View source for Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

{{Short description|1995 California state law covering rent control}}
The '''Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act''' ("Costa–Hawkins") is a [[Law of California|California state law]] enacted in 1995, placing limits on municipal [[rent control]] ordinances. Costa–Hawkins preempts the field in two major ways.<ref>The Act's complexities are abridged and simplified here.</ref> First, it prohibits cities from establishing rent control over certain kinds of residential units, such as [[single-family detached home|single-family dwelling]]s, [[condominium]]s, and newly constructed<ref>The 'newly constructed' designation may be more complicated than it appears. Any rental units built after the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act would be exempt. But also, with regard to cities with existing rent control ordinances, the Act counts as "new construction' any built after that ordinance was enacted. See below the section "Exemptions to rent control".</ref> [[multi-family residential|apartment units]] (these are deemed exempt). Second, it prohibits "vacancy control", also called "strict" rent control. The legislation was sponsored by Democratic [[California Senate|Senator]] [[Jim Costa]] and Republican [[California Assembly|assembly member]] Phil Hawkins.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />
If an apartment was under "vacancy control", the city rent control ordinance worked to deny or limit an owner's ability to increase its rent to new [[leasehold estate|tenants]], even in cases where the prior tenant voluntarily vacated the apartment or was evicted for a 'just cause' (such as failure to pay rent). Costa–Hawkins changed this by allowing an apartment owner the right to [[renting|rent]] the vacancy at any price (i.e., usually the market price).<ref>The "decontrol" of such "vacancy controlled" rents was phased in over a three-year period starting at the end of 1995.</ref><ref>The act also addresses incidental technical issues, such as, when such rents may be increased on a remaining [[Sublease|subtenant]].</ref>
In 2019, the California legislature passed and the governor signed AB 1482, which created a statewide rent cap for the next 10 years.{{ r | LAT_2019-10-08 }} The Tenant Protection Act of 2019 caps annual rent increases at 5% plus regional inflation.{{ r | LAT_2019-10-08 }} For example, had the bill been in effect in 2019, rent increases in Los Angeles would have been capped at 8.3%, and in San Francisco at 9%.{{ r | LAT_2019-10-08 }} The increases are pegged to the rental rate as of March 15, 2019.{{ r | LAT_2019-10-08 }}  The new law does not apply to buildings built within the prior 15 years, or to single-family homes (unless owned by corporations or institutional investors).{{ r | LAT_2019-10-08 }}   It also includes a requirement to show "just cause" for evictions, and retains "vacancy decontrol", meaning that rents can increase to market rate between tenants.<ref name=LAT_2019-10-08 >{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-08/california-rent-cap-tenant-protections-signed | title=California will limit rent increases under bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom  | last=Dillon | first=Liam | work=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=2019-10-08 }}</ref> Many [[municipalities]] in California continue to have their own rent control laws, which remain intact under AB 1482. This ability of city governments is limited by the federal and state constitutions, as well as federal and state laws.<ref>Here the issue is State of California limits put on its cities. [[United States Constitution|Federal]] and [[Constitution of the State of California|State]] constitutions both establish and limit government power. Cf., the [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Tenth Amendment]]. Cf., [[Dillon's Rule]].</ref> Costa–Hawkins is one of the most prominent state statutes limiting the power of California cities to regulate their rental markets.<ref>The Act also repeals or reforms various California state programs that [[subsidized housing|subsidized]] qualified renters of residential dwellings. These provisions are mentioned below, but are not the focus here. The Act's 3-year phase-in for vacancy decontrol, and these reforms, complicate the language of the [[statute]].</ref><ref>See text below for source citations.</ref>
==Factors causing 1970s rent control==
The late 1970s saw the second wave of [[Rent control in the United States|rent control]] ordinances in California, and nationwide.<ref>The first wave was in the late 1940s, during the economic surge following World War II. Alisa Belinkoff Katz, [http://luskincenter.history.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2018/09/People-Are-Simply-Unable-to-Pay-the-Rent.pdf ''"People are simply unable to pay the rent" What History tells us about Rent Control in Los Angeles''], at ''UCLA Luskin Center for History and Policy'', October 2018. Introduction by [[Zev Yaroslavsky]]. Accessed 2018-11-1. This study covers three rental housing crises and related rent control enactments in Los Angeles: the above post-war, the post-[[California Proposition 13 (1978)|Prop 13]] in 1979, and the current, on-going situation.</ref><ref>"The California experience is representative of the range of public responses... ." Keating in Niebanck (1983), p.57.</ref> Rising [[real estate market|real estate values]] and surging [[Federal funds rate|interest rates]] made single family homes in California less affordable. Disappointed buyers often moved into apartments. A rental housing [[supply and demand|shortage]] appeared, rents went up. For chiefly non-housing reasons (e.g., [[land use]]), cities began restricting the [[Real estate development|building]] of new dwelling units. As prices rose for rental housing properties, [[return on investment]] and [[cash flow]] motivated new landlords with mortgages to raise rents. State and [[Affordable housing|federal low-income housing assistance]] fell. [[Inflation]] was economy-wide, yet [[wages and salaries]] also fell. The [[consumer movement]] and [[California Proposition 13 (1978)|Proposition 13]] effects then stimulated [[Tenement (law)|tenant]] activism in [[Urban politics in the United States|municipal politics]].<ref>Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮7.8 on factors causing rent control in the 1970s: rising real estate prices for homes and for apartment houses; economy-wide inflation; tight housing markets from short supply and high demand; the consumer movement).</ref><ref>Sternlieb and Hughes, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 11–28: rent control by cities "dependent on national market factors" at p.11; own versus rent, and housing supply, at pp. 11–20; private investment in rental housing property, at pp. 25–28.</ref><ref>Keating, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 57–73, at 57–59 (fall of tenant incomes, rise in rents; the housing shortage: vacancy rates, not enough new construction; low income households and percent spent on rent; housing subsidy cut-backs: fed policy & state budgets; Proposition 13; rent control in California), and at pp. 70–73 (growth and land use restrictions, increased fees and requirements for new housing construction; Proposition 13; very high mortgage interest rates; state budget problems limit its housing remedies; Proposition 13; policy trade-offs).</ref><ref>Niebanck, in Niebanck (1985), pp. 105–122. After analysis of multiple issues in a city's rental economy, including [[market failure|market malfunction]] and two benchmarks (the [[rental vacancy rate|vacancy rate]], and income percentage spent on rent), the [[University of California, Santa Cruz|UCSC]] professor suggests: "A locality's interest in rent control has at least as much to do with underlying cultural, socioeconomic, political, and ideological factors as it has to do with market conditions" at pp. 110–111 (quote).</ref><ref>Keating (1983), pp. 3–4. Sponsors of Proposition 13 claimed that tenants would share in the benefits of reduced property taxes. But after it passed, most landlords declined to do so. The legislature refused to heed the tenant protests.</ref><ref>Heskin (1983): 1960s rental glut, 1970s fall in housing construction and rise in rents (pp. 32–33, 40–41); Prop. 13 and 'tenant revolt' (pp. xiv, 41, 47–49). Civil rights, [[War on Poverty|anti-poverty]], [[Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War|anti-war]] movements were followed by tenants who organized, first in college towns (p.32). Kerner Commission, p.102.</ref><ref>Dreier (1997), Part I, "The Battle for Rent Control" at ¶¶ 8–10. Earlier tenant movements of the 1960s were "spillovers" from the [[civil rights movement|civil rights]], the [[Poor People's Campaign|poor peoples]], and the [[student movement|student]] movements (¶8). He notes (at ¶10) that the [[Kerner Commission]] found that "housing problems among low-income tenants was the primary grievance behind the mid-1960s ghetto rebellions." The National Tenants' Organization, founded in 1969, was for a time widespread across America (¶8).</ref>
==The Costa–Hawkins legislation of 1995==
===Political events leading to the Act===
[[File:JerryBrown.png|thumb|right|150px|Jerry Brown, 1976.]]
In 1972 Berkeley became the first California city to adopt a second-wave rent control ordinance. In 1976 Governor [[Jerry Brown]], a Democrat, vetoed state legislation (AB 3788) that would have preempted local rent control laws. It had been supported by a mainstream real estate group, the California Housing Council (CHC). In response to the veto, the real estate industry managed to get an [[Popular initiative|initiative]], Proposition 10, on the state ballot for 1980.<ref>Heskin (1083), p.61: "a coalition of [[real estate developers]], [[List of construction trades|building trade]] unions, and [[landlords]]" formed to promote Proposition 10.</ref> It was soundly defeated, however, 65% to 35%.<ref>Keating (1983), pp. 5–6: Although somewhat similar to Costa–Hawkins, in its details Prop. 10 would have been substantially different, e.g., Prop. 10 mandated that a city could not enact a ''just cause'' requirement for evictions. Re Berkeley 1972 (pp. 3, 4).</ref><ref>Heskin (1983): Berkeley, CHC and AB 3788: Brown's veto (pp. 41–43); Prop.10 (pp. 61–63).</ref>
In the meantime, in June 1978 [[California Proposition 13 (1978)|Proposition 13]] had been approved two to one by California voters. Before the election [[Howard Jarvis]], the leader of the Prop. 13 'taxpayer revolt', as well as of the California Apartment Association, had suggested that landlords would lower rents if Prop. 13 passed. Many voters were said to have thought that Prop. 13, by lowering landlord property taxes, meant lower rents. The CHC, fearful of a tenant backlash if landlords failed to follow through, decided to oppose Prop. 13. Despite post-election efforts by Gov. Brown and the CHC, few landlords lowered their rents.<ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Rent Control in California", Jarvis at ¶5, CHC and Prop. 13 at ¶¶ 5 and 6b, Proposition 10 at ¶15.</ref><ref>Keating (1983), pp. 3–4. Proposition 13 proponents: their unfullfilled promise to lower rents inspires tenants to mount a fight for rent control.</ref><ref>Heskin (1983), p.47: Jarvis announced agreement between two landlord associations to lower rent if Prop.13 passed; p.48: statewide tenant revolt following Prop. 13 vote and few landlords pass on tax savings to tenants; p.49: landlord costs go up.</ref>
Across California urban tenants formed numerous local groups, which quickly grew in intensity and strength. Tenant activists organized political agitation directed at state and city government. Gov. Brown's new 'tenant hot line' was getting 12,000 calls a day. "In response to tenant pressure, rent strikes, and steady news coverage about rent increases and angry tenants, especially seniors, the [[Los Angeles City Council]] passed a six month rent freeze in August 1978." By 1988, fourteen cities had adopted full rent control, and sixty-four cities rent control for mobile home parks.<ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Rent Control in California", Governor's 'hot line' at ¶7, fourteen cities at ¶8, Los Angeles quote at ¶9.</ref><ref>Keating, in Niebanck (1985). After Prop. 13, Los Angeles Mayor [[Tom Bradley (American politician)|Tom Bradley]] moved from opposition into support for rent control. "Tenants then turned to local government for relief via rent control." Fourteen cities. A poll taken in May 1979 had Californians in favor of rent control 56% to 21%, tenants in favor 73% to 20%. At that time 55% of Californians were renters.</ref><ref>Heskin (1983), pp. 39, 43–47, 48–49: 1970s growth of tenant movement; p.48: Governor's 'hot line';  pp. 50–55: tenant groups active in Los Angeles, rent freeze becomes rent control; pp.55–61, 63–65: in Santa Monica, Prop. A rent control, tenant majority on city council.</ref>
[[image:Jim Costa official photo.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Jim Costa, circa 2013, a sponsor of the 1995 Act.]]
The strength of the tenants groups, however, eventually began to dissipate. Yet CHC attempts to partially 'preempt' rent control were thwarted by Democrats, led by State Senator [[David Roberti]], until [[term limit]]s forced his retirement in 1995. On the other hand, Democrat [[Jim Costa]] in the Assembly had unsuccessfully carried 'preemption' bills for the real estate industry since 1983. He was now in the Senate, where his 1995 bill passed the Judiciary Committee; absent Roberti, it drew Democratic votes. The bill then passed the Senate with one vote "more than the majority required."<ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "The Politics of Deregulation in California", Roberti anti-Costa at ¶¶ 2–3, Roberti term limits at ¶¶ 5–7, Costa in Assembly at ¶¶ 1–2, Costa in Senate at ¶¶ 6–9, tenant advocacy weak at ¶3, 9; at section "Rent Control in California", Roberti rent control at ¶3, tenant groups weaken at ¶16; at section "Comparative Analysis," subsection "Weakness and Fragmentation of Tenancy Constituency".</ref><ref>Max Vanzi, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-07-25-mn-27574-story.html "Legislature deals blow to rent control"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', July 25, 1995. Sen. Jim Costa said the Act represented "an 11-year effort to try to end extreme forms of rent control in California."</ref>
===The Act: sponsors, and opposition===
[[image:Pete Wilson meeting with Les Aspin, Feb 3, 1993 - cropped to Wilson.JPEG|thumb|125px|Pete Wilson, 1993.]]
