California Proposition 10, Local Rent Control Initiative (2018)

Elections in California, 2018

* General election: Nov. 6
* Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
* Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
* Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6

* Online registration: Yes
* Same-day registration: Yes
* Voter ID: No
* Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

* * *

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Primary elections in California, 2018

California Proposition 10

Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Housing and Business regulation
Status
d Defeated
Type
State statute| Origin
Citizens

* * *

List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 68 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 69 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 70 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 71 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 72 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 1California Proposition 2California Proposition 3California Proposition 4California Proposition 5California Proposition 6California Proposition 7California Proposition 8California Proposition 10California Proposition 11California Proposition 12Submit

* * *

California Proposition 10, the Local Rent Control Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.[1] The measure was defeated.

|  A yes vote supported allowing local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing, thus repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

|

|  A no vote opposed the initiative, thus keeping the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and continuing to prohibit local governments from enacting rent control on certain buildings.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot title
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Fiscal impact
* 3.4 Full text
* 3.5 Readability score
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.1.1 Officials
* 4.1.1.1 Candidates
* 4.1.2 Former officials
* 4.1.3 Municipalities
* 4.1.4 Parties
* 4.1.5 Organizations
* 4.1.6 Unions
* 4.1.7 Individuals
* 4.2 Arguments
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.1.1 Officials
* 5.1.2 Parties
* 5.1.3 Organizations
* 5.2 Arguments
* 5.2.1 Official arguments
* 6 Campaign finance
* 6.1 Support
* 6.1.1 Donors
* 6.2 Opposition
* 6.2.1 Donors
* 6.3 Reporting dates
* 6.4 Methodology
* 7 Media editorials
* 7.1 Support
* 7.2 Opposition
* 8 Polls
* 8.1 Summaries
* 9 Background
* 9.1 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
* 9.2 State policies on rent control
* 9.3 Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2018
* 9.4 Median rents in California's counties
* 9.5 Rents in California's largest cities
* 9.6 Effects of rent control
* 9.6.1 Positive effects
* 9.6.2 Negative effects
* 9.6.3 Academic research
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 10.1 Process in California
* 10.2 Initiative #17-0041
* 10.3 Negotiations to withdraw the ballot initiative
* 11 How to cast a vote
* 11.1 Poll times
* 11.2 Registration requirements
* 11.3 Automatic registration
* 11.4 Online registration
* 11.5 Same-day registration
* 11.6 Residency requirements
* 11.7 Verification of citizenship
* 11.8 Verifying your registration
* 11.9 Voter ID requirements
* 11.9.1 Background
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
* 13.1 Information
* 13.2 Support
* 13.3 Opposition
* 14 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

California Proposition 10

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 4,949,543 | 40.57%

| 7,251,443 | 59.43%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Overview[edit]

What was California Proposition 10?

Proposition 10 was an initiated state statute that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing counties and cities to adopt rent control ordinances that regulate how much landlords can charge tenants for any type of rental housing. Proposition 10 would have also stated that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.[1]

What was the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act?

As of 2018, Costa-Hawkins was a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provided that cities cannot enact rent control on (a) housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units where the title is separate from connected units, such as condominiums and townhouses. Costa-Hawkins also provided that landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returnsCourts in California have interpreted just and reasonable returns as returns that (a) are comparable to the returns in other sectors having similar risks, (b) are high enough to encourage good management, (c) reward efficient practices, (c) enable operators to maintain their credit, and (d) discourage disinvestment. According to the California Supreme Court, there is no particular formula to determine what is a just and reasonable return and the selection of a standard is a task for local governments.[2] on their rental properties. The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995.[3][4][5]

What did the political landscape surrounding housing look like in California?

Candidates in the 2018 gubernatorial election proposed plans to increase housing in California. Gavin Newsom (D) called for “a Marshall Plan for affordable housing," while John Cox (R) said that some development regulations need to be eliminated to incentivize construction and decrease costs.[6] Neither Newsom nor Cox, however, support a full repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Newsom said he was open to fewer restrictions on rent control, but that outright repeal would "have unintended consequences on housing production that could be profoundly problematic." Cox stated, "I don't believe rent control works."[7] The California Democratic Party's executive committee endorsed Proposition 10, while the California Republican Party's leadership decided to oppose the ballot initiative. Amy Schur, campaign director for the Alliance for Community Empowerment (ACCE), responded to opponents who said that decreasing rents requires more housing, not rent control. She said, "That [building] is slow and expensive. In the meantime, the only policy step that will address the severe displacement crisis in the short term is the expansion of reasonable rent control.”[8]

The state legislature had also looked at rent control in 2018. Asm. Richard Bloom (D-50) introduced a bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins. The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee rejected the bill because the committee's two Republicans voted against passage and two Democrats abstained from voting. Three Democrats voted to recommend the bill, but four votes were required.[9] Asm. David Chiu (D-17), the committee's chairman, said, "... this will not be the end of the conversation. It’s just the beginning.”[10]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

The campaigns surrounding Proposition 10 had raised a combined $96.66 million. Opponents of Proposition 10 had out-raised the support campaign by about 3-to-1.

The Coalition for Affordable Housing led the campaign in support of the initiative. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action organized the campaign. The coalition and allied committees had raised $25.30 million, with AHF providing $22.52 million. AHF spent $48.1 million on backing ballot initiatives related to healthcare and housing in 2016 and 2017, including Los Angeles Measure S and California Proposition 61. Michael Weinstein, the founder of AHF, said his organization was interested in rent control from the perspectives of social justice and public health. "From a social justice point of view," said Weinstein, "we are seeing mass displacement... and we feel like shelter is the most basic right and people are being deprived of that and we don’t believe that the marketplace can handle providing shelter to everyone who needs it." He added, "From a public health point of view, we see our clients being rendered homeless or being pushed further and further out from where our healthcare centers are."[11]

The California Apartment Association (CAA) and the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA) each organized a PAC to oppose Proposition 10. An additional three PACs formed to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the five committees had raised a combined $71.37 million. The largest contributors included the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC ($8.00 million), Blackstone Property Partners, L.P. and affiliated holdings ($5.81 million), and Essex Property Trust, Inc. ($5.62 million). Both Tom Bannon, CEO of CAA, and Larry Cannizzaro, president of CalRHA, said their groups' opposition is about private investment in rental housing, among other issues. Proposition 10, according to Bannon and Cannizzaro, would make the state's housing crisis worse because rent control would discourage investment.[12][13]

What other ballot propositions addressed housing in California?

