Proposition 33 Explained: How Repealing Costa-Hawkins Will Impact California Renters and Landlords

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Do you think repealing Costa-Hawkins under Proposition 33 will help or hurt California's housing market? Share your thoughts and experiences below!

[@Maurice_yo]

The way i see it, those who plan to use their home as a home wont be affected, those who use homes for profit will be phased out, and the fake home shortage will be gone for a good minute allowing regular people ***right now*** to not be priced out. Thank you for providing a video that convinced me to vote yes on 33

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for watching the video and sharing your perspective! I appreciate your viewpoint, and I’m glad the content helped provide some clarity on Prop 33. It’s great that you’re thinking critically about the impact this proposition could have on both homeowners and the broader housing market. That said, while Prop 33 may seem like it would only affect those using homes as investments, there’s a concern that it could unintentionally shrink the overall housing supply if it discourages new developments and reduces rental housing options over time. This could have long-term effects on everyone, not just investors. I encourage everyone to dig into both sides of the debate so we can all make informed decisions come election time. Thanks again for joining the conversation!

[@nce2251]

This is exactly my take as well, so I'll also be voting yes. All the cons listed for renters are already happening and have been for years; except the one about not moving because of the rent being low, I hadn't heard that one before lol

[@robertgudiel4255]

It’s questionable the statement in the description regarding “vacancy limits” it’s like saying more people want to live here then let’s raise the rent. Rent shouldn’t not be based on location, it should be based on the home and land’s quality.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for this!

[@gustavo8832]

I’m going yes on 33!… My rent went up $300 this month, that’s more than $3000. I’m going to have to pay this year… they have done no renovations. They have done nothing to the property for them. Be justified this, if you don’t like it, you can leave and try to find another place… absurd they have to pass a law that stops these people from crazy amount of RENT with no end This is about greedy people trying to make more money. Nobody’s controlling how much they charge so the government needs to step in. …

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

I get why you feel frustrated-rent increases like the one you’re facing can feel completely unfair, especially when no improvements are made to justify the cost. But Prop 33 might not be the solution we need. It would repeal protections from Costa-Hawkins, allowing rent control to apply to nearly all properties, including single-family homes and new builds, which could actually make things worse. Rent control sounds great in theory, but when landlords can’t raise rents even to cover basic costs like maintenance, taxes, or insurance, many stop investing in their properties, and the housing quality drops. More importantly, rent control can scare off developers, meaning fewer new housing projects get built, which only adds to the housing shortage. This leads to even higher rents over time because demand keeps going up while supply stays limited. What we really need is more housing and better protections against extreme rent hikes-not a one-size-fits-all rent control that could make the market tighter and housing scarcer for everyone. I definitely understand your frustration, but Prop 33 might hurt more than it helps in the long run. Thanks for sharing your comment!

[@vasijuls5111]

Bill Coast-Hawking I’m interpreting that this proposition “to home owners” Gov. will not control how much you can rent your house” in really the majority how can take advantage of these are the big Corps Not the Mom and Pops home-owners” Big Corp and saying if you control my rent charges I will Bot Build more homes. If so Gov need to do something about it . Housing for low income people , ,

[@lmdy90]

My rent also went up 275 and we’re paying over $3500+ for a 3 bd 2ba single family home 1500 sq ft in a house completely not updated. My landlord hardly updated his house. I mean both our bathrooms still have those colorful old tiles. Our bathtub was so old that the plumber couldn’t find replacement parts. Took over 3 weeks to fix the shower. Landlord did not fix the dishwasher despite our request so we got a cheap used one installed with our own money and installed it ourselves. lol our landlords that is benefiting from our money doesn’t try to make his renters happy. The nicer single family homes are upwards of $3900 monthly and we just can’t afford it. We can’t live in those tiny condos with our growing family of 3 kids and 2 adults. We currently live with a roommate just to make rent affordable for the both of us. It makes me sad to live in a non updated house that doesn’t allow pets, but we can’t afford anywhere else unless we move far from family or out of state. And we are educators at our local school district. Can’t afford a home on a teacher’s salary but really want to own a home! Who knew a “normal” house would cost min $900+! Fyi, I grew up in so cal.

[@anngwish23]

I was with you up until the dumb reduced mobility argument. "OH...I'm stuck in my low income housing because I can't afford anywhere else"... - then by that logic there should be MORE affordable housing. You should take that argument out. That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Everything else makes sense.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

[@patricthomas]

This is foolish in so many ways. RC breads communities because people say longer and thus have an investment in their area. RC people ALWAYS have lower rent then people who don't your delusion that RC people have a higher rent is a lie that has no statistical data. Keep your house owner greed to yourself.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I understand your perspective, and I agree that stable, long-term housing is crucial for building strong communities. However, what we’ve seen is that rent control, while providing short-term relief for some tenants, can have unintended consequences in the long run. For instance, studies (such as the one from Stanford I referenced) show that rent control can actually limit the supply of new housing and lead to deteriorating conditions when property owners can’t afford to maintain their rentals. It’s not about greed, but about finding sustainable solutions that ensure both tenants and property owners can thrive. Instead of strict rent control policies, building more housing and expanding programs like Section 8 can help address affordability while maintaining healthy housing markets. I really appreciate your input!