The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act became law in 1995. The statute became codified as [[California Civil Code|Civil Code]], §§ 1954.50 to 1954.535.<ref name="legislature1954">{{cite web|url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&division=3.&title=5.&part=4.&chapter=2.7.&article|title=California Civil Code, 1954.50–1954.535.|publisher=Leginfo.legislature.ca.gov|access-date=11 July 2017}}</ref> The legislation's sponsors were Democratic [[California Senate|Senator]] [[Jim Costa]] ([[Fresno, CA|Fresno]]) and Republican [[California Assembly|Assemblymember]] Phil Hawkins ([[Bellflower, CA|Bellflower]]).<ref name=":0">Dreier (1997), Part II, section "The Politics of Deregulation in California" at ¶1 & ¶8 re Costa.</ref><ref name=":1">Phil Hawkins served one term in the Assembly, 1994–1996, where he "carved out a solidly conservative record on most issues". [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-oct-09-me-30727-story.html "Sally Havice (D) v. Phil Hawkins (R)"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', Oct. 9, 1998. Accessed 2017-11-9.</ref>
Introduced first in the Senate, the text of the legislation later became [[Assembly Bill]] 1164. After enduring several negotiated changes, it had passed in both chambers. The Republican [[Governors of California|Governor]] [[Pete Wilson]] then signed AB 1164 into law.<ref>Cf., [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1164_cfa_950725_172019_asm_floor.html Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST]. California Legislative Information website.</ref>
Although understood as limiting rent control, an agenda more favored by Republicans, some Democrats supported the Act. The pro-tenant Western Center on Law and Poverty (WCLP) had endorsed several features of the Bill that served tenant interests: the prohibition of rent increases "if serious health, safety, fire, or building code violations were discovered and not corrected for six months," and some claims by subtenants to lower rent under an existing tenancy.<ref>Max Vanzi, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-07-25-mn-27574-story.html "Legislature deals blow to rent control"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', July 25, 1995: bill sponsors Phil Hawkins and Jim Costa; legislation quote per WCLP. Accessed 2017-08-28.</ref><ref>Heskin (1983). On the Los Angeles City Council, black leaders voiced a different view of housing shortages. Earlier [[Robert C. Farrell]] had spoken of the "thousands of vacant and substandard housing units in South Central. ... My constituents want decent housing and a decent rent" (p.51, quoting the ''[[Los Angeles Sentinel|Sentinel]]'', Aug. 10, 1978; also p.75 code violations, pp. 132–133 poor condition of rentals). Nationwide, some owners had abandoned urban rental properties that needed substantial repairs (cf. p.32).</ref>
The WCLP, however, was against the bill. Especially it sought to organize the opposition, to "piece together a coalition" of scattered local groups (tenants, senior citizens, religion affiliated), together with the California cities with rent control. Accordingly, Santa Monica, Berkeley, and West Hollywood contributed funds to hire a lobbyist. A concession (obtained by negotiation with proponents of the bill) was the 3-year phase-in of 'vacancy decontrol'. Yet the [[California State Capitol|capitol]] consensus was that Costa–Hawkins was a "done deal" and the opposition a "last gasp". The passage of Costa Hawkins into law was seen as a rollback of some tenant advantages. Rent control advocates became uneasy at the challenge to their victories of the 1970s and 1980s.<ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "The Politics of Deregulation in California". WCLP in opposition at ¶9 (coalition quote, two phrases quoted). WCLP was "an arm of legal services" (apparently [[Legal Services Corporation|LSC]]). Also: Dreier (1997) Part II, section "Comparative Analysis," subsection "Weakness and Fragmentation of Tenancy Constituency".</ref><ref>Max Vanzi, [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-07-25-mn-27574-story.html "Legislature deals blow to rent control"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', July 25, 1995: advocates alarmed.</ref>
===The Act's provisions as codified===
The Costa–Hawkins legislation is found in the California Civil Code, sections 1954.50 to 1954.535.<ref name="legislature1954"/><ref>[https://caanet.org/app/uploads/2015/01/Costa-Hawkins-Rental-Housing-Act.pdf "A General Overview of California's Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201031016/https://caanet.org/app/uploads/2015/01/Costa-Hawkins-Rental-Housing-Act.pdf |date=2017-12-01 }}, at California Apartment Association website. Accessed 2017-11-25.</ref>
====In general====
The Act exempts from rent control: single family dwellings, condos, and new construction.<ref>Cf. §1954.52(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3)(A).</ref> It prohibits local government regulations re "vacancy control"<ref>For vacancy control issues, see below under section "Effect of the Costa-Hawkins Act".</ref> in most situations.<ref>Cf. 1954.52(a) and 1954.53(a).</ref> For the five cities with "vacancy control" in 1995 the Act is phased-in.<ref>Cf. 1954.52(a)(3)(C) and 1954.53(a)(1) & 1954.53(b) & (c).</ref> It situates government contracts with owners about rent charged (e.g., provisions for low income housing), and the effects of a notice of violation, e.g., about health or safety.<ref>Cf. 1954.52(b), 1954.53(a)(1)(B); & 1954.535, and 1954.53(f).</ref> Costa–Hawkins also addresses subtenancies,<ref>Cf. 1954.53(b) & (d).</ref> and other issues.<ref>Cf., [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1164_cfa_950725_172019_asm_floor.html Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST]. California Legislative Information website. Note: 3-year phase-in (p.3,#2); housing programs repeal (p.2,#5, p.4,#7, p.6,#4).</ref>
====Exemptions from rent control====
The Act prohibits rent control on single family homes, on [[condominium]]s, and on newly built rental units.<ref>Cf. Civil Code, §1954.52.</ref> Generally, 'new' means any building constructed after February 1, 1995 (per the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act).<ref name="Civil Code, §1954.52a1">Civil Code, §1954.52(a)(1).</ref> But for cities with existing rent control, 'new' is back-dated per the local rent control ordinance.<ref>Civil Code, §1954.52(a)(2).</ref>
In those cities the enactment date of rent control determines what is 'new'. Only rental units constructed before then will remain subject to the city's rent control. Those built after will remain exempt under Costa-Hawkins. Hence, in [[San Francisco]] only construction older than 1979 can be rent controlled, and older than 1980 in [[Oakland, California|Oakland]] and [[Berkeley, California|Berkeley]], the years those cities passed their rent control laws.<ref>{{ cite news | last=Cutler | first=Kim-Mai | title=How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained) | url=https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ | access-date=2017-12-11 | publisher=TechCrunch | date=Apr 14, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140430181957/https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ | archive-date=2014-04-30 | url-status=live | quote=San Francisco's version of rent control also does not apply to buildings constructed after 1979,... }}</ref><ref>{{ cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/11/california-considers-repealing-rent-control-restrictions/ | title=Rent control in California: Proposal to lift restrictions blocked in committee  | last=Murphy | first=Katy | work=San Jose Mercury News | date=2018-01-11 | access-date=2018-01-28 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180123095807/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/11/california-considers-repealing-rent-control-restrictions/ | archive-date=2018-01-23 | url-status=live | quote=Single family homes and condominiums are exempt from rent control under this state law. So is any apartment built after 1995, when Costa Hawkins was passed, or in some cases much earlier. If a city adopted rent control in 1980, for example — as Oakland and Berkeley did — then that is the cutoff; nothing built afterward can be subject to rent control. }}</ref> In the City of Los Angeles, the date is October, 1978.<ref name="latimes.com">Emily Alpart Reyes and David Zahniser, [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-garcetti-costa-hawkins-20180422-story.html "Garcetti says he would consider expanding rent control in L.A."], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', April 23, 2018. Accessed 2018-4-30.</ref><ref>So that an apartment building in Los Angeles built in the 1980s and hence exempt as newly built under the City's 1978 rent control ordinance, would not lose its exemption because it was built before the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act.</ref>
These exemptions, however, may leave most of a city's total rental stock under rent control. For example, in San Francisco, as of 2014, about 75% of all rental units were rent controlled,<ref>{{ cite news | last=Cutler | first=Kim-Mai | title=How Burrowing Owls Lead To Vomiting Anarchists (Or SF's Housing Crisis Explained) | url=https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ | access-date=2017-12-11 | publisher=TechCrunch | date=Apr 14, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140430181957/https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ | archive-date=2014-04-30 | url-status=live | quote=1) First off, understand the math of the region. San Francisco has a roughly thirty-five percent homeownership rate. Then 172,000 units of the city's 376,940 housing units are under rent control. (That's about 75 percent of the city's rental stock.) }}</ref> and in Los Angeles in 2014, 80% of {{em|multifamily}} units were rent controlled.{{ r | LA_RC_percent | p=1 | q=Eighty percent of the 880,581 multifamily units in the city of Los Angeles are covered by rent control, according to the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department.}}
====2002 Amendment to the Act====
The Act was amended in 2002 to close a loophole related to [[condominium]] conversions after the 1995 Act. Owners of an apartment building may obtain a new certificate of occupancy due to a condo conversion even without then selling any converted units. In such case, the rental units do not become exempt from rent control under the Act.<ref>Civil Code, § 1954.52 (exemptions).</ref><ref>2002 Amendment discussed in ''Burien'' case, pp. 5–9 & fns. 2 & 3, legislative history at pp. 7–8.</ref><ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2014/b250182.html ''Burien LCC v. Wiley'' (2009)], at ''JUSTIA US Law''. Accessed 2017-08-22.</ref><ref>Cf., section below "Certificates of Occupancy: ''Burien LLC v. Wiley''".</ref>
==Rent control in California==
Costa-Hawkins is the key state legislation which serves to guide the operative provisions and practice of rent control in California.<ref>Various other state laws impact rental housing, e.g., warranties of habitability, the building codes, rental agreements, unlawful detainer, et cetera.</ref> Yet it is the local governments, for the most part the cities, which actually write and adopt the specific rent control laws.
===Legal context===
====Declared purposes====
A local rent control ordinance may explicitly declare its purpose. Stated or implied is the finding, or assumption, that the rent control being enacted will in fact improve the community's well-being.
Usually [[rent control]] is a city-made law (a [[municipal ordinance]]) aimed at mitigating the disruptive effect, on neighborhoods and on individual renters, of escalating or fluctuating prices in the residential rental market. It may also seek to promote the maintenance of safe and habitable dwelling units during housing shortages.<ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Appendix: Arguments For and Against Rent Control". Discussion of the benefits of rent control as advanced by proponents and the author, and rejoinders to opposition arguments.</ref><ref>Keating (1983), esp. at pp. 2–3 and 15–18, for additional proponent views. Keating centers on the preservation of affordable housing during a severe supply shortage, among other issues.</ref><ref>Heskin (1983), for additional proponent views, and ideological perspectives. ""Tenancy excludes no group although certainly tenants are more likely to be young, female, minority, and low income in larger proportions than the population taken as a whole" (pp. 93–94).</ref><ref>Jake Blumgart, [https://psmag.com/economics/in-defense-of-rent-control "In Defense of Rent Control"], at ''Pacific Standard'', April 1, 2015. Accessed 2017-11-13. "The real goal of rent control is protecting the moral rights of... long-term tenants who... have a legitimate interest in staying in their apartments."</ref><ref>Ben Bergman, [http://www.scpr.org/news/2014/09/12/45988/la-rent-has-rent-control-been-successful-in-los-an/ "LA Rent: Has rent control been successful in Los Angeles?"], at ''89.3KPCC'', Sept. 12, 2014. This article, while giving opponent views, is more favorable to proponents of rent control. Accessed 2017-008-22.</ref><ref>Jeremy Rosenberg, [https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-fight-against-rent-control "The fight against rent control"], at ''KCET'', March 4, 2013. Housing activist Denny Zane at ¶17: "The marketplace on its own does not produce affordable housing. It produces market rate housing."</ref><ref>James Brasuell, [https://www.planetizen.com/news/2018/10/101187-new-research-changes-narrative-effects-rent-control "New Research changes the narrative on the effects of rent control"], ''Planetizen'', Oct. 22, 2018. Accessed 2018-11-1.</ref><ref>Cf., Website of proponents of 'strict' rent control re California Proposition 10 (General Election, November 6, 2018): [https://voteyesonprop10.org "Yes on Prop 10"]. Accessed 2018-11-1.</ref>
An example of such city intent is [[San Francisco]]'s ''Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance'' (SFRO), enacted in 1979 as an emergency ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code. It found that, in the face of tight markets and significant rental increases prior to rent control, "some tenants attempt to pay requested rent increases, but as a consequence must expend less on other necessities of life. This situation has had a detrimental effect on substantial numbers of renters in the City, especially creating hardships on senior citizens, persons on fixed incomes and low and moderate income households".<ref>[http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1250 "Title and Findings"], quote at ∮ 37.1(b)(2) of The Rent Ordinance, at San Francisco Rent Board website.</ref><ref>[https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Ordinance__Rent_Stabilization_and_Eviction_for_Good_Cause.aspx#1376030 "Purpose"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190929051037/https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/Ordinance__Rent_Stabilization_and_Eviction_for_Good_Cause.aspx#1376030 |date=2019-09-29 }}, ∮13.76.030 of the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance, at Rent Stabilization Board, City of Berkeley website. Accessed 2017-11-13.</ref><ref>[https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Rent_Control/Rent_Control_Law/CharterAmndmnt.pdf "Statement of Purpose"], Rent Control Charter Amendment, § 1800, at City of Santa Monica website. Accessed 2017-11-17.</ref>
====Constitutional limits====
[[File:Ronaldreaganstatebuilding.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A site of the [[California Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] on S. Spring St. in Los Angeles.]]