Voters in California decided four ballot propositions related to housing on November 6, 2018—the most ever to appear on a state's ballot in one year according to Ballotpedia’s catalog of housing-related ballot measures. Besides Proposition 10, voters decided the following three housing-related ballot propositions:

* Proposition 1 authorized $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing programs, loans, grants, as well as housing loans for veterans. a
* Proposition 2 authorized the state to use revenue from a 1 percent tax on income above $1 million, which was enacted in 2004 to provide funds for mental health services, on homelessness prevention housing. a
* Proposition 5 would have removed restrictions on allowing seniors (ages 55+) and persons with serve disabilities to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home. d

Sponsors of Propositions 1, 2, 5, and 10 all argued that their ballot measures would help address the housing situation in California, such as rent prices, real estate values, and available housing.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The official ballot title was as follows:[14]

“  |

Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.[15]

|  ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The official ballot summary was as follows:[16]

“  |

* Repeals state law that currently restricts the scope of rent-control policies that cities and other local jurisdictions may impose.
* Allows policies that would limit the rental rates that residential-property owners may charge for new tenants, new construction, and single-family homes.
* In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their rental property.[15]

|  ”

|
|

### Fiscal impact[edit]

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance.

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[14]

“  |

Unknown, but potentially significant, changes in state and local government tax revenues. Net decrease more likely than net increase. Potential increase in local government costs of up to tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term, likely paid by fees on owners of rental housing.[15]

|  ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure was as follows:[1]

Affordable Housing Act

The People of the State of California do hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. Title.

This Act shall be known and may be cited as "Affordable Housing Act."

Section 2. Findings and Declarations.

The People of the State of California hereby find and declare all of the following:

a) Rents for housing have skyrocketed in recent years. Median rents are higher in California than any other state in the country, and among all 50 states, California has the 4th highest increase in rents.

b) Research by Apartment List indicates that the median rent for a one-bedroom apartment in California is $1,410, an increase of 4.5% in just one year. A one bedroom apartment in Los Angeles costs $1,350 per month. In San Francisco, it costs $2,450. In San Diego, the cost is $1,560.

c) The federal government has concluded that rent is not affordable if renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The State of California has found that more than half of California renter households (3 million) pay more than 30% and one-third of renter households ( over 1.5 million) pay more than 50% of their income toward rent.

d) According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a Californian earning minimum wage would have to work 92 hours per week in order to afford to rent an average one-bedroom apartment.

e) More Californians (5.8 million households) are renting than ever before, because overall home ownership rates in California have fallen to their lowest level since the 1940s, according to the state. One quarter of older millennials (25-34 years of age) still live with their parents. (U.S. Census Bureau)

f) Statewide labor unions, such as California Nurses Association, Service Employees International Union and the California Teachers Association, have made affordable housing a priority for their members. For example, teachers in California's urban centers are paying 40% to 70% of their salaries on housing and many are being forced to live an hour or more from their jobs in order to afford a home.

g) Three times as many Californians are living in overcrowded apartments as compared to the U.S. as a whole. (U.S. Census Bureau)

h) Even though the state represents only 12% of the total U.S. population, California is home to 22% of the nation's homeless population. (California Department of Housing and Community Development)

i) Homelessness is a major public health issue. People who are homeless are 3 to 4 times more likely to die prematurely and are more likely to have a communicable disease, according to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council.

j) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn that vulnerable populations face lower life expectancy, higher cancer rates and more birth defects when their homes are displaced due to the gentrification of their neighborhoods.

k) The increased cost of housing is worsening traffic congestion and harming the environment by forcing commuters to live farther away from their places of employment and increasing commute times. A report by the Pew Charitable Trust noted that the number of Californians who commute more than 90 minutes each way increased by 40% between 2010 and 2015; the increase is a direct result of the dearth of affordable housing near jobs.

l) A major factor in California's housing crisis is a 20-year-old law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Costa-Hawkins gives permission to landlords of residential apartments and houses to raise rents as much as they want in buildings built after 1995; despite local laws that would otherwise prohibit such increases, landlords in Los Angeles can raise rents as much as they want on buildings built after 1978 and in San Francisco, on buildings built after 1979.

m) Costa-Hawkins also allows a landlord to raise the rent in any building built before 1995 to the market value when it becomes vacant, and lets the landlord decide what market value is.

n) Costa-Hawkins prevents cities from implementing laws that keep rents affordable for their residents.

Section 3. Purposes and Intent.

The People of the State of California hereby declare the following purposes and intent in enacting this Act:

a) To restore authority to California's cities and counties to develop and implement local policies that ensure renters are able to find and afford decent housing in their jurisdictions.

b) To improve the quality of life for millions of California renters and reduce the number of Californians who face critical housing challenges and homelessness.

c) To repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

Section 4. Affordable Housing Act shall be codified by repealing the following sections of the Civil Code:

Sections 1954.50, 1954.51, 1954.52 and 1954.53 of Chapter 2.7 of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code are repealed.

Section 5. Affordable Housing Act shall be further codified by adding the following section to the Civil Code:

Section 1954.54.

(a) A city, county, or city and county shall have the authority to adopt a local charter provision, ordinance or regulation that governs a landlord's right to establish and increase rental rates on a dwelling or housing unit.

(b) In accordance with California law, a landlord's right to a fair rate of return on a property shall not be abridged by a city, county, or city and county.

Section 6. Liberal Construction

This Act shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes.

Section 7. Amendment and Repeal

Pursuant to Article II, Section 10, Subdivision ( c ), of the California Constitution, the Legislature may amend this Act to further its purposes by a statute passed in each house by roll call vote entered in the Journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, signed by the Governor. No statute restricting or eliminating the powers that have been restored by this Act to a city, county, or city and county to establish residential rental rates shall become effective unless approved by a majority of the electorate.

Section 8. Severability

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

Section 9. Conflicting Measures

In the event that this Act and any other measure addressing the authority of local government agencies to establish residential rental rates shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the provision of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this Act. In the event that this Act receives a greater number of affirmative votes than another measure deemed to be in conflict with it, the provisions of this Act shall prevail in their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

Section 10. Legal Defense

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the State, a government agency, or any of its officials fail to defend the constitutionality of this Act, following its approval by the voters, the proponents shall have the authority to intervene in any court action challenging the constitutionality of this Act for the purpose of defending its constitutionality, whether in state or federal court, and whether such action is in any trial court, on appeal, or on discretionary review by the Supreme Court of California or the Supreme Court of the United States. The reasonable fees and costs of defending the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated to the California Department of Justice, which shall be satisfied promptly.

