control there right
"I'm a loser with a $5,000 monthly Tesla payment, so yes, I want rent control to offset my immature spending habits"
this guy is why you want to vote YES!! keep showing your stripes.. it helps everyone know how to vote.
I guess I will vote No. I don’t want section 8 buildings by my building.
This probably won't be seen, but are local municipalities allowed to enact their own zoning laws concerning density? If so, it doesn't seem fair that a local municipality is allowed to restrict supply of resource (housing) but is not allowed to enact price controls on said resource.
I have six rental properties in the city of Orange. I bought my first property when I was 24 years old, $6 an hour, 80 hours a week, for 3 years. With the rent control that exist now in California. I raise the rent the maximum amount every year about $200. I used to be much more relaxed, I just didn't want them to move out so I would raise it $100 every two years or not at all, It didn’t really matter. It’s not that much more money for me compared to the equity. Now I raise it the maximum amount every year because if I fall behind, I will not be able to sell the property no one will buy it with low rents and the bank will not qualify a new buyer with low rents. Actually I think rent is cheap $3000 a month is nothing compared to $10,000 a month if you had to buy the property.
No
Prop 33 doesn’t do anything but repeal Costa-Hawkins. That merely gives municipalities the right to set rent controls - it does not force rent controls. My guess is that most cities (especially in SoCal) would not add additional renter protections. Developers preemptively whining about it being harder to develop under rent controls are projecting the fear that that they won’t be able to gouge renters any more in some places. Developers can simply invest somewhere else. For-profit developers have pillaged California into a nearly unlivable, expensive, cookie-cutter mess.
People 33 is a bad idea. Should renters who vote yes and become home owners, their investment won't grow in value.
If it passes, It will go like this, should it pass..
1st: Developers won't see the value in building more housing, and buyers won't see real equity growth.
2nd. Housing that does exist, will be our only supply, and that will come at a huge cost to buyers.
3rd, buyers (90% are usually past renters) won't see a growth in their investment
4th: The government will write all the rules so NO ONE TRUELY IS AN OWNER.
5th: We will be left out worse off than New York style rent control.
And what's going on right now is better?
Curious if you supported prop 19. What say you?
NO on Prop 33, YES on Prop 34
Will voting yes, stop investing firms (AIR B&B) from buying up and driving up the price single family homes. Ordinary families just want to afford one house to raise a family and NOT be working multiple jobs to do it.
4:50 wrong. It's definitely NOT all small time landlords.
7:15 wrong. How can you say 33 "will kill affordable housing?" You have a crysyal ball? No one knows what the impact will be. This would only allow cities to enact rent control. Then if they do, there are laws allowing for appeals by landlords of they go underwater, they have a way to supercede rent control. This could , COULD, help level the playing field for renters at risk of displacement, but it would still be up to the individual cities. Yes, some landlords would see less profits, and that's why they always spend millions to defeat this legislation.
7:20 wrong. "No" incentive to build? Cities aren't that stupid. Please speak accurately... say "building/ development MIGHT not be as profitable." Period.
8:50 (are you are speaking on the "PRO" side yet?). People are contestant struggling to increase wages... heck, minimum wage increase is on the ballot, at least for Oakland. But it's so incremental. One more dollar per hour? That doesn't exactly help with my 50% rent increase in our single family home.
9:30... hey, i thought you were going to discuss the "pro-33" side. This is a totally specious argument. Yes on 33 DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING... Allowing cities to tailor rent control for themselves.
9:50. No it doesn't decrease rent but cities will be able to show down the rent hikes for some buildings.
10:25 . Studies are out there but unfortunately you have to know who's funding them and spinning the results before you read and take the results with a grain of salt.
Ugh. This video is a case in point!
11:08, wrong! Again with the "no incentive" to build. To be accurate, say "there could be less incentive" to build.
I sincerely appreciate the passion in your response and for watching the whole video! It may help to clarify AB 1482, the statewide rent control in place. Any LLC that owns a single family home or condo is subject to AB 1482 (unless the home received its certificate of occupancy less than 15 years ago). All of these homes (and duplexes and bigger that are older than 15 years) are subject to AB 1482 and have an annual rent cap of 5% plus CPI with a max of 10%. It sounds like you are in a home that is exempt from AB 1482, hence your big increase. Not everyone experiences this. Many rentals fall under AB 1482 rent caps. And 640,000 units in LA City under the RSO had no rent increases from March 2020 to February 2024 and then a 4% annual increase. Those are the current laws on the books right now.
As for affordable housing and housing construction in general, we are already way behind construction levels under the current laws...do I really need to say "could" or "maybe" if rent control laws were even tighter? You don't need a crystal ball for that. It's easy to see. And yes, cities do create laws to stop housing being built...please read "The Color of Law." We still feel those ramifications in the housing market today.
As for landlords being able to make a profit if they are upside down, please take a look at how tough the process is to apply for this (must use the NOI from 1977 or wait 2 years if you bought it and don't have recent records, plus other tough hurdles) 👉 housing2.lacity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Just-and-Reasonable-Application-Packet-2023.pdf
As for the studies, I understand some people assume the studies AGAINST rent control are flawed because of who is funding them (but again, that is a fallacy and you need to actually review the methodology and data to see if it's flawed)...I was asking for several studies showing that rent control DOES work...why not link those in the voter guide?
No need to refute what I say, just bring some solid arguments and research showing how tighter rent control will help...then it's an easy yes.
@@WIREassociates glad you appreciate the voices of the peasants, my lord-
The left of center Brookings Institute has studied the actual impact of rent control and it makes the problem worse for most over time. Economists left, right, center, and even socialist economists agree that rent control is bad policy.
Reform California is against say no more.
You didn’t give any reason to not vote yes on prop 33. Your argument that areas that don’t have rent control will build, okay, if they build too much tho, then that area will become a renter majority and if prop 33 passes, that city would then have the ability to enact rent laws at any time, or change them at any time. So even if a neighboring city that doesn’t have ren control builds, they could still have rent control down the line, also those new builds would have to price their builds competitively compared to a neighboring city that does. If the neighboring city has rent control, why would a renter move into a non rent control neighboring city in SoCal? Cities are touching in a lot of CA so there would be competition keeping the cost of rent, in new builds in non rent cities, down. Prop 33 offers flexibility to a city, offers the city the ability to enact laws that fits its vision for the success of its citizens. Some cities are 70% renters, every city should be aiming for a more equal % of renter/owner. If landlords don’t like the possibility of renters out voting them, they shouldn’t have bought in renter majority regions, sounds like a bad business call.
WHY IS RENT HIGH IN CALIFORNIA?
Stop passing nonessential propositions. They are passed on as property tax. Property tax is RAISED EVERY YEAR with penalty for late payment. That is passed on as RENT.
It's ok to punish scumlords but I know many, nice property owners who would love to rent out in laws in Nor CA but don't want to deal with pro squatter laws. Many were scammed. They rather wait for right candidates and keep the property empty.
💥BOMBSHELL REPORT from the Transparency Foundation calculates that the total higher costs paid by Californians middle class versus national averages comes to upwards of $28,037 per year! It includes national averages for housing, utilities, food, gas, transportation, healthcare, insurance, childcare, and taxes. Let's vote 🆘️ Red down the ballot‼️
You left out the "nice weather tax!"
Dont rent. Buy property.
i would never vote for that NEVER
Let’s stop LANDLORD take away our hard working money
VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34
Prop 33 has nothing to do with housing problem
Landlord play this game last few years
But this time is not working
Out government control of
Landlord not rise rent to the point tenant become Homeless
VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34
VOTE “YES” TO PROP 33 AND 34