For the [[California State Assembly]] its analyst Stephen Holloway commented on the constitutional and legal context of rent control, specifically between the state and local governments (e.g., cities). When Costa–Hawkins was enacted, existing California law made "no statutory provision for, but does not prohibit, the adoption of local rent control ordinances. Case law, ''Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley'' (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 129, held that rent control is a proper exercise of a local government's [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] if it is reasonably calculated to eliminate excessive rents and at the same time provide landlords with just and reasonable returns on their properties."<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1164_cfa_950725_172019_asm_floor.html Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST], California Legislative Information website, quote at p.1.</ref><ref>[https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/birkenfeld-v-city-berkeley-30384 ''Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley'' (1976)], at Stanford Law School SCOCAL website. Accessed 2017-10-17. Here, while elements were found to be unconstitutional, the California Supreme Court held generally that "an emergency is no more necessary for rent control than for other forms of economic regulation which are constitutionally valid". ''Birkenfeld'', opening paragraph.</ref><ref>Keating in Niebanck (1985), pp. 66–67 (''Birkenfeld'' case).</ref><ref>Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮7.10 (''Birkenfeld'' case).</ref><ref>Cf., [http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&division=1.&title=7.&part=&chapter=3.&article=10.6. Government Code, section 65589(b)], at California Legislative Information website. Accessed 2017-10-19. California's requirement that cities enact a ''Housing Element'' does not grant nor repeal a city's authority regarding rent control.</ref><ref>Cf., Keating (1983), p. 4: In the 1970s and early 1980s, the California courts found unconstitutional rent control ordinances or their elements in Berkeley, Cotati, Davis, and Palm Springs.</ref>
In the 1997 ''Kavanau'' case,<ref>[https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/kavanau-v-santa-monica-rent-control-bd-31814 ''Kavanau v. City of Santa Monica Rent Control Bd'' (1997)], at Stanford Law School SCOCAL website. Accessed 2017-11-3.</ref> a rental property owner challenged the [[City of Santa Monica]]'s rent control law as a form of "taking" or [[inverse condemnation]] prohibited by the federal Constitution. The [[California Supreme Court]] affirmed the rulings by lower state courts in favor of the city. In the 2005 ''[[H.N. and Frances C. Berger Foundation]]'' case,<ref>[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1445635.html ''Berger Foundation v. City of Escondido'' (2005)], at Find Law website. Accessed 2017-11-3.</ref> the [[California Court of Appeal]] upheld an ordinance which provided that the city council sitting as a rent board would determine what was fair, just, and reasonable regarding an owner's comparable return on investment. The ordinance did not establish a specific formula or procedure to apply when faced with a requested rent increase, but instead stated eleven factors to consider. Here the board had then relied on an expert's opinion.<ref>Cf., Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.10 (''Birkenfeld'' case and ''Fisher v. City of Berkeley''), 7.13 (fair return: two ''Fisher'' cases), 7.14 (taking: ''Kavanau'' and ''Berger Foundation'' cases).</ref>
===Usual provisions===
'''Percentage.''' A maximum permitted price increase may be expressed as a percentage of the existing rent. For example, Alameda 5%, Hayward 5%, Los Angeles 3%, Los Gatos 5%.<ref>See ordinances linked below, at "List of California Cities".</ref> In 2016 San Jose lowered the allowable annual rent increase from 8% to 5% of existing rent.<ref>[https://caanet.org/san-jose-approves-stricter-rent-control/ "San Jose approves stricter rent control"], at California Apartment Association website.</ref> In 2017 in Beverly Hills by an emergency ordinance, the rent raise maximum plunged from 10% to 3%.<ref>Gregory Cornfield, [http://beverlypress.com/2017/02/beverly-hills-extends-emergency-rent-controls/ "Beverly Hills extends emergency rent controls"], in ''Park Labrea News/Beverly Press'', Feb. 22, 2017. 2017-08-27.</ref>
[[File:US Consumer Price Index Graph.svg|thumb|200px|right|[[United States Consumer Price Index|US CPI]] from 1913 (in blue), its percentage annual change (in red)]]
'''CPI.''' Alternatively, rent raise limits may be directly keyed to changes in the [[cost of living]], as measured by the [[Consumer Price Index]] (CPI). Since 1980 in California the CPI has generally been lower than 5%.<ref>[http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/CPI/EntireCCPI.PDF California Consumer Price Index (1955–2017)]. Accessed 2017-10-23.</ref> Examples of rent control ordinances using CPI as an index: Oakland, Mountain View, Richmond.<ref>See below re such city ordinances linked to websites, at "List of California Cities". ''Au contraire'', East Palo Alto, Palm Springs, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood use only a fraction of CPI.</ref>  In San Francisco the SFRO limits annual increases to the lesser of 60% of the CPI or 7% of existing rent.<ref>[http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx?page=1252 "Rent limitations"], San Francisco Rent Board.</ref> Similarly, the Berkeley Rent Board allows an annual increase of 65% of CPI.<ref>[http://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/2015_ANNUAL_GENERAL_ADJUSTMENT.aspx "2014 adjustment"], City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board.</ref>
Vacancy control, in which the amount of rent charged for a rental unit (rather than for a tenancy) is strictly regulated by local government, is discussed below in "[[#Vacancy control prior to the Act|Vacancy control prior to the Act]]".
====Other elements====
Every city or county with some variety of 'rent control' has its own, crafted law which may differ significantly in scope and content.<ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), Appendix A at pp. 431–467: information about rent control in 18 California cities, described and compared in abstract.</ref> Among the other issues a 'rent control' law might address:
*additional exclusions,<ref>These types have also been excluded by some cities from rent control: [[duplex (building)|duplex]]es, triplexes, four-unit apartment buildings (whether owner-occupied or not); luxury rentals (units with high rents), government subsidized units. Cf. Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), p.89.</ref><ref>[http://sfrb.org/topic-no-017-overview-covered-and-exempt-units "Topic No. 17, Overview of Covered and Excluded Units"], at San Francisco Rent Board. Accessed Dec. 12, 2017.</ref><ref>Thousand Oaks apparently excludes from rent control all apartment-house tenancies that began after 1987, the vast majority of such tenants. [http://www.toaks.org/departments/community-development/housing/affordable-housing-program/rental-assistance-programs "Housing: Rent Control"], City of Thousand  Oaks. Accessed 2017-12-13.</ref>
*rent [[mediation]] boards,<ref>[http://sfrb.org/fact-sheet-8-hearings-mediations-and-appeals "Hearings, Mediations, and Appeals"], at ''San Francisco Rent Board''. Accessed 2017-08-24.</ref><ref>Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.41 to 7.52.</ref><ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 90, 148 (mediation). Different are hearings before a rent control board, pp. 95–99.</ref>
*condition of premises,<ref>Minimal standards such as safety and health (e.g., functioning utilities, heat and plumbing, protection from weather) are set forth under California state [[habitability]] laws. E.g., [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1941.1. California Civil Code, section 1941.1].</ref><ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquegst (2017), pp. 76, 195–196.</ref><ref>[https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Rent_Control/Information_and_FAQ/Maintenance%20of%20Rental%20Property.pdf "Maintenance of Rental Property"], at Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Accessed Dec. 12, 2017.</ref>
*rent registries,<ref>Bianca Barragan, [https://la.curbed.com/2016/2/17/11080512/los-angeles-registry-rent-controlled-apartments "Los Angeles wants a registry of how much rent everyone is supposed to be paying"], at ''Curbed Los Angeles'', Feb. 17, 2016. Accessed 2017-08-23.</ref><ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 89–90.</ref>
*[[just cause eviction controls|just cause]] terminations,
*relocation allowance,
*vacancy control.
'''Just cause terminations'''. A no-cause (or no-fault) rental termination by the owner is one that '''does not state a "just cause"''' (such as non-payment of rent, or a tenant-created nuisance). A city may require some form of "just cause" be noticed by an owner in order to terminate.<ref name="ReferenceA">Marcia Stewart, "Rent Control: Evictions in Rent Control Areas", at Nolo Press website.</ref><ref>Ramona Giwargis, [http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/18/san-jose-city-council-hears-emotional-testimony-ahead-of-rent-protection-vote/ "San Jose City Council approves policy against no-cause evictions"], ''The Mercury News'', April 18, 22017. 2017-08-24.</ref><ref>Costa–Hawkins leaves the cities free to regulate tenant evictions. Civil Code ∮1954.52(c).</ref> But "just cause" is not required of evictions under state law.<ref>Civil Code ∮∮ 1946 and 1946.1.</ref> Other justifications may constitute "just cause", e.g.: (a) pursuant to government order; (b) to allow the owner's family to occupy the unit.<ref>Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.53 to 7.80; at ∮7.54 are described ten causes that may be considered "just cause" under the ordinances of various cities. ∮∮ 7.56 to 7.68 analysis examples of "just cause".</ref><ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 92–95.</ref><ref>[http://hcidla.lacity.org/Eviction-Tenant-is-At-Fault-Owners "Tenant is at-fault for Eviction"], at Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. Accessed 2017-11-13.</ref> Owners claim these laws limit their ability to deal with problem tenants who disturb their neighbors, e.g., by nuisance, domestic violence, criminal activity.<ref>[http://web.sdcaa.com/external/wcpages/wcmedia/documents/White%20Papers/SD%20Cause%20Eviction%20-%20Jan%202015.pdf "SDCAA White Paper: City of San Diego Cause Eviction Ordinance"], January 2015, at p.1, San Diego County Apartment Association website. Accessed 2017-12-12.</ref>
'''Relocation allowance'''. A city ordinance ''may'' require the owner to pay the departing tenant an allowance for moving and similar expenses, e.g., in event of no-fault termination. Each city has its own specifics. The tenant will not receive such an allowance in the event of "just cause" terminations, where the tenant is at fault (such as non-payment of rent, or creating a nuisance). But an owner's decision to end an existing tenancy (by written notice, by a court's eviction order) without the tenant being at fault, ''might'' trigger an owner's duty to pay the allowance.<ref>Lenvin & Moskovitz (2017), ∮7.76A, payments to tenants, re relocation, e.g., San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, ∮37.9C. Lenin & Moskovitz ∮7.65, p.7-110: relocation allowance to tenant if termination for move-in of owner's family.</ref><ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), p.95</ref><ref>[https://www.smgov.net/Departments/Rent_Control/Information_and_FAQ/Relocation_Assistance.aspx "Relocation Assistance"], City of Santa Monica Rent Control Board. Accessed 2017-08-24.</ref><ref>[http://hcidla.lacity.org/Relocation-Assistance "Relocation Assistance Information"], at Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. Accessed 2017-11-1.</ref><ref>A mandated relocation allowance might be analogized to an unwilling landlord being forced to [[buyout|buy out]] a month-to-month tenant.</ref>  Withdrawal of a unit from the residential rental market is governed by the [[Ellis Act]].<ref>Lenvin & Moskovitz (2017), Ellis Act: ∮ 7.64 to 7.64H. Relocation allowances by a city not preempted by Ellis Act per [http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-7060-1.html Government Code, ∮7060.1(c)], at Find Law website.</ref><ref>[http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/03/22/appeals-court-strikes-down-sf-law-on-tenant-relocation-payments/ "Appeals Court strikes down San Francisco law on tenant relocation payments"], at ''CBS SF Bay Area'', March 22, 2017. Accessed 2017-08-24.</ref>
'''Vacancy control'''. Discussed below at "[[#Vacancy control prior to the Act|Vacancy control prior to the Act]]".