Section 11. Effective Date

Except as otherwise provided herein, this Act shall become effective the day after its approval by the voters.

|

### Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is -1.5. The word count for the ballot title is 13, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 35. The word count for the ballot summary is 67, and the estimated reading time is 17 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

## Support[edit]

The Coalition for Affordable Housing, also known as Yes on 10, led the campaign in support of the initiative. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action sponsored the campaign.[17]

Jim Ross, a political consultant for the Coalition for Affordable Housing, said, "This is the defining issue for California right now. Everyone in California has a story about rental housing — it’s the thing that pulls us together."[18]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

* U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)[19][20]
* U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-13)[21]
* U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-43)[21]
* Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones (D)[21]
* Sen. Kevin de León (D-24)[21]
* Sen. Ben Allen (D-29)[21]
* Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33)[21]
* Asm. David Chiu (D-17)[21]
* Asm. Laura Friedman (D-43)[21]
* Asm. Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-80)[21]
* Asm. Phil Ting (D-19)[21]
* Asm. Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-59)[21]
* Asm. Rob Bonta (D-18)[21]
* Asm. Tony Thurmond (D-15)[21]
* Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), Los Angeles[22]
* Mike Bonin, Los Angeles City Council—District 11[23]
* Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood City Council[24]
* Jovanka Beckles (D), Richmond City Council[25]

##### Candidates[edit]

* Kenneth Mejia (Green), 34th Congressional District[26]

#### Former officials[edit]

* Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin (D)[21]

#### Municipalities[edit]

* San Francisco Board of Supervisors[27]
* Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors[28]
* Los Angeles City Council[29]
* Palm Springs City Council[30]
* East Palo Alto City Council[31]

#### Parties[edit]

* California Democratic Party[32]

#### Organizations[edit]

* ACLU of Northern California[33]
* ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties[34]
* Democratic Socialists of America \- East Bay[34]
* Democratic Socialists of America \- Los Angeles[35]
* Democratic Socialists of America \- Sacramento[36]
* Our Revolution[37]

#### Unions[edit]

* AFSCME California PEOPLE[38]
* California Federation of Teachers[39]
* California Nurses Association[40]
* California Teachers Association[41]
* SEIU California[42]

#### Individuals[edit]

* Danny Glover, actor and director[43]
* Dolores Huerta, labor activist[44]
* Boots Riley, musician and screenwriter[45]

### Arguments[edit]

* Jose Sanchez, a member of the LA Tenants Union, said, "People are tired of the false promises of ‘build build build’ solutions to this housing crisis that only seek to fill the pockets of for-profit developers. Entire communities are being wiped out while Wall Street landlords rake in the cash – we need to stop the bleeding first before we can do anything else."[46]
* Lindsey P. Horvath, a councilmember of the West Hollywood City Council, stated, "California is experiencing a housing and homeless crisis like we’ve never seen before and policies like Costa-Hawkins have had a devastating effect on housing affordability. ... Costa-Hawkins has undermined our ability to protect our residents from being displaced, especially the most vulnerable, due to skyrocketing rent increases."[24]
* Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), mayor of Los Angeles, said, "I've always believed that those who live closest to a given block or a street know what's best. Local government should have control over their own city."[23]
* Dean Preston, executive director of Tenants Together, said the question of rent control is about whether housing “is an essential, like a human right — something that everyone needs and deserves, or whether one views housing as just another commodity that should be bought and sold and rented without limits."[47]

#### Official arguments[edit]

Zenei Cortez, co-president of the California Nurses Association, Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans, and Elena Popp, executive director of the Eviction Defense Network, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 10:[16]

|  “  |

The rent is too damn high! Voting YES on Proposition 10 will free our local communities to decide what rent control protections are needed, if any, to tackle the housing crisis. Prop. TEN protects TENants.

Too many families spend over half their income on housing. That’s simply unacceptable. Living paycheck to paycheck means it’s difficult for these families to make ends meet, much less save for an emergency. Seniors on fixed-incomes have less to spend on food and medicine. Many of the people who should be the foundation of our local communities—the teachers, nurses and firefighters— are forced to move far away from the communities they serve because corporate landlords are doubling or even tripling the rent. With so many families struggling, many are driven to move away from California altogether, leaving jobs, relatives and schools behind. Even worse, many are forced into homelessness and living on the streets. With every 5% rent increase, 2,000 more people are forced out of their homes—a devastating blow to them and an even worse homeless problem for California to cope with.

Voting YES on Prop. 10 will allow cities that need it to pass laws limiting rent increases. Prop. 10 does NOT mandate rent control. It does NOT force any community to adopt any rent control measures that would not be a good fit for their own housing situation. It does NOT force any one-size-fits-all solutions on any city. Instead, Prop. 10 simply allows communities that are struggling with skyrocketing housing costs to put an annual limit on how much rents can be raised. Communities are free to bring more fairness to housing, ensuring that tenants have protections against huge rent increases, while ensuring that landlords receive a fair rate of return with reasonable yearly increases.

Voters have heard a lot of confusing arguments about Proposition 10. Don’t believe the attacks. Wall Street corporations like the Donald Trump-linked Blackstone have spent millions of dollars to fight this measure because they are terrified this will cut into the huge profits they make from the thousands of foreclosed homes they buy. They don’t care that California families are being crushed by high rent. It’s time to take a stand FOR affordable housing and against greedy Wall Street billionaires and corporate landlords by voting YES on Prop. 10.

Prop. 10 is a limited measure that answers one question: who decides housing policy—local communities or Sacramento special interests and powerful real estate investors? It doesn’t establish new housing policies, it just lets local communities—which are closer to the people—decide what works best for them. It’s time we had the power to tackle the problems of homelessness and skyrocketing rent within our own communities.

California nurses, teachers, seniors, organized labor, including SEIU State Council, housing advocates, civil rights groups, clergy and faith-based groups and other organizations you trust all urge YES on Proposition 10.

Remember, Prop. TEN protects TENants. [15]

|  ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

Mutiple PACs registered to oppose Proposition 10—Californians for Responsible Housing, sponsored by the California Apartment Association; Californians For Affordable Housing, sponsored by the California Rental Housing Association; and No On Prop 10.[48][49]

Steven Maviglio, communication director for Californians for Responsible Housing, said, "The situation with affordable housing is so desperate in California that people are grasping for the easy silver bullet, and we don’t think rent control is that—and on top of that it will make matters worse."[50]

### Opponents[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

* Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[51]
* John Cox (R), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[51]

#### Parties[edit]

* California Republican Party[52]
* California Libertarian Party[53]

#### Organizations[edit]

* California Business Roundtable[16]
* California Chamber of Commerce[54]
* California Small Business Association[16]
* Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[55]
* Mortgage Bankers Association[56]
* NAACP, California Conference[57]
* Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)[58]
* United Latinos Vote[59]

### Arguments[edit]

* Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, said, "It’s a disincentive for the construction of new, multifamily housing."[60]
* Erika D. Smith, associate editor of The Sacramento Bee, described rent control as an "imperfect, blunt-force policy tool that could very well make the housing crisis worse by shrinking supply."[61]
* Stuart Waldman, president of the Southern California Valley Industry and Commerce Association, stated, "It will ultimately harm the very people it is trying to help. The only way to solve the housing crisis is to build more."[62]
* Jim Lapides, vice president of strategic communications for the National Multifamily Housing Council, said, "When milk is expensive, you figure out how to get more cows to make more milk. You don’t put a cap on the price."[63]

#### Official arguments[edit]

Alice Huffman, president of the California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Frederick A. Romero, state commander of the American G.I. Forum of California, and Stephen White, president of the California Association of Realtors, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 10:[16]

|  “  |

PROP. 10 IS BADLY FLAWED AND WILL MAKE OUR HOUSING CRISIS WORSE. VOTE NO.