[@smilebyyourself]

Yeah there are a few statements that are completely incorrect in this video, as someone who has been a rent control tenant in CA since 2012 I know the laws quite well. Read my comments for some of the fact checks.

[@smilebyyourself]

@@goodlifepropertymgmtI have successfully rented at 2 different properties in Mar Vista and Marina Del Rey and would have never been able to afford in the area had it not been for rent control. Especially at my apartment in Marina Del Rey many of the tenants had lived there for 15+ years and had a much better quality of life because of the rent control. My rent was still increased from $1850 monthly to over $2200 over a period of 8 years at the Marina Del Rey property and where I currently am a tenant in a rent control property for 4 years there has been a rent increase. What community do you reside in to understand your perspective a little more, and have you actually ever been a tenant in a CA rent control property?

[@aldelmastro2895]

Also When small mom and pop landlords are driven out, how many people are displaced because of that

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Great point, and it’s something that often gets overlooked in discussions about rent control. When small mom-and-pop landlords are squeezed out-whether due to rising costs or policies that make it harder for them to maintain their properties-it can have a ripple effect on the community. These landlords often provide more affordable housing options and are more flexible with tenants compared to large corporate property owners. When they are forced to sell or leave the market, we often see properties being bought up by bigger companies, which can lead to higher rents and less personalized tenant care. So, while the goal is to protect renters, it’s important to consider how policies like Prop 33 might unintentionally reduce housing options and increase displacement. I really appreciate your comment-it’s a key part of the conversation that needs more attention!

[@katherinecollazo6572]

There is no help for working and low mid class ppl who dont qualify for assistance programs bc they aren't poor by federal standards. this prop isn't the answer, but the fact is ppl can't afford this cont. increasing rent and landlords just want profits . They dgaf about homelessness, so ppl may vote yes out of frustration.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

I hear your frustration, and you’re right-many people who fall into the working and low-middle class often get caught in a tough spot where they don’t qualify for assistance but still struggle with rising rents. It’s a complex issue, and I agree that Proposition 33 may not be the perfect solution. The concern with Prop 33 is that while it aims to control rent, it could discourage new housing developments, ultimately reducing the number of homes available and making things worse over time. We need to find solutions that help renters without driving up long-term costs or creating more scarcity. I believe building more housing and expanding programs like Section 8 can better address affordability while supporting both tenants and landlords. It’s a tough situation, but I appreciate you bringing this up for discussion-more conversations like this can help us get closer to the right solutions.

[@michaelb9599]

I do believe that if this passes, SD city council is ready and waiting to sign new rent control ordinances removing many if not all current exemptions. That was made apparent when their original draft of the TPA was submitted without the exemptions. I wouldn't put it pass them to implement more control next year.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

[@82heartofalion]

YES ON 33

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

[@aeromtb2468]

price caps for all

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I understand the appeal of price caps as a way to tackle rising costs, especially with housing being such a huge concern. However, price caps can sometimes have unintended consequences. For example, when prices are strictly controlled, it can discourage new housing developments and reduce incentives for maintaining properties, which can ultimately limit the supply of homes and lead to worse conditions for everyone. I think a balanced approach-building more housing, providing incentives for landlords to keep rents reasonable, and improving rent subsidy programs-could offer a more sustainable solution without the downsides of price caps. Appreciate you being part of the conversation!

[@jerahmeeltillman6418]

This is def not what I thought it meant so if I decide to rent my house I don’t even get control over how much I rent it out for?

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

I totally understand your concern! If Prop 33 passes and Costa-Hawkins is repealed, rent control could be expanded to include single-family homes like yours, depending on local laws. This means you may have less control over how much you can charge for rent, especially between tenants, since some areas might implement vacancy control, which limits your ability to raise the rent to market value when a tenant moves out. It’s definitely something to consider if you’re thinking about renting your property. Policies like this can provide stability for renters, but they also impact how much flexibility you have as a landlord. I appreciate you asking the question-it's important to be aware of how these changes could affect property owners!

[@robertgudiel4255]

The vacancy limit is a hard sell because people already match the rent price to its surrounding area. Not necessarily because it’s “modern”.

[@goodlifepropertymgmt]

Thanks for your comment, Robert. I understand why the concept of 'vacancy limits' and rent pricing based on location can be confusing or seem unfair. While it might feel like rent should purely reflect the home's quality and the land it's on, location plays a huge role in real estate economics. High demand in a desirable area naturally drives up rent prices, even if the home itself isn't 'modern' or updated. This is part of the reason why rent in urban centers or high-demand neighborhoods can be much higher than in rural or less sought-after areas. The idea behind allowing for rent adjustments based on surrounding market trends is that it reflects the competition and demand within that location. However, I get that this can make it tough for renters who feel they’re paying more for less, especially if the property's quality doesn’t match the price. Balancing fair pricing with market dynamics is definitely a challenge and a point of debate in discussions about rent control and housing policy. Your perspective highlights why policies need to consider both property quality and the realities of supply and demand in the area.