===Opposition to rent control===
{{further|California housing shortage#Community resistance (NIMBYism)|Lobbying in the United States}}
Most economists believe [[rent control]] reduces the supply of housing over time, and students of economics are taught this analysis early on in their instruction.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html |title=Reckonings; A Rent Affair |first=Paul |last=Krugman |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=2000-06-07 |access-date=2022-07-19}}</ref> Housing [[Lobbying in the United States|industry advocates]] rely on this analysis to justify laws like Costa-Hawkins, which restrict the ability of municipalities to enact rent control.<ref>Lisa Blackwell, [http://www.nmhc.org/News/The-High-Cost-of-Rent-Control/ "The high cost of rent control"], at National Multifamily Housing Council website. Accessed 2017-11-7.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Institute |first=The James Madison |date=2022-09-26 |title=Reminder: Rent Control Will Not Solve the Florida Housing Crisis |url=https://jamesmadison.org/reminder-rent-control-will-not-solve-the-florida-housing-crisis/ |access-date=2024-09-04 |website=James Madison Institute |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-10-02 |title=Will New Statewide Rent Control Laws Decrease Housing Supply? {{!}} Urban Institute |url=https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/will-new-statewide-rent-control-laws-decrease-housing-supply |access-date=2024-09-04 |website=www.urban.org |language=en}}</ref> Across the U.S., these groups have been successful in drastically limiting or completely outlawing rent control since the 1950s.<ref>Jake Blumgart, [https://psmag.com/economics/in-defense-of-rent-control "In Defense of Rent Control"], at ''Pacific Standard'', April 1, 2015. Accessed 2017-11-13.</ref>
{{see also|#Shortage of affordable housing, & HAA|#By initiative: Prop 10}}
However, housing officials have disputed the methodology of the prevailing economic argument,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.tenantsandneighbors.org/pdf/Myths%20and%20Facts%20Final.pdf |title=Rent Regulation in New York: Myths and Facts |author=Timothy L. Collins |access-date=2022-07-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140616235652/https://www.tenantsandneighbors.org/pdf/Myths%20and%20Facts%20Final.pdf |archive-date=2014-06-16}}</ref> and in California, housing officials have claimed the inability to manage housing costs via rent control has exacerbated the ongoing [[California housing shortage|housing crisis]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/01/san-mateo-county-affordable-housing-crisis-inspires-talks-about-rent-control |title=San Mateo County: Affordable housing crisis inspires talks about rent control |first=Aaron |last=Kinney |newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] |date=2015-03-01 |access-date=2022-07-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161014001758/https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/01/san-mateo-county-affordable-housing-crisis-inspires-talks-about-rent-control/ |archive-date=2016-10-14 |url-status=live}}</ref> For this reason, [[tenant rights|renter's rights]] groups have advocated for expansion of rent control, resulting in the unsuccessful 2018 [[California ballot proposition|ballot referendum]] Proposition 10 which would have directly repealed Costa-Hawkins.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/28/will-rent-control-kill-california-housing-production-not-necessarily-data-shows/ | title=Will rent control kill California housing production? Not necessarily, data shows | last1=Hart | first1=Angela | last2=Murphy | first2=Katy | newspaper=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=September 28, 2018 | access-date=2018-10-17 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929114930/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/28/will-rent-control-kill-california-housing-production-not-necessarily-data-shows/ | archive-date=2018-09-29 | url-status=live }}</ref>
===List of California cities===
{{further|Rent regulation#California studies}}
Over the last fifty years, out of a total of 482 [[List of California cities|California cities]],<ref>[http://www.cacities.org/Resources/Learn-About-Cities "Learn about Cities"], at ''California League of Cities'' website. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref> perhaps two-dozen have enacted rent control ordinances, or lesser laws. A city may later discontinue its rent control, e.g., Santa Rosa voted to repeal its new rent control law in 2017.<ref>Kevin McCallum, [http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7068233-181/santa-rosa-rent-control-failing?artslide=0 "Santa Rosa rent control beaten at ballot box"] in ''The Press Democrat'', June 6, 2017. Accessed 2017-08-22. The vote was 52.5% to repeal vs. 47.5%, with repeal forces out-spending the retain.</ref><ref>Kevin McCallum, [http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/7075369-181/following-rent-control-defeat-santa?artslide=0 "Following rent control defeat, Santa Rosa City Council looks ahead"], in ''The Press Democrat'', June 7, 2017. Accessed 2017-10-25. A new focus is building affordable housing, including current subsidies, and exploring a bond.</ref><ref>Steven Wishnia, [http://metcouncilonhousing.org/news_and_issues/tenant_newspaper/2016/october/seven_california_cities_to_vote_on_rent_control "Seven California cities to vote on rent control"], in ''Metropolitan Council on Housing'', October, 2016. Accessed 2018-05-03.</ref>
This survey was completed circa October 2018. Since the severe economic consequences of the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], city councils have adjusted to the changed circumstances. Especially, the State of California has established a temporary eviction moratorium.<ref>See below section "Coronavirus/COVID-19: Temporary eviction moratorium".</ref>
====With rent-control ordinances====
[[File:Ocean Avenue.jpg|thumb|200px|Santa Monica: Ocean Avenue]]
Sixteen cities are currently listed as rent controlled by the State of California:<ref>[http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/appendix2.shtml "List of Cities with Rent Control"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010054554/http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/appendix2.shtml |date=2017-10-10 }}, at California Department of Consumer Affairs website. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref><ref>[https://www.upnest.com/1/post/rent-control-regulations-in-southern-california-cities/ "Southern California Cities with Rent Control Regulations"], at UpNest website. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref><ref>Cf., Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), at p. 88 (list of nineteen, including four cities because of mediation services), at p. 431 (list of eighteen, dropping Palo Alto).</ref><ref>See below, section "With non-rent elements".</ref>
These are: Alameda,<ref>[http://www.alamedarentprogram.org/ "Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions"], City of Alameda. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Berkeley,<ref>[http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/rent/ City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board].</ref> Beverly Hills,<ref>[http://www.beverlyhills.org/rent City of Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization].</ref> East Palo Alto,<ref>[http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/rentprogram "Rent Stabilization Program"], City of East Palo Alto. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Hayward,<ref>[https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ResidentialRentOrdinance.pdf "Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance"], City of Hayward. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Los Angeles,<ref>[http://hcidla.lacity.org/RSO-Overview "RSO Overview"], at Los Angeles Housing and Community Department. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref> Los Gatos,<ref>[http://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/118 "Rental Dispute Resolution Regulations"], Town of Los Gatos. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Mountain View,<ref>[http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rentstablization.asp "Rent Stabilization"], City of Mountain View. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Oakland,<ref>[http://rapwp.oaklandnet.com/ "Welcome to the Rent Adjustment Program"], City of Oakland website. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref> Palm Springs,<ref>[http://www.palmspringsca.gov/government/departments/community-economic-development-department/rent-control "Rent Control"], City of Palm Springs. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Richmond.<ref>[http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3364/Richmond-Rent-Program "Richmond Rent Program"], City of Richmond. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref><ref>Karina Ioffee, [http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/15/richmond-judge-rejects-effort-to-halt-rent-control/ "Richmond: Judge rejects effort to halt rent control. Strikes down request for preliminary injunction and keeps law on the books"], in ''East Bay Times'', Feb. 15, 1017. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> San Francisco,<ref>[http://sfrb.org/landlord-tenant-information "Rent Board"], City of San Francisco. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref> San Jose,<ref>[http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=1355 "Apartment Rent Ordinance"], San Jose. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Santa Ana,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Ordinance |url=https://www.santa-ana.org/renter-protections/ |access-date=2023-08-08 |website=City of Santa Ana |language=en-US}}</ref> Santa Monica,<ref>[https://www.smgov.net/Overview.aspx "Overview: Rent Control Law and Regulations"], at City of Santa Monica. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref><ref>Heskin (1985), pp. 63–65. The Santa Monica tenant movement became "a nationwide symbol" of political success in the late 1970s. At a meeting in Baltimore in 1980 they received from rent control advocates "a spontaneous and sustained standing ovation." Media coverage included the ''Wall Street Journal''. Their local opponents coined the name "People's Republic of Santa Monica" (p.xv). From a "feeble" force in 1976, tenants had won elections that installed a tenant majority on the City Council, and a strict city rent control regime. Baltimore quote p.65.</ref> and West Hollywood.<ref>[https://www.weho.org/city-government/rent-stabilization-housing "Rent Stabilization"], West Hollywood. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref>
Sacramento adopted the Tenant Protection and Relief Act August 13, 2019.<ref>[https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2019/08/14/sacramento-just-passed-an-ordinance-to-protect-renters-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-it "Sacramento Just Passed Ordinance to Protect Renters"] Accessed 2019-08-14.</ref>
Additionally, Campbell (does not have rent control ''per se'', but offers a mediation service), Fremont (rejected rent control in 2017), and Thousand Oaks (has limited rent control: mostly just for [[mobile home park]]s).<ref>See further below: subsections "With limited rent control" and "With non-rent elements".</ref>
====With limited rent control====
Two examples of the many cities with rent control only for mobile home parks: Cotati,<ref>Cotati now has rent control for mobile homes, and special protections for children of renters, cf., [http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Cotati/?Cotati19/Cotati1914.html&?f "Housing"], Cotati Municipal Code. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref><ref>Cf., [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1389933.html ''152 Valparaiso Associates v. City of Cotati''], at Find Law website. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Thousand Oaks.<ref>Thousand Oaks has rent control for all mobile homes.  [http://www.toaks.org/departments/community-development/housing/affordable-housing-program/rental-assistance-programs "Housing: Rent Control"], City of Thousand  Oaks. Accessed 2017-12-13. The City apparently also controls the rent for the few apartment-house tenants whose tenancy began on or before 1987.</ref>
====With non-rent elements====
Some cities have rental housing laws that do '''not''' control the amount of rent per se. Accordingly, these six have a mediation service: Campbell,<ref>[http://www.cityofcampbell.com/135/Housing "Housing: Campbell Rental Increase Dispute Resolution"], City of Campbell. Accessed 2017-10-12. City "encourages" owners to limit rent.</ref> Fremont,<ref>[https://fremont.gov/2450/Residential-Rent-Increase-Dispute-Resolu "Residential Rent Increase Dispute Resolution"], at City of Fremont website. Accessed 2017-12-12.</ref> Gardena,<ref>[http://www2.cityofgardena.org/rent-mediation/ "Rent Mediation"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171013070236/http://www2.cityofgardena.org/rent-mediation/ |date=2017-10-13 }}, City of Gardena. Accessed 2017-10-12. Gardena requires a 60-day notice for rent increases of 10% or more.</ref> Palo Alto,<ref>[http://www.paloaltomediation.com/documents/PaloAltoTenantGuide.pdf "City of Palo Alto Tenant Guide"]. Accessed 2017-11-23. At p.8: "Is there rent control in Palo Alto? No." Palo Alto does mandate a non-binding mediation service (p.3) and offers counseling (p.4).</ref> San Leandro,<ref>[https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/housing/rentreview/ "Rent Review Program"], City of San Leandro. Accessed 2017-10-12. San Leandro requires a 60-day notice for rent increased of 10% or more. It encourages tenants to apply for its below market rate (BMR) rental housing units.</ref> Union City.<ref>Union City has a mandatory, non-binding mediation service, and bars no-cause evictions. [https://www.unioncity.org/231/Rent-Ordinances "Rent Ordinances"], Union City. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Definitions differ as to whether this would even count as "rent control". As noted above, Palo Alto declares that it has '''no''' rent control, but it does offers mediation over rent raises.<ref>See also the next section below ("refused").</ref> On the other hand, Fremont lists as the third of six purposes for its mediation services: "Limit rent increases to fair and reasonable amounts."<ref>See the list of 'rent-controlled' cities in Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), pp. 88 (included here, evidently only because of mediation: Campbell, Fremont, Gardena, Palo Alto); c.f., Appendix A, pp. 431–467 (abstract analysis of 'rent control laws' of eighteen cities).</ref><ref>See also next section on cities refusing rent control.</ref>
Glendale's ordinance prohibits an eviction without just cause. But, like Palo Alto, Glendale declined 'rent control'.<ref>See next section ("refused").</ref> Almost all rent-controlled cities also prohibit evictions without just cause.<ref>Brown, Portman, Rosenquest (2017), p.93 (list of cites with just cause required for evictions).</ref> Among California cities which do '''not''' control the rent amount, but do prohibit no-cause evictions: Glendale,<ref>[http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/housing/other-resources/just-cause-eviction-ordinance "Just Cause Eviction Ordinance"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171211105424/http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/housing/other-resources/just-cause-eviction-ordinance |date=2017-12-11 }}, at Glendale California website. Accessed Dec.10, 2017.</ref> San Diego,<ref>[http://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter09/Ch09Art08Division07.pdf "∮98.0730 Termination of Tenancy"], at San Diego Municipal Code, Article 8: Housing. Accessed 2017-12-12.</ref><ref>[http://web.sdcaa.com/external/wcpages/wcmedia/documents/White%20Papers/SD%20Cause%20Eviction%20-%20Jan%202015.pdf "SDCAA White Paper: City of San Diego Cause Eviction Ordinance"], January 2015, at San Diego County Apartment Association website. Accessed 2017-12-12.</ref> Union City.<ref>Joseph Geha, [http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/04/05/union-city-council-passes-law-barring-tenant-evictions-without-cause/ "Union City: Council passes law barring tenant evictions without cause"], ''East Bay Times'', April 5, 2017. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref>
====That refused rent control====
Within the last few years, these cities either voted to repeal a rent control ordinance, or otherwise decided against rent control: Fremont (2017),<ref>Joseph Geha, [http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/12/fremont-isnt-ready-for-rent-control-council-decides/ "Fremont isn't ready for rent control, council decides"], ''East Bay Times'', July 12, 2017. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Glendale (2013),<ref>Arin Mikailian, [http://www.latimes.com/socal/glendale-news-press/news/tn-gnp-me-rent-control-20160727-story.html "Rent control seems unlikely in Glendale but additional affordable housing may ease burden on renters"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', Sept. 23, 2013. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref> Palo Alto (2017),<ref>Allison Levitsky, [http://padailypost.com/2017/10/18/council-rejects-study-of-rent-control/ "Council rejects study of rent control"], in ''Daily Post'', Oct. 18, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-23.</ref> and Santa Rosa (2017).<ref>Santa Rosa in 2017 repealed its rent control. For links to two press articles, see above at "List of California Cities".</ref><ref>Cf., above "Opposition to rent control" for link per repeal by Cambridge, Massachusetts.</ref>
From the section on non-rent elements (mediation and just cause eviction), depending on definitions, these cities might be added here (to those that refuse to actually control the rent amount): Campbell, Gardena, San Leandro, and Union City.
During the years from 1977 to 1983, the "voters of 22 cities [rejected] 27 proposed rent control initiatives."<ref>Keating (1983), p.4 (quote; list & dates). Several of the 22 cities, however, later sdopted other versions: Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Monica.</ref> Among those cities that then avoided rent control:<ref>Keating (1985), p.60 (a list of cities avoiding rent control).</ref> Pasadena (1977), Santa Barbara (1978), Santa Cruz (1979), Long Beach (1980), and San Diego (1980).<ref>Mike Madriaga, [https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/aug/28/stringers-want-rent-control-san-diego-sign-here/# "You want rent control in San Diego? Sign here"], in ''San Diego Reader'', Aug. 28, 2017. Accessed 2017-10-12.</ref>
==Effect of the Costa–Hawkins Act==
The ''major'' purposes of the Act were: to eliminate ''vacancy control'' and thereby reestablish an intermittent role for market forces ([[supply and demand]]) in setting the rental price; and, to exempt certain categories of rental units from rent control, e.g., new construction, and single family dwellings and condominiums. The exemption for new units sought to encourage housing supply.<ref>Cf., Lenvin and Moskovitz [2017], ∮∮ 7.4, 7.25 to 7.28A.</ref><ref>Dreier (1997), Part II, at section "Consequences of Deregulation".</ref>
===Vacancy control prior to the Act===
[[File:IMAG4098-berkeley-2217-and-2221-dwight.jpg|thumb|250px|Berkeley: Dwight Way rental.]]