• PROP. 10: BAD FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE HOMEOWNERS

“Prop. 10 could hurt homeowners by authorizing a new government bureaucracy that can tell homeowners what they can and cannot do with their own private residence. It could make homes more expensive for future buyers and hurt families trying to purchase their first home.”— Stephen White, President, California Association of REALTORS

• PROP. 10: BAD FOR RENTERS

“Tens of thousands of renters, INCLUDING SENIORS AND OTHERS ON FIXED INCOMES, could be forced out of their apartments and communities under Prop. 10, which allows wealthy corporate landlords to turn apartments into condos and short-term vacation rentals. It will increase the cost of renting and make it even harder to find affordable housing.”—Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference NAACP

NO ON 10—TOO MANY FLAWS:

• ALLOWS REGULATION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

Prop. 10 repeals protections homeowners have enjoyed for over 20 years, and lets the government dictate pricing for privately owned single-family homes, controlling how much homeowners can charge to rent out their home—or even just a room. Prop. 10 might even lead to bureaucrats charging homeowners a fee for taking their home off the rental market.

• PUTS BUREAUCRATS IN CHARGE OF HOUSING

Prop. 10 puts as many as 539 rental boards in charge of housing, giving government agencies unlimited power to add fees on housing, ultimately increasing rents and making homes and apartments more expensive. These boards may have unlimited power to set their salaries and benefits, while adding fees to housing that will be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents.

• PUTS TAXPAYERS AT RISK FOR MILLIONS IN LEGAL COSTS

If homeowners, tenants or voters challenge the law in court, Prop. 10 requires California taxpayers to pay the sponsors’ legal bills. Taxpayers could be stuck paying millions of dollars for a poorly drafted and flawed measure.

• ADDS TENS OF MILLIONS IN NEW COSTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The state’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst says Prop. 10 could increase costs for local governments by tens of millions of dollars per year and cost the state millions more in lost revenue. This could result in less money for schools and emergency services, reduced new home construction, and a loss of thousands of well-paid construction jobs.

• DRIVES UP THE COST OF EXISTING HOUSING

New government fees and regulations will give homeowners a huge financial incentive to convert rental properties into more profitable uses like short-term vacation rentals, increasing the cost of existing housing and making it even harder for renters to find affordable housing in the future.

BOTTOM LINE: PROP. 10 HAS TOO MANY FLAWS AND WILL MAKE THE HOUSING CRISIS WORSE.

Learn why voters from every political persuasion and corner of California are voting NO on Prop. 10 at www.Readitforyourself.com

American G.I. Forum of California, California Senior Advocates League, California State Conference NAACP, California Association of REALTORS, Family Business Association of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, United Latinos Vote[15]

|  ”

|
|

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:

Support: |  $25,295,590.67
Opposition: |  $71,366,691.31

There were three ballot measure committees, Yes on 10, Make Housing Affordable, and Million Voter Project Action Fund, registered in support of Proposition 10. Supporters raised $25.30 million, with 89 percent of funds received from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The committees reported expenditures of $25.62 million. The Million Voter Project Action Fund was spending funds on supporting Proposition 10 and opposing Proposition 5.[34]

There were five ballot measure committee registered in opposition to Proposition 10—Californians for Responsible Housing, Californians For Affordable Housing, No On Prop 10, Issues PAC of Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara Housing Providers Against Proposition 10. Together, the committees raised $71.37 million. The committees spent $72.11 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the California Association of Realtors \- Issues Mobilization PAC, which provided $8.00 million.[34]

Note: The 501(c)(6) nonprofit California Rental Housing Association (CRHA), the 501(c)(4) nonprofit Open Society Policy Center, and the 501(c)(3) nonprofit East Bay Housing Organizations were also registered as taking positions on Proposition 10. As of 2018, California requires nonprofits that contributed more than $50,000 to a ballot measure committee during a 12-month period to report contribution and expenditures under the same guidelines as multipurpose organizations.[64] As the nonprofit organizations did not spend funds on ballot measures independent of recipient committees, the organizations are not included in the campaign finance tables.

### Support[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 10:[34]

| Committees in support of Proposition 10

Supporting committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
Yes on 10 (Coalition for Affordable Housing)| $22,719,439.53| $1,322,353.06| $22,963,700.93
Make Housing Affordable - Yes on Prop. 10| $401,181.00| $394,094.94| $390,417.53
Million Voter Project Action Fund, No on 5 Yes on 10, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations| $447,500.00| $11,022.14| $538,736.79
Total| $23,568,120.53| $1,727,470.14| $23,892,855.25
| Totals in support

Total raised:| $25,295,590.67
Total spent:| $25,620,325.39

#### Donors[edit]

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees:[34]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

AIDS Healthcare Foundation |  $21,511,749.85  |  $1,009,232.12  |  $22,520,981.97
California Teachers Association |  $500,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $500,000.00
Committee to Save Our Neighborhoods (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action)  |  $0.00  |  $363,565.46  |  $363,565.46
California Nurses Assocation Initiative PAC  |  $300,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $300,000.00
AFSCME Local 3299 Issues PAC |  $120,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $120,000.00

### Opposition[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Proposition 10:[34]

| Committees in opposition to Proposition 10

Opposing committees| Cash contributions| In-kind services| Cash expenditures
No on Prop 10; Californians for Responsible Housing, Sponsored by the California Apartment Association| $49,020,963.18| $314,914.00| $48,787,972.78
No On Prop 10 - A Flawed Initiative That Will Make The Housing Crisis Worse; a Coalition Of Housing Advocates, Renters, Large and Small Businesses, Taxpayer Groups, and Veterans| $20,723,485.46| $225,027.27| $21,968,458.94
Californians For Affordable Housing, No On Proposition 10, Sponsored By The California Rental Housing Association| $601,112.20| $0.00| $437,012.70
Issues PAC of Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles - No on 10| $446,421.01| $0.00| $345,419.33
SB Housing Providers Against Proposition 10, Sponsored by Santa Barbara Rental Property Association Issues PAC| $34,450.00| $318.19| $34,450.00
Total| $70,826,431.85| $540,259.46| $71,573,313.75
| Totals in opposition