Most rent control ordinances (deemed ''moderate'') limit an owner's ability to increase the rent to ''an existing tenant''. Yet some ''strict'' rent control regimes also limited the rent a landlord could charge on the open market, that is, after the apartment became vacant by the voluntary exit of the prior tenant, or vacant by a just-cause eviction. Hence, ''strict'' was also called ''vacancy control''. The controlled rental amount thus became specific not only to a particular tenancy, but also to a specific rental unit.<ref>Cf., Marcia Stewart, "Rent Control: Limits on Rent Control", at ''Nolo Press'' website.</ref>
Under such a "strict" regime, [[market forces]] are excluded from [[price]] determination (except for exempt categories, such as newly built units). Prior to the enactment of Costa–Hawkins, such strict ''vacancy control'' had existed in five cities: [[Berkeley, California|Berkeley]], [[Santa Monica, California|Santa Monica]], [[Cotati, California|Cotati]], [[East Palo Alto, California|East Palo Alto]] and [[West Hollywood, California|West Hollywood]].<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1164_cfa_950725_172019_asm_floor.html Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST], five cities with 'vacancy control' at p.2 and p.4. California Legislative Information website.</ref>
===Rent control elements denied to cities===
Costa–Hawkins preempted local laws to allow 'vacancy decontrol', i.e., it abolished "vacancy control". Accordingly, the Act permits landlords to "establish the initial rental rate for a dwelling or unit" following voluntary departure by the prior tenants or following ''for cause'' evictions.<ref>Civil Code, section 1954.53(a): quote. ''Vacancy decontrol'' also applies to rental units where prior tenants are evicted for cause, e.g., for non-payment of rent, or for nuisance.</ref> For cities then with vacancy control, this preemption started the process of "vacancy decontrol" which was phased-in over three years. Accordingly, on January 1, 1999, it went into full effect.<ref>[https://www.cityofberkeley.info/Rent_Stabilization_Board/Home/FAQs_Vacancy_Decontrol.aspx "Vacancy Decontrol"], Rent Stabilization Board, City of Berkeley. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref><ref>Cf., Meagan Messerly, [http://www.dailycal.org/2013/03/14/city-struggles-with-vacancy-decontrol/ "City struggles with vacancy decontrol"], ''The Daily Californian''. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref>
The Act additionally exempted from municipal rent control certain kinds of dwelling units, namely, "separately alienable" units, i.e., [[Single-family detached home|single family houses]] and [[condominium]]s. The Act also exempted new construction, i.e., dwelling units with a [[certificate of occupancy]] issued after February 1, 1995.<ref name="legislature1954"/><ref>See above, "The Act's provisions as codified".</ref>
===Rent control elements retained by cities===
The power to determine most of the elements of rent control (mentioned above) were left to the cities by the Act. Cities remain in control of changes to the rental amount of a tenancy, under constitutional limits.<ref>For the "just and reasonable returns" standard, see above section "Constitutional limits".</ref> Cities possess a substantive jurisdiction to regulate evictions, and an owner's ability to otherwise end a tenancy.<ref>Levrin & Moskovitz (2017), ∮7.25: the Act per Civil Code ∮1954.53(e) "allows public entities to control the grounds for evictions from rent controlled properties."</ref><ref>''West's Cal Jur 3d'', v.42, p.276: Costa Hawkins does not impair the authority of local government to monitor and regulate  the grounds for an eviction. But it "cannot impose a procedural condition to an eviction" such as requiring a city permit (p. 279).</ref><ref>Costa–Hawkins Act, Civil Code ∮1954.52: "(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the authority of a public entity that may otherwise exist to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction."</ref> Accordingly, cities could prohibit an owner from terminating a tenant without "just cause". Also in terminations, the city by ordinance may place costs on an owner, and grant rights to a tenant, e.g., the relocation allowance.<ref>[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/asm/ab_1151-1200/ab_1164_cfa_950725_172019_asm_floor.html Analyses: AB 1164, Assembly Floor 7/25/95 – DIGEST], at p.3,#4 (re requirement of 'just cause' for terminations). California Legislative Information website.</ref><ref>[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rentwatch-eviction-notice-20170218-story.html "Does a Landlord need to give a reason for evicting a tenant?"], ''The Los Angeles Times'', Feb. 19, 2017. Accessed 2017-10-09.</ref><ref>See above, section "Other elements".</ref>
Each California city may independently adopt and enact its own rent control ordinance. Those in force range across the spectrum. [[Counties in California]] may also enact rent control laws, in accordance with state law.<ref>Keating in Niebanck (1965), pp. 59–61 (cities), pp. 64–65 (Los Angeles County).</ref>
==Court interpretations of Costa–Hawkins==
In the two decades the Act has been on the books, a number of lawsuits have been filed citing it. Of those appealed, some became written case law. The 2009 ''Palmer'' case 'unexpectedly' upset local laws for inclusionary zoning per rental units. A few other cases are also discussed here. There remain questions about how to apply the Costa–Hawkins statute within the larger legal framework, e.g., its possible interaction with various, adjacent state statutes, and with varieties of municipal rent control and other ordinances.
===''Palmer'' (2009): rentals in inclusionary housing===
===='New construction' exemption applies====
In ''Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles'' (2009),<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13698126938858893450&q=Palmer/sixth+street+properties+LP+v.+City+of+Los+Angeles&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 ''Palmer/Sixth Street Properties LP v. City of Los Angeles''], at Google Scholar. Accessed 2017-10-25.</ref> the issue involved how to apply Costa–Hawkins to an inclusionary housing ordinance of the City of Los Angeles. [[Inclusionary housing]] laws (also called inclusionary zoning) apply to the construction of new multi-unit developments and seek to mandate the inclusion of some [[affordable housing|affordable units]] with [[price controls]], along with a larger number of units to be sold on the [[free market]]. About one-third of California cities and counties have inclusionary zoning ordinances. Such laws might require, beside affordable units for sale, units for rent. In this case, a Los Angeles housing ordinance in effect mandated that sixty ''rentals'' for low-income tenants be included in [[Geoffrey Palmer (real estate developer)|Geoff Palmer]]'s 350-unit development west of downtown.<ref>Called ''Piero II'', on Wilshire Blvd. adjacent to the 110 Fwy., cf. [https://www.thepiero.com ''The Piero''], at its commercial website. Accessed 2011-10-25.</ref>
The [[California Courts of Appeal|appellate court]] held, however, that the exemption from rent control of new construction under Costa–Hawkins applied to the particular facts of this case. Thus the city could not enforce its housing mandate against the [[real estate developer]].<ref>Lenvin & Moskovitz (2017), ''Palmer'' case at ∮7.25, p.7-45.</ref><ref>Barclay & Gray (2014), ''Palmer'' case, pp. 434–435.</ref><ref>[http://www.cp-dr.com/articles/node-2401 "Court rules LA inclusionary housing mandate violates state law"], in ''California Planning and Development Report'' [C P & D R], Aug. 20, 2009. 2017-08-28.</ref><ref>Cf. [http://nlihc.org/article/field-california-supreme-court-upholds-inclusionary-housing "From the Field: California Supreme Court upholds inclusionary housing"] (June 29, 2015), at National Low Income Housing Coalition website. 2017-08-28. The focus here is ''Calif. BIA v. City of San Jose'' (2015). The article at ¶6 distinguishes the 2009 ''Palmer'' case because it regards rentals rather that housing for sale as in ''Calif. BIA''.</ref><ref>Jeremy Rosenberg, [https://www.kcet.org/history-society/the-fight-against-rent-control "The fight against rent control"], at ''KCET'', March 4, 2013. Costa–Hawkins and ''Palmer'' case discussed at ¶¶ 6–16.</ref>
====2013 bill to restore inclusionary rentals====
The ''Palmer'' case thus removed rentals from the usual formula of inclusionary housing. Critics claimed, however, that the appellate court's opinion was "widely viewed as a misapplication of the Costa–Hawkins Act to a situation it was never meant to address." It sparked a political response in 2013 that aimed to adjust the Act. Accordingly, Assembly Bill 1229 was passed by the California legislature "to re-establish the legitimacy of affordable housing requirements for rentals."<ref>Andrew L. Faber, Berliner Cohen, [https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2014/2014-Annual/9-2015-Annual-Andrew-Faber-Inclusionary-Housing-Re.aspx "Inclusionary Housing Requirements: Still Possible?"] (California League of Cities 2014), at p.7: two quotes (misapplication, AB 1229).</ref><ref>HansonBridgett, [http://www.cacities.org/getattachment/56eaeb68-eae4-4eda-bde4-f7d84da1236d/Palmer-v-City-of-Los-Angeles-Letter-in-Support-of.aspx "Letter Brief" per ''Palmer'' case], pp. 5–6, 7–9, 10–12 (Sept. 9, 2009). Ac'd 2017-10-07. The law firm here makes the argument that the decision of the Court of Appeals was mistaken regarding the ''Palmer'' case, in that it did not follow established law. The [[legislative history]] of Costa–Hawkins is addressed.</ref>
[[image:Edmund G Brown Jr.jpg|thumb|150px|Jerry Brown, c.2015.]]
====Governor Brown's 2013 veto message====
In October 2013 [[Governors of California|Governor]] [[Jerry Brown]] vetoed the bill. He said, "As [[Mayor of Oakland]] I saw how difficult it can be to attract developments to low and middle income communities. Requirements to developers to include below-market units in their projects can exacerbate these challenges, even while not meaningfully increasing the amount of affordable housing in a given community."
Advocates of [[affordable housing]] felt stymied. Yet there were alternatives that avoided the exemption for new construction under Costa–Hawkins: "the builder receives either financial assistance" or other valuable consideration such as a density bonus, and "agrees by contract with the city to restrict rents."<ref>Andrew L. Faber, Berliner Cohen, [https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/City-Attorneys/Library/2014/2014-Annual/9-2015-Annual-Andrew-Faber-Inclusionary-Housing-Re.aspx "Inclusionary Housing Requirements: Still Possible?"] (California League of Cities 2014), at p.7: two quotes (Brown's veto, the builder); at p. 9: The authors comment about Bay Area cities using money from "a straight fee to support affordable housing construction, instead of an in lieu fee... [T]he city can presumably work around the ''Palmer'' case by using the money for either for-sale or rental units, since ''Palmer'' would not apply to a city- subsidized project (or where the city is a lender and negotiates terms of the loan to include affordability)." Faber (2014) at p. 9.</ref><ref>Barclay & Gray (2014) re rentals in inclusionary housing. Owner contracts with city re density bonus: for each affordable unit included, an extra market-rate unit (Barclay, pp. 439–440). Exceptions re Act ∮∮ 1954.52(b) and 1954.53(a)(2) (Barclay, p.435). Incentives and concessions to developers: zoning, taxes, fees, amenities, fast track, infrastructure (Barclay, p.439 text & n40).</ref><ref>Nadia I. El Mallakhh, "Does the Costa Hawkins Act prohibit local inclusionary zoning programs?" at ''California Law Review'', vol. 89, pg. 1849 (2001).</ref><ref>[https://caanet.org/expect-little-negative-impact-from-inclusionary-zoning-bill/ "Update: Brown vetoes inclusionary zoning bill"], Oct. 2, 2013, at California Apartment Association website. 2017-08-28.</ref>
====2017 bill 'fixes' ''Palmer'' re rentals====
The legislature in 2017 approved a bill (AB 1505) that modified the court's ruling in ''Palmer''.<ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1505 AB 1505 [text]. The ''Palmer'' case is expressly named in Sec. 3(e), and in Sec. 3(i) the Costa Hawkins Act as codified is referenced.</ref><ref>Cf. [http://calhsng.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AB-1505-Bloom-Sponsor-Letter-3.30.17.pdf Support Letter] of March 30, 2017, at California Housing Consortium, in favor of AB 1505 addressed to its Assembly sponsors Bloom, Chiu, and Gloria. This letter describes AB 1505 in favorable terms as the fix for the 2009 ''Palmer'' case, in that the bill restores to cities their prior discretion re inclusionary ''rental'' housing in new developments. In addition to the California Housing Consortium, supporters included California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Housing California, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, and Western Center on Law and Poverty.</ref> This bill restores to local governments the ability to require inclusionary ''rental'' housing for low income households, hence in effect setting their rent amount. Yet it allows for state oversight by a review (per a feasibility study) of such municipal requirements if applicable to over 15% of the units of a development project.<ref>AB 1505, Sec. 2 re feasibility studies and review by state.</ref> Governor Brown then signed the bill which was among a package of fifteen housing bills for California in 2017.<ref>Liam Dillon, [http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-legislation-signed-20170929-htmlstory.html "Gov. Brown just signed 15 housing bills. Here's how they're supposed to help the affordability crisis"], ''The Los Angeles Times'', Sept. 29, 2017. Accessed 2018-09-15.</ref>
===Certificate of occupancy: ''Burien LLC v. Wiley''===
In 2014 the California Court of Appeals clarified the Act's provision concerning a rent-control exemption based on a "certificate of occupancy issued after February 1, 1995."<ref name="Civil Code, §1954.52a1"/> The provision was held to apply only to certificates of occupancy that preceded the residential use of the unit.<ref>{{cite web|author=admin |url=http://costa-hawkins.com/surreal-estate/burien-llc-v-wiley-cal-court-of-appeal-2nd-appellate-dist-5th-div-2014/ |title=Reading Legislative Intent into Costa-Hawkins: Burien, LLC v. Wiley, Cal. Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 2014 – |publisher=Costa-hawkins.com |date=2014-11-11 |accessdate=2023-02-04}}</ref>
In ''Burien, LCC v. James A. Wiley'' the Landlord contended that this Costa–Hawkins exemption applies to buildings converted from apartments to condominiums (both residential uses), when a new certificate is issued for the latter. The court reasoned that the purpose of the statute's exemption is to promote construction and development that increase the supply of rental housing, not to promote token reclassification without such a result. "We conclude that section 1954.52, subdivision (a)(1), refers to certificates of occupancy issued prior to residential use of the unit."<ref>''Burien'' case, at p.2 (quote), cf. pp. 7 & 8, and p.10. The rental was on Sawtelle Blvd. in Los Angeles.</ref><ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2014/b250182.html ''Burien LCC v. Wiley''], at ''JUSTIA US Law''. Accessed 2017-08-22.</ref><ref>See section "2002 Amendment of the Act".</ref>
===''Mosser'' rule: children per 'vacancy control'===
[[File:3 Cable Car on Hyde St with Alcatraz, SF, CA, jjron 25.03.2012.jpg|thumb|right|150px|San Francisco.]]
In January 2015, the First District Court of Appeals decided that, while Costa–Hawkins allows a landlord to establish a new rental rate where the "original occupants" on the lease no longer permanently reside at the premises, this decontrol was '''not''' available to the landlord where a minor child, who moved in with his parents at the commencement of the lease, remained there after they had vacated. In ''Mosser Companies v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board'',<ref>{{cite web|author=admin |url=http://costa-hawkins.com/uncategorized/will-mosser-companies-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-prompt-another-amendment-to-costa-hawkins/ |title=Will Mosser Companies v. City and County of San Francisco Prompt Another Amendment to Costa-Hawkins? – |publisher=Costa-hawkins.com |date=2015-02-09 |accessdate=2023-02-04}}</ref> the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Commentary on the case states that Costa–Hawkins, "as written, does not permit vacancy decontrol until all lawful occupants vacate the premises." This, despite the landlord's argument that this constituted an intergenerational tenancy of a rent-controlled premises.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/a141134.html ''Mosser Co. v. San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Bd.''] (quote), at ''JUSTIA US Law''. Accessed 2017-08-22.</ref>
The ''Mosser'' rule was then expanded in July 2015 by the First District Court of Appeals, in ''T & A Drolapas v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arb. Bd.''.<ref>{{cite web|author=admin |url=http://costa-hawkins.com/surreal-estate/first-district-court-of-appeals-highly-committed-to-mosser-companies-opinion-in-t-a-drolapas-sons-l-p-v-ccsf/ |title=First District Court of Appeals Highly Committed to Mosser Companies Opinion in T & A Drolapas & Sons, L.P. v. CCSF (Borjas) – |publisher=Costa-hawkins.com |date=2015-07-13 |accessdate=2023-02-04}}</ref> This decision dealt with similar facts (a landlord attempting to raise the rent of the son of original lessees who had moved out). The court first found that, as the family had moved in prior to the enactment of Costa–Hawkins, even if the son was merely a subtenant, he would have been ''grandfathered in''. Such a "subtenant" could be an "original occupant". The court, however, went on to find that he was also an original occupant under the ''Mosser'' rule, even though, unlike in ''Mosser'', there was no evidence that the landlord knew about the son when the tenancy commenced.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/a139432.html ''T & A Drolapas, and Sons, LP v. SF Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Bd.''], at ''JUSTIA US Law''. Accessed 2017-08-22. With the Board as respondent was named real party in interest Gerald Borjas.</ref>
===''Mak'': "Just cause" notice & 'vacancy control'===
In the September 2015 case ''Jason Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board'',<ref>{{cite web|author=admin |url=http://costa-hawkins.com/bay-area/evidentiary-presumption-in-berkeley-rent-ordinance-punishes-landlords-who-fake-owner-move-ins/ |title=Evidentiary Presumption in Berkeley Rent Ordinance Punishes Landlords Who Fake Owner Move-Ins – |publisher=Costa-hawkins.com |date=2015-09-08 |accessdate=2023-02-04}}</ref> the First District Court of Appeals interpreted Costa–Hawkins in the context of an evidentiary [[presumption]] in Berkeley's rent ordinance that presumes that, where a tenant has moved out after a termination notice, the tenant moved out ''because'' of the notice. One accepted way for a landlord to take possession of a rental unit is to use an "owner move-in" eviction, which is recognized as "just cause" to terminate a rent-controlled tenancy. Of course, the landlords are then required to move in and make the rental unit their residence for some minimum period (e.g., 36 continuous months). In such event, the Costa–Hawkins Act will thereafter decontrol the unit, i.e., allow it to be rented at market rate. Such decontrol is limited to "just cause" terminations, or where the prior tenant freely decides to moves out. The owner cannot, therefore, without "just cause" initiate the termination of a rent-controlled tenancy, then rent it at market rate to a new tenant.<ref name="ReferenceA"/><ref>Civil Code, sections 1954.52(a), and 1954.53(a).</ref>
The landlord in ''Mak'' served the tenant a notice of termination for an 'owner move-in'. But the landlord [[rescind]]ed the notice, then entered into a move-out agreement with the tenant, in which the tenant recited that he was not moving out because of the prior notice. The landlord, however, did not move-in, but instead rented the premises to a new tenant. The Berkeley ordinance in question, when applied to these facts, raised the presumption that the prior tenant moved out because of the owner move-in notice. The landlords were not able to [[rebuttable presumption|rebut this presumption]] when their new tenants challenged the validity of their market-rate rent. Accordingly, the vacant unit was still linked to the amount of the previous controlled rent, a situation to which the new tenants were entitled.<ref>[http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2015/a143671.html ''Mak v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd.''], at ''JUSTIA US Law''. Accessed 2017-08-22. Named with the Board as respondent was real party in interest: Alexander Ziem.</ref>
==2010s housing shortage and repeal efforts==
===Shortage of affordable housing, & HAA===
{{further|California housing shortage}}
The housing cycle that began with the crisis of the 1970s and 1980s has apparently come full circle. A housing shortage has recurred and apparently reached the crisis stage.  In a 2014 California treatise on [[real estate development]], the authors opined that "[C]ommunities across California continue to confront the challenge posed by a scarcity of housing, particularly of affordable housing. In the last several decades, housing production in the state has lagged behind population and job growth, resulting in a housing deficit. ... While all citizens feel the impact of this housing shortage at some level, those with incomes at the lowest end of the economic spectrum of often bear the brunt of the shortage."<ref>Barclay & Gray (2014), p.409 (quote).</ref><ref>[http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/California's-Housing-Future-Main-Document-Draft.pdf "California's Housing Future. Challenges and Opportunities"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171219121623/http://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/California%27s-Housing-Future-Main-Document-Draft.pdf |date=2017-12-19 }}, January 2017 Draft, at [[California Department of Housing and Community Development]] website. Accessed 2017-11-21. At p.5: "From 2015–2025, approximately 1.8 million new housing units are needed to meet projected population and household growth, or 180,000 new homes annually." While 200,000 were produced in 2004 and 2005, in 2015 there were only 100,000 built.</ref><ref>Alissa Anderson & Scott Graves, [http://calbudgetcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/080212_LockedoutReport.pdf "Locked Out 2008"], pp. 29–30, California Budget Project (Feb. 2008), at California Budget and Policy Center. Accessed 2017-11-15.</ref><ref>Matt Levin, [https://www.kcet.org/shows/socal-connected/californias-housing-crisis-its-even-worse-than-you-think "California's Housing Shortage--It's even worse than you think"], at KCET website, Aug. 23,2017. Accessed 2017-12-4.</ref><ref>Cf., Editorial, [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/the-affordable-housing-crisis.html "The Affordable Housing Crisis"], in ''The New York Times'', Dec. 4, 2012. Accessed 2017-11-15.</ref><ref>Liam Dillon, "Little consensus over a shortage of homes. Experts and public disagree over housing crisis' roots, poll finds" in ''Los Angeles Times'', Oct. 22, 2018. "Academic researchers, state analysts and California's gubernatorial candidates agree that the fundamental issue underlying the state's housing crisis is that there are not enough homes for everyone who wants to live here. The problem, a new poll finds, is that the public doesn't believe it." (p.B1).</ref>
Regarding the shortage in California, the [[California Housing Accountability Act|Housing Accountability Act]] (HAA) was recently strengthened by amendments. Its 2016 version states: "(a) The legislature finds and declares all of the following: ¶(1) The lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California. ¶(2) California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. ... ."<ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65589.5 California Government Code § 65589.5] (quote), at California Legislative Information. Accessed 2017-11-15.</ref><ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1515 "AB1515 Planning and Zoning: Housing"] re HAA, at California Legislative Information. ''Click'': '''09-15-17 Assembly Floor Analysis''' by Rebecca Rabosky: p.1 at (2)(d) California has a housing deficit of two million units; p.1, (2)(e) California ranks 49 of 50 States in homeownership rates, and in supply of housing per capita; p.2, (2)(g) 1.5 million renters (almost a third) spend more that 50% of their income on rent.</ref>
Here the legislature aims to overcome the shortage by increasing the housing supply. The HAA imposes detailed limits on a city's power to restrict new housing construction.<ref>The HAA attributed the housing shortage to local governments who reject residential development projects. Govt. Code § 65589.5, at subsections (a)(2), (a)(4). Among operative provisions re local agencies: subsections (b) "not reject or make infeasible" qualified housing developments; (d) "not disapprove a housing development project... unless it makes written findings... ."; (i) "burden of proof".</ref><ref>[https://caanet.org/gov-brown-signs-bill-enforcing-pro-housing-law/ "Gov. Brown signs bill to help enforce pro-housing law"], at California Apartment Association, Sept. 21, 1916. Accessed 2017-11-15.</ref><ref>Tray Taylor, [http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/25/berkeleys-bid-stop-new-housing-built-overruled-judge/ "Berkeley's bid to stop new housing being built overruled by judge"], in ''Berkeleyside'', July 25, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-16.</ref><ref>Angela Hart, [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article168107042.html "How California's housing crisis happened"], in ''The Sacramento Bee'', Aug. 31, 2017. Accessed 2017-12-4.</ref><ref>Cf., Lee E. Ohanian and Edward C. Prescott, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-in-the-sam-hill-are-cows-doing-on-sand-hill-road-1512171702?mg=prod/accounts-wsj "What in the Sam Hill are Cows doing on Sand Hill Road. They're eating the priciest grass in America, thanks to California's out-of-control land-use rules"], in ''The Wall Street Journal'', Dec. 1, 2017. Accessed 2017-12-2.</ref> The recent HAA amendments, signed by Gov. [[Jerry Brown|Brown]], were sponsored by three Democrats: [[Nancy Skinner (California politician)|Nancy Skinner]], Senate – [[East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area)|East Bay]], [[Raul Bocanegra]], Assembly – [[Pacoima]],  and [[Tom Daly (American politician)|Tom Daly]], Assembly – [[Santa Ana, California|Santa Ana]].<ref>[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1515 "AB1515 Planning and Zoning: Housing"] re HAA, at California Legislative Information. ''Click'': '''09-15-17 Assembly Floor Analysis''' by Rebecca Rabosky: p.2 at (3), & pp. 3–4: the three sponsors; p.3, HAA also called the "anti-[[Not In My Back Yard|NIMBY]] Act".  Accessed 2017-11-18.</ref>
Yet it's said that the HAA and similar bills subsequently introduced will not be enough.<ref>Liam Dillon, [http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-state-housing-deal-effects-20170811-htmlstory.html "Senate bills aim to make homes more affordable, but they won't spur nearly enough construction"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', Aug. 11, 2017. Accessed 2017-12-4. Discussed are two housing finance bills, and another bill to limit city regulation of new construction.</ref><ref>Cf. subsection above re the 2017 fix re the ''Palmer'' case, per note discussing 15 new housing bills.</ref>
===Efforts to repeal Costa–Hawkins===
====By the legislature====
[[File:Bloom Committee Picture.jpg|thumb|Richard Bloom, Assembly member; former Mayor of Santa Monica.]]
On February 17, 2017, in the [[California Assembly]], Democratic members [[Richard Bloom]], [[Rob Bonta]], and [[David Chiu (politician)|David Chiu]] introduced AB 1506, a bill that if passed would simply repeal wholesale the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. Given the vacancy decontrol and exclusions of Costa–Hawkins, its repeal would leave [[Local government in California|local governments]] free to control much of the residential rental pricing regulations, their reach, and similar issues.<ref>[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1506 "AB 1506"], at California Legislative Information. Accessed 2-17-11-21. Chap. 2.7 contains only the entire Costa Hawkins Act. On Mar. 16, 2017, it was referred to the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development. No further action is reported.</ref><ref>Andrew Khouri, [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent-control-bill-20170405-story.html "Largest effort to expand rent control in decades..."], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', April 6, 2017. Accessed 2-017-08-22.</ref><ref>Angella Hart, [http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article142079274.html "Are your housing costs sky high? A new fight over rent control is coming"], in ''The Sacramento Bee'', April 3, 2017. Accessed 2017-08-22.</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=admin |url=http://costa-hawkins.com/costa-hawkins/assembly-members-chiu-and-bloom-introduce-ab-1506-attempt-to-repeal-costa-hawkins/ |title=Assembly Members Chiu, Bonta and Bloom Introduce AB 1506 – Attempt To Repeal Costa-Hawkins – |publisher=Costa-hawkins.com |date=2017-02-19 |accessdate=2023-02-04}}</ref> By April the bill was facing stiff opposition and bleak prospects in the legislature. It was then "parked in committee" until next year.<ref>Andrew Khouri, [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rent-control-bill-20170405-story.html "The largest effort to expand rent control in decades is on hold in Sacramento"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', April 6, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-6.</ref><ref>Angela Hart, [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article144737749.html "Battle over rent control in California expected to drag into next year"], in ''The Sacramento Bee'', April 24, 2017, updated July 13, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-21.</ref>
On January 11, 2018, chairperson Chiu (San Francisco) of the Assembly's Housing and Community Development Committee put Bloom's bill to a vote. It failed to pass. The two Republicans voted against. Democrats [[Ed Chau]] [[Arcadia, California|(Arcadia)]] and [[Jim Wood (California politician)|Jim Wood]] [[Healdsburg, California|(Healdsburg)]] abstained, and commented that rent control would do nothing to increase the supply of housing and may discourage new construction at a time the state needs it the most.