Total raised:| $71,366,691.31
Total spent:| $72,113,573.21

#### Donors[edit]

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees:[34]

Donor  |  Cash  |  In-kind  |  Total

|
|
|

California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC  |  $8,000,000.00  |  $0.00  |  $8,000,000.00
Blackstone Property Partners, L.P.; Breit MF Holdings LLC; Blackstone Real Estate Partners (VI Through VIII), L.P.; and their Holdings |  $5,809,133.17  |  $0.00  |  $5,809,133.17
Essex Property Trust, Inc., and Affiliated Entities |  $5,621,930.00  |  $0.00  |  $5,621,930.00
Michael K. Hayde, including Western National Group & Affiliated Entities |  $4,761,840.00  |  $0.00  |  $4,761,840.00
Equity Residential |  $4,396,342.00  |  $0.00  |  $4,396,342.00

### Reporting dates[edit]

In California, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[65]

Campaign finance reporting dates for November 2018 ballot

Date  |  Report  |  Period
1/31/2018 | Annual Report for 2017 |  1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
4/30/2018 | Report #1 |  1/01/2018 - 3/31/2018
7/31/2018 | Report #2 |  4/01/2018 - 6/30/2018
9/27/2018 | Report #3 |  7/01/2018 - 9/22/2018
10/25/2018 | Report #4 |  9/23/2018 - 10/20/2018
1/31/2019 | Annual Report for 2018 |  10/21/2018 - 12/31/2018

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

## Media editorials[edit]

### Support[edit]

* East Bay Express: "Yes on the repeal of Costa-Hawkins. Cities like Berkeley and Oakland need to be able to enact tougher rent control laws to prevent displacement."[66]
* Los Angeles Times: "Still, any predictions that Proposition 10 would either save or devastate the housing market are overstated. If passed, the measure would allow local communities to debate and decide what renter protections to adopt, if any. That’s important. Although the housing crisis is widespread, each city has its own challenges and needs the flexibility to adopt its own remedies."[67]
* San Diego Free Press: "Even though this would repeal a law already on the books, it defenders come from the same mentality as those using state legislatures to quash local minimum wage increases. California has a one-size-fits-all law. This would change that. There aren’t many politicians who dare to say no to land barons, whether they’re local or multinational, so this will be opposed by many people who should know better."[68]
* San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This is the most important issue on the state ballot. It would undo one of the worst pieces of housing legislation in California history, protect tens of thousands of tenants, and help fight evictions (and homelessness). That’s why the real-estate industry is going to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat it. ... Prop. 10 won’t have any impact on new housing – but it will keep tenants in existing housing from becoming homeless, will discourage evictions, and will provide housing stability in cities that choose to use this tool. Again: Cities that don’t want vacancy control don’t have to enact it. If Prop. 10 passes, that will be up to the Board of Supervisors and the mayor. Vote yes."[69]
* The Sacramento Bee: "It no longer makes sense to tie the hands of local officials in dealing with this crisis, especially when they’re also being left to deal with the financial and humanitarian consequences of rising homelessness. California need a mix of both short-term and long-term solutions. It took the threat of Proposition 10 to start serious discussions of short-term solutions. Minor attempts to help tenants were routinely blocked by deep-pocketed lobbying efforts. It’s time to tilt the power dynamic of this polarizing debate back to the control of local officials. Passing this measure will do that."[70]
* The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "This is all about local control. Given the untenable cost of rental housing in many parts of the state, local communities should be able to craft solutions that work for them, without undue interference from Sacramento. If you’re worried that passage of this measure could bring rent control to SLO, that’s highly unlikely. Look what happened when the city passed a rental inspection ordinance: It was overturned."[71]

### Opposition[edit]

* Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 10, which would lift state limits on local rent control laws, would discourage construction of affordable housing and worsen California’s existing crisis. Voters should reject Proposition 10, which is being falsely presented as an easy way to combat increasing rents and to increase affordable housing. The answer to California’s housing crisis is to build more affordable housing, not to discourage construction."[72]
* Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "Taxpayers could take a hit: If apartment values decline, owners can obtain a lower property-tax assessment to reflect the reduced value. That will reduce revenue to local governments and create pressure for other tax increases to maintain services. Prop. 10 would also require taxpayers to foot the legal bills for defending the measure in court if it is challenged. Rent control creates shortages. California can’t afford a reckless initiative that repeals an important law that has been on the books for more than 20 years. Vote no on Prop. 10."[73][74]
* Marin Independent Journal: "Rent control is not the cure to California’s housing shortage that proponents promise. What’s needed is building more housing in the right places, including in Marin. Opponents of Proposition 10 argue that rent control could hinder rather than further answers to that growing state problem."[75]
* San Francisco Chronicle: "Much like trade barriers, rent control enjoys persistent political and popular appeal despite its nearly universal rejection by economists. Its benefits accrue to those renters who happen to occupy the controlled units, who become a devoted lobby for the policy, at the expense not only of property owners but also of other tenants. Most alarmingly for a state with a crushing housing deficit, rent control tends to reduce the quality and quantity of rental housing, the construction and maintenance of which is discouraged by price caps."[76]
* Santa Cruz Sentinel: "It won’t work, which is why we are recommending a “no” vote on Prop. 10. The shortage of affordable housing, which has led to higher rents, can be mostly attributable to higher demand as the economy booms, and to governments’ inability to respond with changes in zoning policies, fees and restrictions. The antidote is not to give government even more power to suppress housing supply."[77]
* The Desert Sun: "California already has a systemic housing shortage that is fueling its staggering poverty rate as more and more family income is dedicated to rising rents. The chilling possibility of rent control, even in areas that don’t rush to impose it, won’t be an incentive to increase such properties. Additionally, in an area where vacation rentals already are seen as crowding out affordable rental housing stock for actual residents, this measure would likely serve to push more property owners toward that option."[78]
* The Fresno Bee: "And there are better solutions. Cities that haven’t kept up with demand should to accept their failures and offer building incentives – property tax rebates, discounted loans, streamlined permitting. ... Our recommendation: Let market forces take care of rental pricing. Vote no on Proposition 10."[79]
* The Mercury News: "Rents in California, especially the Bay Area, are soaring. Decent housing is unaffordable for far too many. But the solution is to build more housing, not restrict rents. That’s why voters should reject Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot. ... In other words, it would not fix the state’s housing crisis; it would exacerbate it."[80]
* The Modesto Bee: "This is economics 101: Short supply, high demand, higher prices. More units, low demand, lower prices. Tell a landlord she can’t raise the rent, and repairs will be delayed. With rents locked in place, upgrades never pencil out. Keep rents stagnant as taxes, insurance premiums and utilities rise and landlords will convert apartments into condos, sell them and invest the cash elsewhere – like Nevada."[81]
* The Orange County Register: "Proposition 10 is a fine example of chasing a disaster with a catastrophe. The disaster is the housing crisis in California. The escalation of home prices and rents has far outpaced wage growth, helping to give California the nation’s highest poverty rate when adjusted for the cost of living. The catastrophe is Prop. 10, the “Local Rent Control Initiative.”[82]
* The Press-Democrat: "The antidote offered by Proposition 10 on the Nov. 6 ballot — repealing California’s long-standing restrictions on local rent control laws — could instead make a bad situation worse. Proposition 10 targets a symptom: soaring rents that are pricing some people out of the market. But it ignores the disease: a shortage of apartments and other housing units."[83]
* The San Diego Union-Tribune: "The problem for advocates is that rent control has a long history that shows not only that it doesn’t work, but also that it makes housing problems worse. ... But adding considerable new housing is ultimately the most constructive, enduring way California can address its housing crisis. It’s the only way. Vote no on Proposition 10."[84]
* Ventura County Star: "Adding rent control to their arsenal of no-growth tools runs counter to everything the state is trying to do right now to provide more affordable housing. ... Rent control is an enticing, simplistic approach to a complex housing problem it likely would make worse. We urge you to reject Proposition 10 on Nov. 6."[85]

## Polls[edit]

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
California Proposition 10 (2018)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
Public Policy Institute of California
10/12/2018 - 10/21/2018 | 25.0%| 60.0%| 15.0%| +/-4.2| 989
SurveyUSA
10/12/2018 - 10/14/2018 | 35.0%| 46.0%| 18.0%| +/-4.9| 762
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times
9/17/2018 - 10/14/2018 | 41.0%| 37.0%| 21.0%| +/-4.0| 794
Public Policy Institute of California
9/9/2018 - 9/18/2018 | 36.0%| 48.0%| 16.0%| +/-4.8| 964
AVERAGES|  34.25%|  47.75%|  17.5%|  +/-4.48|  877.25
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

#### Summaries[edit]

* October 12 - October 21, 2018: The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 989 likely voters on Proposition 10, finding 25 percent in support, 60 percent in opposition, and 15 percent undecided. A majority of Republicans (72 percent), independents (61 percent), and Democrats (54 percent) opposed Proposition 10.[86]
* October 12 - October 14, 2018: SurveyUSA surveyed 762 likely voters on Proposition 10, finding 35 percent in support, 45 percent in opposition, and 18 percent undecided. The poll found a majority of Republicans (57 percent) opposed and a plurality of Democrats (41 percent) and independents (47 percent) opposed to Proposition 10.[87]
* September 17 - October 14, 2018: USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times surveyed 794 likely voters on Proposition 10, finding 41 percent in support, 37 percent in opposition, and 21 percent undecided. The poll found a majority of Democrats (53 percent) in support of the ballot initiative, while a majority of Republicans (58 percent) opposed the initiative. A plurality of respondents with no party preference (44 percent) supported the measure.[88]
* September 8 - September 18, 2018: The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 964 likely voters on Proposition 10. Of those surveyed, 36 percent supported, 48 percent opposed, and 16 percent were undecided on the ballot initiative. A plurality of Democrats (46 percent) supported Proposition 10, while a majority of Republicans (52 percent) and independents (52 percent) opposed the measure.[89]

## Background[edit]

### Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act[edit]

As of 2018, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins) was a state statute that limited the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provided that:[3][4]

* Cities cannot enact rent control on housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units where the title is separate from connected units (such as free-standing houses, condominiums, and townhouses).
* Housing exempted from a local rent control ordinance before February 1, 1995, must remain exempt.
* Landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).

Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties.[3]

The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995. Costa-Hawkins was named after Sen. Jim Costa (D) and Asm. Phil Hawkins (R), who led the effort to pass the bill. Approved as AB 1164, the state Assembly passed the statute 45-18 and the state Senate passed the statute 24-11.[5] Gov. Pete Wilson (R) signed the bill into law.[3]

### State policies on rent control[edit]

As of 2018, four states, including California, and D.C. allowed some form of rent control on specific properties. In 11 states, no cities have rent control but rent control was not preempted. In 35 states, state law preempted all forms of local rent control ordinances. The following map illustrates the distribution of rent control policies in the U.S.:[90]

### Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2018[edit]

Between 2016 and 2018, there were 16 local ballot measures to expand or increase rent control in 13 jurisdictions in California. Seven of the proposals were approved, and nine of the proposals were defeated. Measures varied in the proposed base rents, maximum allowed annual increase in rents, and causes for tenant termination.

The passage of California Proposition 10 on November 6, 2018, could have had the effect of expanding rent control in cities where the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, rather than a municipal ordinance, defined the limits on rent control.

The following table provides a list of local ballot measures related to rent control in California:

Note: Click "show" to expand the table.

Local rent control on the ballot in California, 2016–2018

Year  |  Measure  |  Provisions  |  Outcome
2018  |  Alameda Measure K |  • Remove the December 31, 2019, sunset provision on the city's rent control law, which was approved in 2016, and require voter approval of future changes.  | d
2018  |  Berkeley Measure Q |  • Contingent on the approval of California Proposition 10.
• Expand rent control beyond apartments occupied before February 1, 1995, to other types of housing units.
• Exempt housing from rent control for the first 20 years after the housing was constructed.
• Exempt accessory dwelling units from rent control.
• Preserve rent increases that were lawfully made while Costa-Hawkins was in effect.  | a
2018  |  National City Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect at the time of the ordinance’s publication, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  |  d
2018  |  Santa Cruz Measure M | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on October 19, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | d
2017  |  Pacifica Measure C | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on February 13, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | d
2017  |  Santa Rosa Measure C |  • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on January 1, 2016, plus 3 percent annual increases.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | d
2016  |  Alameda Measure M1 |  • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on May 5, 2015, plus 65 percent of the annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Application to apartments before or after a specific date not specified. | d
2016  |  Alameda Measure L1 |  • Require the city's rent review committee to be notified of annual rent increases above 5 percent.
• Disagreements with the review committee regarding the rent increase, whether from landlords or tenants of apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995, can receive a binding decision.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies for no fault or no cause, unless landlords provide relocation benefits. | a
2016  |  Burlingame Measure R | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on March 30, 2016 (with exceptions), plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | d
2016  |  East Palo Alto Measure J | • Changes to existing rent control ordinance, including capping rent increase at 10 percent per year and allowing nuisance-based tenant termination.  | a
2016  |  Humboldt County Measure V |  • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents for spaces in mobile home parks by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index.  | a
2016  |  Mountain View Measure V | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 5 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | a
2016  |  Mountain View Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than 5 percent per year.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
•Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | d
2016  |  Oakland Measure JJ |  • Extend just-cause eviction requirements from units approved occupied before October 14, 1980, to units occupied before December 31, 1995.
• Require landlords to request approval for rent increases above the maximum allowed adjustment.  | a
2016  |  Richmond Measure L | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on July 21, 2015, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibits landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995.  | a
2016  |  San Mateo Measure Q | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on initial occupation, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d