{{ r | LAT_2018-01-11 | p=1 | q=Chau and Wood said they were concerned that a large growth in rent control could slow already lagging housing production in the state.  “I&apos;m concerned that the bill does nothing to increase the supply of housing and may in fact have the opposite effect of discouraging new construction during a time when we need it the most,” Wood said. }}
Perhaps a thousand proponents representing the opposing sides attended the vote.{{ r | LAT_2018-01-11}}<ref>Katy Murphy, [https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/11/california-considers-repealing-rent-control-restrictions/ "Rent Control in California: Proposal to lift restrictions blocked in committee"], in ''The Mercury News'', Jan. 11, 2018. Accessed 2018-1-13.</ref>
====By initiative: Prop 10====
On October 23, 2017, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) filed papers with the state Attorney General for a [[Initiatives and referendums in the United States|ballot measure]] which would repeal wholesale the 1995 Costa–Hawkins Act. ACCE calls the current rents across California too high, and out of control. To qualify for a November 2018 vote by the public, 365,880 signatures are said to be required.<ref>[https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/17-0041%20%28Affordable%20Housing%29_0.pdf "Initiative proposal ''Affordable Housing Act''"], at Initiative coordinator, Attorney General's Office, Oct. 23, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-21.</ref><ref>Liam Dillon, [http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-rent-control-in-california-could-expand-1508785237-htmlstory.html "Rent control in California could expand dramatically under a possible 2018 initiative"], in ''The Los Angeles Times'', Oct. 23, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-21.</ref><ref>Jenna Chandler, [https://la.curbed.com/2017/10/23/16526384/costa-hawkins-rent-control-ballot-measure-initiative "Tenant groups, AIDS Foundation introduce initiative to repeal Costa Hawkins. It would allow Los Angeles to expand rent control laws"], at ''Curbed Los Angeles'', Oct. 23, 2017. Accessed 2017-11-21. LA Tenants Union supported the initiative.</ref><ref>Adam Brinklow, [https://sf.curbed.com/2017/10/25/16545952/ballot-rent-control-costa-hawkins-california "Ballot measure would expand rent control across California. Proposal wants to repeal 1995 Costa–Hawkins Act which prevents rent control in newly constructed buildings"], in ''Curbed San Francisco'', Oct. 25, 1995. Accessed 2011-11-9. According to Brinklow, ACCE suggested that “median rents are higher in California than any other state in the country.” Brinklow agrees that it's true by many measures, but writes that Hawaii's is highest, where "the median price on a single bedroom home is $1,500/month, to California's $1,410."</ref>
Proponents announced in late April that they have enough signatures to qualify an initiative to repeal Costa Hawkins.<ref>Elijah Chiland, [https://la.curbed.com/2018/4/23/17270880/costa-hawkins-repeal-california-rent-control-garcetti "Tenant groups say they have enough signatures for repeal of Costa Hawkins repeal measure"], in ''Curbed Los Angeles'', April 23, 2018. Accessed 2018-4-30. 565,000 signatures obtained, needed: 365,880.</ref><ref name="latimes.com"/> Its supporters named it the "Affordable Housing Act". The initiative was Proposition 10 on the [[2018 California elections|General Election ballot of November 2018]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures/ |title=Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures |year=2018 |publisher=[[Secretary of State of California]] |access-date=August 22, 2018}}</ref><ref>See above "Rent Control in California" for views of proponents of rent control in section "Declared purposes", and for views of its opponents in "Opposition".</ref>
A survey conducted in October 2018 by the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' and the [[University of Southern California]] found that 28% of eligible California voters believed that the lack of rent control was the main contributing factor to California's [[Housing affordability in California|housing affordability crisis]]. 24% of respondents believed that the most significant cause of the [[Homelessness in the United States|housing crisis]] was insufficient funding of [[low-income housing]]; only 13% believed it was insufficient new housing.<ref name="latimes-poll-2018">{{Cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-residents-housing-polling-20181021-story.html |title=Experts say California needs to build a lot more housing. But the public disagrees |last=Dillon |first=Liam |date=21 October 2018 |work=Los Angeles Times |access-date=25 March 2019}}</ref>
On November 6, Prop 10 was decisively defeated, reported the ''Los Angeles Times''; it endorsed the measure. The preliminary results with 100% of precincts reporting: 38% or 2,675,378 voted for, and 62% or 4,310,298 voted against.<ref>Liam Dillon, [http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-midterm-election-day-updates-hold-proposition-10-rent-control-1541029296-htmlstory.html "California voters reject Prop. 10"], ''Los Angeles Times'', November 6, 2018. Accessed 2018-11-6.</ref>
Carol Galante, a professor of urban policy at UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation postulated that Prop 10 may have been defeated because it would have opened the door for government regulation of rents on single-family homes; because 40% of the rental housing stock nationwide consists of single-family homes (predominantly owned by private individuals), this resulted in a large number of owners with the ability to vote against this proposition.<ref name=SJMN_RC_failed >{{ cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/06/californias-rent-control-measure-defeated/ | title=California's rent-control measure defeated | last=Murphy | first=Katy | work=[[San Jose Mercury News]] | date=2018-11-06 | access-date=2018-11-25 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181117055416/https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/06/californias-rent-control-measure-defeated/ | archive-date=2018-11-17 | url-status=live | quote=<blockquote>One factor that likely weighed heavily against Prop. 10 is the sheer number of property owners who rent out — or might one day consider renting — their single-family homes, which are currently exempt from rent caps, said Carol Galante, a former Obama administration housing official who now is professor of affordable housing and urban policy at UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Nationally, Galante noted, 37 percent of the rental housing stock consists of single-family homes. “That puts lots of pressure on the situation,” she said. “You’ve got a large number of owners of that rental stock, and you have more people who would be concerned about price controls.” </blockquote> }}</ref>
==== By initiative: Prop 21 ====
[[File:Mario talks about rent gouging in California - 2019-09-19.ogg|thumb|A renter named Mario talks about his experience with rent gouging in California in 2019.]]
The same activists who advocated for Proposition 10 (both financially backed by the [[AIDS Healthcare Foundation]]), in the wake of the failure to attract majority support, decided to put another initiative to amend the Costa-Hawkins Act on the ballot in the [[2020 California elections]]. This initiative, [[2020 California Proposition 21|Proposition 21]], was an attempt to have a more limited and partial repeal of Costa-Hawkins, as opposed to a complete repeal which was on the ballot in 2018.<ref>{{cite web|title=California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)|url=https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020)|access-date=2020-07-31|website=Ballotpedia|language=en}}</ref><ref name=LAT_Props_dollars >{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/projects/props-california-2020-election-money/ | title=Billions have been spent on California's ballot measure battles. But this year is unlike any other | last1=Menezes | first1=Ryan | last2=Moore | first2=Maloy | last3=Do | first3=Phi | newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=2020-11-03 | quote=The Los Angeles-based nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation is bankrolling its most expensive attempt yet to expand rent control. The measure would permit communities to adopt greater protections by allowing limits on rent increases in buildings more than 15 years old. The foundation's president, Michael Weinstein, is well-known as an aggressive, litigious leader thanks to his history of sponsoring high-profile ballot measures, including another on this list. Proposition 21 - $125,436,982 - Supporters - AIDS Healthcare Foundation - $40,187,371 }}</ref> This measure also failed, 59.85% "no" to 40.15% "yes".
==== By initiative: Prop 33====
{{main|2024 California Proposition 33}}
Another initiative in the November 2024 general election, [[2024 California Proposition 33|Proposition 33]], was an attempt to repeal of Costa-Hawkins. This measure also failed, 62.% "no" to 38% "yes".
==Studies on effects of California Rent Control (not limited to Costa-Hawkins)==
===Research published in 1990, 1999, 2000===
Historically, there have been two types of rent control - vacancy control (where the rent level of a unit is controlled irrespective of whether the tenant remains in the unit or not) and vacancy decontrol (where the rent level is controlled only while the existing tenant remains in the unit).  In California prior to 1997, both types were allowed (the Costa/Hawkins bill of that year phased out vacancy control provisions).  A 1990 study of Santa Monica, CA showed that vacancy control in that city protected existing tenants (lower increases in rent and longer stability).  However, the policy potentially discouraged investors from building new rental units.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Who Benefits from Rent Control? Effects on Tenants in Santa Monica, California |last1=Levine |first1=Ned |last2=Grigsby |first2=J. Eugene |last3=Heskin |first3=Allan D. |year=1990 |journal=Journal of the American Planning Association |volume=56 |issue=2 |pages=140–152 |doi=10.1080/01944369008975755 }}</ref>
A 2000 study that compared the border areas of four California cities having vacancy control provisions (Santa Monica, Berkeley, West Hollywood, East Palo Alto) with the border areas of adjoining jurisdictions (two of which allowed vacancy decontrol, including Los Angeles, and two of which had no rent control) showed that existing tenants in the vacancy control cities had lower rents and longer tenure than in the comparison areas.  Thus, the ordinances helped protect the existing tenants and, therefore, increased community stability. However, there were fewer new rental units created in the border areas of the vacancy controlled cities over the 10-year period.<ref name="heskin-2000-vacancy-control">{{Cite journal |title=The Effects of Vacancy Control: A Spatial Analysis of Four California Cities |last1=Heskin |first1=Allan D. |last2=Levine |first2=Ned |last3=Garrett |first3=Mark |year=2000 |journal=Journal of the American Planning Association |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=162–176 |doi=10.1080/01944360008976096 |s2cid=153160869 }}</ref>
A 1999 study that compared the effects of local rent control measures (both vacancy control and vacancy decontrol) with other local [[growth management]] measures in 490 California cities and counties (including all the largest ones) showed that rent control was stronger than individual land use restrictions (but not the aggregate effect of all growth restrictions) in reducing the number of rental units constructed between 1980 and 1990.<ref name="levine-1999-local-control">{{Cite journal |last=Levine |first=Ned |date=November 1, 1999 |title=The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California |journal=Urban Studies |volume=36 |issue=12 |pages=2047–2068 |doi=10.1080/0042098992539 |s2cid=153734844 }}</ref> The measures (both rent control and growth management) helped displace new construction from the metropolitan areas to the interiors of the state with low income and minority populations being particularly impacted.
=== 2017 study of San Francisco housing market ===
In 1994, San Francisco voters passed a [[ballot initiative]] which expanded the city's existing rent control laws to include small multi-unit apartments with four or less units, built prior to 1980. (about 30% of the city's rental housing stock at the time).
{{ r | SF_RC_study_2017 | p=7 | q="These small multi-family structures made up about 30% of the rental housing stock in 1990..." }}
{{ r | MN_RC | p=1 | q=When San Francisco residents voted in 1994 to expand the city's rent-control policies, they granted protections to legions of renters living in duplexes and other small, “mom and pop” apartment buildings constructed before 1980 — 30 percent of the city's rental housing stock. }}
{{ r | BizJournal_RC | p=1 | q=Rent control started in San Francisco in 1979, when economic pressures and the passage of Prop. 13, which limited property tax increases, led then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein to sign the policy into law for properties built before 1980. An exemption was given to “mom and pop” landlords, or owner-occupied buildings with four or less units. These made up around 30 percent of the city's rental housing stock at the time. To skirt rent control, large corporations starting buying up those properties and selling a portion back to a live-in representative. This in turn led to a successful ballot initiative in 1994 to remove the exemption. The Stanford researchers looked at the effects on tenants who received rent control because of the ballot initiative versus tenants living in similar properties who were not subject to the new rule. }}
In 2017, [[Stanford]] [[economics]] researcher [[Rebecca Diamond (economist)|Rebecca Diamond]] and others published a study which examined the effects of this specific rent control law on the rental units newly controlled compared to similar style units (multi-unit apartments with four or less units) not under rent control (built after 1980), as well as this law's effect on the total city rental stock, and on overall rent prices in the city, covering the years from 1995 to 2012.
{{ r | MN_RC | BizJournal_RC | SFGate_RC}}
{{ r | Gov_RC | p=1 | q=The report focused on San Francisco, where a 1994 ballot measure expanded rent control to certain smaller multifamily apartment buildings constructed before 1980. Because units built after 1980 were not included in the expansion, the result was what researchers call a “natural experiment” in which the newer units could act as a control group. The researchers then tracked tenants&apos; housing as well as changes in the housing stock and rents. }}
{{ r | CityLab_RC | p=1 | q=The researchers examined the impact of a 1994 ballot initiative in San Francisco, extending rent control protections to certain smaller buildings built before 1980. Its passage created a natural opportunity to compare these buildings with similar ones built in the period after that were not rent controlled. Diamond and her colleagues followed the landlords and the tenants in these buildings over time. }}
{{ r | StanfordGSB_RC }}
They found that while San Francisco's rent control laws benefited tenants who had rent controlled units, it also resulted in landlords removing 30% of the units in the study from the rental market, (by conversion to [[Condominium|condos]] or [[Tenancy in common|TICs]]) which led to a 15% citywide decrease in total rental units, and a 7% increase in citywide rents.
{{ r | SF_RC_study_2017 | p=1,44 }}
{{ r | MN_RC }}
{{ r | BizJournal_RC | p=1 | q=The researchers determined that rent control led to a city-wide rent increase of 7 percent, which equates to a $5 billion loss for all renters. }}
{{ r | SFGate_RC | Gov_RC }}
The authors stated that "This substitution toward owner occupied and high-end new construction rental housing likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, as these types of properties cater to higher income individuals."
{{ r | SF_RC_study_2017 | p=3 }}
{{ r | MN_RC }}
{{ r | BizJournal_RC | p=1 | q=“This substitution toward owner-occupied and high-end new construction rental housing likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, as these types of properties cater to higher income individuals,” according to the study. ... "Taken together, we see rent controlled increased property investment, demolition and reconstruction of new buildings, conversion to owner-occupied housing and a decline in the number of renters per building. All of these responses lead to a housing stock, which caters to higher-income individuals. Rent control has actually fueled the gentrification of San Francisco, the exact opposite of the policy's intended goal," the researchers concluded. }}
{{ r | SFGate_RC | Gov_RC }}
{{ r | CityLab_RC | p=1 | q=The rent control policy therefore “likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco,” the paper concluded, contributing to “a higher level of income inequality in the city overall.” }}
The authors also noted that "...forcing landlords to provide insurance against rent increases leads to large losses to tenants. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it would be more desirable to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit. This would remove landlords’ incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire."
{{ r | SF_RC_study_2017 | p=44 }}
{{ r | MN_RC | p=1 | q=Diamond and McQuade's findings offer a word of caution as local and state officials consider how to respond to the affordability crisis. The economists note that San Francisco's policy is popular with tenants in rent-controlled apartments, who save between $2,300 and $6,600 each year because of it — $393 million annually, altogether, according to their estimates. But, they say, the same policy caused rents citywide to rise 7 percent, costing San Francisco renters $5 billion. A better way “to provide social insurance against rent increases,” they suggest, could be to offer tax credits or government subsidies to renters. That solution, of course, does not come cheap. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated this year that meeting the need for housing subsidies statewide would cost California tens of billions of dollars annually — roughly what the state spends on Medi-Cal. }}
{{ r | BizJournal_RC | p=1 | q=The Stanford researchers have a different solution to the problem of rising rents. They propose creating a government subsidy or tax credit, which could act as a kind of insurance against rent increases for tenants, while also disincentivizing landlords from decreasing the rental housing supply and increasing prices. }}
{{ r | SFGate_RC | p=1 | q=Renters impacted by a decreased housing supply could be protected against with governmental insurance, such as subsidies or tax credit, against large rent increases, the study authors say, which would shift responsibility from landlords. }}
{{ r | Gov_RC | p=1 | q=But Diamond, the co-author of the study, doesn&apos;t buy that argument: "Why are landlords the ones who have to subsidize tenants? Why do they have to bear that cost?" Her study instead suggests that the costs of keeping housing affordable should be shared by society, through a tax credit or a government subsidy that protects low- and middle-income families against large rent increases. "This," the Stanford paper concludes, "would remove landlords&apos; incentives to decrease the housing supply and could provide households with the insurance they desire. }}
{{ r | CityLab_RC | p=1 | q=Rent control has other benefits besides the monetary gains: The policy can give vulnerable tenants the tools to organize against evictions, for example. But given its significant failures, how should the policy be reformed? According to Diamond, a more effective policy to make rents affordable for low-income renters requires a different type of funding source and more government subsidies. “If we're really serious as a society about ensuring that rents remain affordable to tenants, we potentially should share that cost burden,” she said. “You could imagine raising revenue through a tax … and providing rental subsidies in tax credit, but making landlords pay 100 percent of those costs in a world where they can avoid paying those costs really undermines the goals of policy.” }}
{{ r | StanfordGSB_RC | p=1 | q=Diamond argues there may well be a better way. A city could protect renters by offering subsidies or tax credits to offset at least some of their rent increases. If landlords don't have to absorb the entire cost of rent control, she suggests, they won't be under as much pressure to pull out of the rental market. “If there's a way to give tenants some protection against rent increases, without having to make the landlords pay for it, we might be able to have the benefits of rent control without creating the distortions that make things worse for others.” }}
==Coronavirus/COVID-19: temporary eviction moratorium==
Governor [[Gavin Newsom]] on March 4, 2020, signed an [[executive order]] N-44-20 on COVID-19, declaring a California [[state of emergency]]. It contained provisions for a statewide temporary eviction moratorium. Although court proceedings, e.g., [[unlawful detainer]]s, could commence or continue, a judgment against a tenant could not result in an order to evict. On March 16, by N-28-20, Newsom allowed California cities to write local ordinances to craft their own moratoriums.<ref>{{cite web |title=Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions on Residential and Commercial Eviction Limitations and Moratoriums During the COVID-19 Pandemic |url=https://bcsh.ca.gov/coronavirus19/eviction_eos_guidance.pdf |website=Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency |publisher=State of California |access-date=28 August 2022 |date=7 April 2020}}</ref> On June 30, Newsom by N-71-20 extended the original moratorium until September 30, 2020.<ref>[https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/07/02/calif-extends-moratorium-on-evictions-through-september/ "California extends eviction moratorium on coronavirus through September"] at ''CBS Los Angeles'', July 2, 2020.</ref>
On April 6, the [[Judicial Council of California|Judicial Council]] suspended statewide proceedings for evictions and foreclosures. This body, headed by the Chief Justice [[Tani Cantil-Sakauye]], makes policy for California courts. The suspension included [[summons]], judgments and lock-out orders, and was to be effective for 90 days after the emergency.<ref>Chris Nicholas, [https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/04/06/california-courts-suspend-eviction-foreclosure-proceedings-until-90-days-after-coronavirus-emergency-lifted/ "California courts suspend evictions, foreclosure proceedings until 90 days after coronavirus emergency lifted"], at ''CapRadio'' Sacramento, April 6, 2020.</ref> Housing providers, however, may still serve a defaulting tenant with a ''3-day Notice'' to Pay Rent or Quit, and file papers with the court.<ref>Barta, "COVID-19... " (NOLO Press). All evictions were suspended whether due to COVID-19 or not.</ref>
Two lawsuits have been filed challenging the moratorium orders. On June 8, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles filed against the City of Los Angeles over its local ordinance. A week later the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] contested the Judicial Council's suspension of legal proceedings regarding all evictions. The latter alleges that a malfeasant tenant is allowed to commit illegal acts, create nuisance, and damage property with impunity.<ref>Matthew Blake, [https://therealdeal.com/la/2020/06/15/landlords-sue-california-over-eviction-ban/ "Landlords sue California over Eviction Ban. Lawsuit accuses California Judicial Councit of overreaching''], at ''The RealDeal'' Los Angeles, June 15, 2020.</ref>
Over 150 California cities and counties have since enacted eviction moratoriums to be effective during the pandemic emergency. Such local ordinances may impose more restrictions than the State moratorium.<ref>Barta, "COVID-19... " (NOLO Press): list, abstract of contents.</ref> The Counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino have adopted such legislation, and as have 45 cities located therein.
Western Center on Law and Poverty provides support for the moratorium, and [[Legal Services of Northern California]] has developed a ''fact sheet'' designed for tenants in order to comply with requirements of the moratorium and suspension.<ref>Nicholas (''CapRadio'', April 6, 2020).</ref>
==Bibliography==
*W. Dennis Keating, [http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1420&context=caldocs_agencies ''Rent Control in California. Responding to the Crisis''] (Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley 1983), 24 pages. Accessed 2017-10-17.
*Allan David Heskin, ''Tenants and the American Dream. Ideology and the tenant movement'' (New York: Paeger 1983), re Santa Monica.
*Paul L. Niebanck, editor, ''The Rent Control Debate'' (University of North Carolina 1985), the editor was a [[University of California, Santa Cruz|UCSC]] professor.
*[[Peter Dreier]], [http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/papers/dreier/dreier1.html "Rent Deregulation in California and Massachusetts: Politics, Policy, and Impacts – Part I" (1997)], [http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/papers/dreier/dreier2.html "Part II" (1997)], at International and Public Policy Center, Occidental College, Los Angeles. Accessed 2017-11-6.
*Cecily Talbert Barclay & Matthew S. Gray, ''Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law'' (Point Arena: Solano Press 34th ed., 2014).
*''West's California Jurisprudence 3d'', v. 42: ''Landlord & Tenant'' (Toronto: Thomson & Reuters 2016, update 2017).
*David Brown, Janet Portman, Nils Rosenquest, ''The California Landlord's Law Book'' (Berkeley: Nolo Press 2017).
*Nancy C. Lenvin & Myron Moskovitz, "Practicing under Rent and Eviction Control Laws," Chapter 7 in [https://www.ceb.com/california-landlord-tenant-practice ''California Landlord-Tenant Practice''] (Oakland: California Continuing Education of the Bar: updated 2017).
==References==
{{Reflist|refs=
<ref name=LAT_2018-01-11 >{{ cite news | url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-rent-control-expansion-bill-dies-20180111-story.html | title=Proposal to expand rent control in California fails to advance | last=Dillon | first=Liam | work=[[Los Angeles Times]] | date=2018-01-11 | access-date=2019-06-09 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201113642/https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-rent-control-expansion-bill-dies-20180111-story.html | archive-date=2018-02-01 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=LA_RC_percent >{{ cite news | url=https://www.scpr.org/news/2014/09/12/45988/la-rent-has-rent-control-been-successful-in-los-an/ | title=LA Rent: Has rent control been successful in Los Angeles? | last=Bergman | first=Ben | publisher=[[KPCC (radio station)|Southern California Public Radio]] | date=2014-09-12 | access-date=2018-12-04 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913210438/https://www.scpr.org/news/2014/09/12/45988/la-rent-has-rent-control-been-successful-in-los-an/| archive-date=2014-09-13 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=SF_RC_study_2017 >{{cite web | url=http://conference.nber.org/confer//2017/PEf17/Diamond_McQuade_Qian.pdf | title=The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants,Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco | last1=Diamond | first1=Rebecca | last2=McQuade | first2=Tim | last3=Qian | first3=Franklin | publisher=[[National Bureau of Economic Research]] | date=2017-10-11 | access-date=2018-08-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180803000548/http://conference.nber.org/confer//2017/PEf17/Diamond_McQuade_Qian.pdf | archive-date=2018-08-03 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=MN_RC >{{cite news | url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/02/rent-control-policy-likely-fueled-the-gentrification-of-san-francisco-study-finds/ | title=Rent-control policy 'likely fueled the gentrification of San Francisco,' study finds - As California debates rent caps, economists offer a cautionary note. | last=Murphy | first=Katy | newspaper=[[The Mercury News|The San Jose Mercury News]] | date=2017-11-02 | access-date=2018-08-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180104192451/https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/02/rent-control-policy-likely-fueled-the-gentrification-of-san-francisco-study-finds/ | archive-date=2018-01-04 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=BizJournal_RC >{{ cite news | url=https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/11/09/stanford-rent-control-gentrification-costa-hawkins.html | title=Rent control linked to gentrification in San Francisco, Stanford study says | last=Truong | first=Kevin | publisher=[[American City Business Journals]] | date=2017-11-09 | access-date=2018-12-01 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181202001317/https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/11/09/stanford-rent-control-gentrification-costa-hawkins.html | archive-date=2018-12-02 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=SFGate_RC >{{cite news | url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Rent-control-in-San-Francisco-likely-spurred-12330161.php | title=Rent-control policies likely 'fueled' SF gentrification, Stanford economists say | last=Robertson | first=Michelle | newspaper=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] | date=2017-11-03 | access-date=2018-08-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171203041537/https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Rent-control-in-San-Francisco-likely-spurred-12330161.php | archive-date=2017-12-03 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=Gov_RC >{{cite magazine | url=http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-landlords-rent-control-stanford.html | title=Does Rent Control Do More Harm Than Good? - A new study suggests that policies meant to keep rents down actually jack them up overall, reduce the rental stock and fuel gentrification. | last=Delgadillo | first=Natalie | magazine=[[Governing (magazine)|Governing]] | date=2018-02-14 | access-date=2018-08-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180222004256/http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-landlords-rent-control-stanford.html | archive-date=2018-02-22 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=CityLab_RC >{{ cite news | url=https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/rent-control-a-reckoning/551168/ | title=Rent Control: a Reckoning | last=Misra | first=Tanvi | publisher=[[CityLab]] | date=2018-01-29 | access-date=2018-11-30 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201022956/https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/01/rent-control-a-reckoning/551168/ | archive-date=2018-02-01 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name=StanfordGSB_RC >{{ cite news | url=https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-winners-losers | title=Rent Control's Winners and Losers - With rents going through the roof in hot cities, the hunt is on for a better way to protect tenants from being priced out of their homes. | last=Andrews | first=Edmund | publisher=[[Stanford Graduate School of Business]] | date=2018-02-02 | access-date=2018-12-11 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309224803/https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/rent-controls-winners-losers | archive-date=2018-03-09 | url-status=live }}</ref>
}}
==External links==
*[http://www.dailycal.org/tag/costa-hawkins-rental-housing-act/ Dailycal.org]
{{Housing in California}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act}}
[[Category:1995 in American law]]
[[Category:Housing and rent legislation in California]]