### Median rents in California's counties[edit]

California had the second highest median rent in the U.S.—$1,297 per month—as of 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii had the highest median rent at $1,459 per month. In California, the median rent varied based on location, with the highest median rents located in the San Francisco Bay Area and coastal Southern California and the lowest median rents located in rural Northern California. San Mateo County, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and with a population of 764,797, had the highest median rent in California at $1,830 per month. Modoc County, located at the state's northeastern edge and with a population of 8,795, had the lowest median rent at $681 per month.[91]

### Rents in California's largest cities[edit]

The following table outlines the median rents and rents as a share of income in California's 15 largest cities in 2010 and 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median rent increased between 2010 and 2016 in all 15 cities, with the largest percentage increases in San Jose (26.1 percent) and San Francisco (22.9 percent).[91]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a concept called rental burden as an economic welfare indicator. HUD defines the rate of rental burden as the percentage of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent each month. Of the 15 largest cities in California, Santa Ana had the highest rental burden at 64.8 percent and San Francisco had the lowest rental burden at 42.6 percent.[92]

Median rents in California's 15 largest cities, 2010–2016

City  |  County  |  Population  |  2016 median rent  |  2010 median rent  |  2010–2016 increase  |  30%+ of income on rent
Los Angeles | Los Angeles | 3,999,759 | $1,241 | $1,077 | 15.23% | 61.20%
San Diego | San Diego | 1,419,516 | $1,427 | $1,259 | 13.34% | 54.30%
San Jose | Santa Clara | 1,035,317 | $1,689 | $1,339 | 26.14% | 53.30%
San Francisco | San Francisco | 884,363 | $1,632 | $1,328 | 22.89% | 42.60%
Fresno | Fresno | 527,438 | $901 | $832 | 8.29% | 61.50%
Sacramento | Sacramento | 501,901 | $1,057 | $959 | 10.22% | 53.90%
Long Beach | Los Angeles | 469,450 | $1,150 | $1,033 | 11.33% | 55.20%
Oakland | Alameda | 425,195 | $1,189 | $1,000 | 18.90% | 54.10%
Bakersfield | Kern | 380,874 | $1,005 | $906 | 10.93% | 53.10%
Anaheim | Orange | 352,497 | $1,402 | $1,262 | 11.09% | 62.10%
Santa Ana | Orange | 334,136 | $1,354 | $1,231 | 9.99% | 64.80%
Riverside | Riverside | 327,728 | $1,194 | $1,092 | 9.34% | 60.00%
Stockton | San Joaquin | 310,496 | $967 | $917 | 5.45% | 60.60%
Irvine | Orange | 277,453 | $1,997 | $1,788 | 11.69% | 52.80%
Chula Vista | San Diego | 270,471 | $1,351 | $1,201 | 12.49% | 61.40%

### Effects of rent control[edit]

#### Positive effects[edit]

The following content is a selection of comments that argue that rent control has positive effects:

* Tom Waters (Community Service Society of New York): "Rent regulation is a response to the power imbalance between landlords and tenants, which creates an opportunity for landlords to exploit tenants that certainly exists in tight market cities like New York. And one of the most important benefits of rent regulation in New York City is that organizers can go and form tenant associations and have tenants withhold rent in order to deal with leaks or problems like that. If the landlord had the power to evict everyone who complains it would be a lot harder to do that."[93]
* Tenants Together: "Rent control is good for local economies. Rent control helps renters keep more disposable cash in their pockets to support local economies. Rent control is not about putting landlords out of business. It’s about fairness, and allowing landlords a reasonable return while giving tenants the peace of mind that they can budget for reasonable yearly rent increases."[94]

#### Negative effects[edit]

The following content is a selection of comments that argue that rent control has negative effects:

* The Economist: "Economists reckon a restrictive price ceiling reduces the supply of property to the market. When prices are capped, people have less incentive to fix up and rent out their basement flat, or to build rental property. Slower supply growth exacerbates the price crunch. And those landlords who do rent out their properties might not bother to maintain them, because when supply and turnover in the market are limited by rent caps, landlords have little incentive to compete to attract tenants."[95]
* Caleb Malik (Market Urbanism): "Rent control is the equivalent of limiting the pay of professional basketball players to $50,000 a year. Athletes would instead play baseball, football, soccer, and other more remunerative sports. Likewise, in a rent controlled market, builders turn to making commercial buildings so they can continue to turn a profit."[96]

#### Academic research[edit]

The following content is a selection of academic research on the empirical effects of rent control.

* Diamond, R., McQuade, T., and Qian, F. (2017). "The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco." National Bureau of Economic Research.

Diamond et al.'s research analyzed the effects of San Francisco Proposition I on tenants and landlords. Voters approved Proposition I on November 8, 1994.[97] San Francisco first enacted rent control in 1979, capping annual nominal rent increases to 7 percent on rental units built before June 13, 1979. The original law exempted owner-occupied buildings with four or fewer rental units. These types of owner-occupied buildings comprised 30 percent of the rental market in 1990. Proposition I removed this exemption for buildings built prior to 1980.[98]

Diamond et al. examined data on individual migration decisions and parcel assessments between 1995 and 2012. The researchers concluded that Proposition I decreased out-migrations of tenants who lived in rent-controlled units. Tenants who lived in rent-controlled units saved an estimated combined $2.9 billion between 1995 and 2012. The researchers also concluded that landlords of rent-controlled properties had a higher rate of taking their properties off the market than landlords not affected. Landlords of rent-controlled properties had higher rates of converting their properties into condos and high-end housing or tearing them down and rebuilding, thus avoiding rent control. These changes decreased the stock of rental units in San Francisco and increased overall rent prices.[98]

* Diamond, R., McQuade, T., and Qian, F. (2017). "Autor, D., Palmer, C., and Pathak, P. (2012). "Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence From the End of Rent Control in Cambridge Massachusetts." National Bureau of Economic Research.

In 2012, Autor et al. published research on the effects of rent decontrol in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1995. Between 1970 and 1994, Cambridge had enacted rent control on rental units built before January 1, 1969. On November 8, 1994, voters in Massachusetts approved Question 9, a ballot initiative to preempt local rent control ordinances, such as Cambridge's. Autor et al. examined the assessed values of properties between 1988 and 2005, concluding that rent decontrol caused the value of properties to increase for both units that were subject to rent control and units that were never subject to rent control.[99]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

### Process in California[edit]

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2018 ballot:

* Signatures: 365,880 valid signatures were required.
* Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

### Initiative #17-0041[edit]

On October 23, 2017, Michael Weinstein, Elena Popp, and Christina Livingston submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for the initiative. The attorney general issued ballot language on December 27, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. On February 27, 2018, supporters of the initiative had collected 25 percent of the required signatures. Proponents of the initiative had until June 25, 2018, to file 365,880 valid signatures to get their initiative placed on a future ballot, but they submitted signatures in April 2018.[100]

On April 23, 2018, the support committee filed 595,096 signatures for the ballot initiative.[101] About 64.8 percent of the signatures need to be found valid for the initiative to make the ballot. Counties had until June 18, 2018, to complete a random sample of the filed signatures. The random sample was completed on June 15, 2018, and Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) reported that enough signatures were valid to place the initiative on the ballot.[102] The final random sample indicated that 451,261 signatures were valid—75.8 percent of all signatures submitted.[103]

Compared to the 15 ballot initiatives certified for the ballot in California in 2016, a 64.8 percent validation requirement was about four percentage points above the average for an initiative to make the ballot. The 15 ballot initiatives from 2016 had an average validation requirement of 61.9 percent, with a range between 58.1 and 67.4 percent.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,982,004.92 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.42.

### Negotiations to withdraw the ballot initiative[edit]

Representatives of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which supported Proposition 10, and the California Apartment Association, which opposed Proposition 10, entered into discussions with state Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-18) to negotiate compromise legislation. The sides agreed to a nondisclosure agreement to avoid information from the negotiations becoming public.[104]

According to Capital Public Radio, the parties discussed various options, such as allowing cities that had enacted rent control within the limits of Costa-Hawkins as of a specific date to enact rent control on all units. The parties also discussed tax incentives to encourage housing construction.[104]

Rand Martin, a representative for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said the sides negotiated for about two weeks, “[putting] together some very substantive ideas about what they would support.” He said Debra Carlton, the representative for the California Apartment Association, backed out of negotiations with about a week before the deadline to pass compromise legislation on June 28. She said the California Apartment Association could not support what Martin and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation offered as a compromise.[104]

## How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in California

### Poll times[edit]

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[105]

### Registration requirements[edit]

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Conditional voter registration is available beginning 14 days before an election through Election Day.[106]

On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.[107][108]

### Automatic registration[edit]

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

### Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

### Same-day registration[edit]

California allows same-day voter registration.

### Residency requirements[edit]

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

### Verification of citizenship[edit]

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration, although individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election.[109]

### Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

### Voter ID requirements[edit]

California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[110][111]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2019. Click here for the California Secretary of State page, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," to ensure you have the most current information.

* Copy of a recent utility bill
* Sample ballot booklet sent from the county elections office to the voter
* Document sent to the voter by a government agency
* Passport
* Driver’s license
* Official state identification card
* Student identification that includes name and photograph

#### Background[edit]

As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.[112][113]

## See also[edit]

2018 measures

* 2018 ballot measures
* Housing on the ballot
* Business regulation on the ballot
* 2018 legislative sessions
* Local rent control on the ballot

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

|
|

## External links[edit]

### Information[edit]

* Petition #17-0041

### Support[edit]

* Coalition for Affordable Housing
* Coalition for Affordable Housing Facebook
* Coalition for Affordable Housing Twitter

### Opposition[edit]

* No on Prop 10
* No on Prop 10 Facebook
* No on Prop 10 Twitter

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0041," accessed October 24, 2017
2. ↑ Fourth District Court of Appeal, "TG Oceanside, L.P. v. City of Oceanside," November 16, 2007
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 California State Legislature, "AB 1164," accessed April 2, 2018
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Legislative Analyst's Office, "A.G. File No. 2017-041," December 12, 2017
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Los Angeles Times, "Legislature Deals Blow to Rent Control," July 25, 1995
6. ↑ The Mercury News, "Republican and Democratic candidates for governor take on California’s housing crisis," March 9, 2018
7. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Stronger rent control supported by just one major candidate for California governor," March 8, 2018
8. ↑ Curbed Los Angeles, "State committee rejects bill to expand rent control options for California cities," January 11, 2018
9. ↑ California State Legislature, "AB-1506 Overview," accessed June 5, 2018
10. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "If not rent control, then what? California renters can’t afford to wait," January 12, 2018
11. ↑ CALMatters’ Gimme Shelter: The California Housing Crisis Podcast, "Is Rent Control Good or Bad, with AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein," November 22, 2017
12. ↑ California Apartment Association, "Ballot initiative filed to repeal Costa-Hawkins, California’s rent control limitation law," October 23, 2017
13. ↑ California Rental Housing Association, "California: It's Time to Protect Affordable Rental Housing," December 28, 2017
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed March 6, 2017
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide November 2018," accessed August 21, 2018
17. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "Homepage," accessed April 2, 2018
18. ↑ New York Times, "Rent Control Campaign in California Is Taken to the Streets," April 12, 2018
19. ↑ Twitter, "Bernie Sanders," October 28, 2018
20. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Bernie Sanders backs CA rent-control measure, candidate Jovanka Beckles," October 29, 2018
21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 Yes on 10, "Prop 10 Is A Key Tool to Address Housing-Affordability Crisis," October 17, 2018
22. ↑ Business Wire, "Mayor Eric Garcetti to Join Housing Advocates, Labor Leaders, and Community Organizations at L.A. Press Conference to Support Repeal of Costa-Hawkins," April 23, 2018
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 NBC Los Angeles, "Garcetti Throws Support Behind Rent Control Initiative," April 23, 2018
24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Coalition for Affordable Housing, "West Hollywood City Council Endorses Affordable Housing Act," March 16, 2018
25. ↑ Twitter, "Jovanka Beckles," October 28, 2018
26. ↑ Twitter, "Kenneth Mejia," September 4, 2018
27. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "SF officially supports statewide measure allowing expansion of rent control," October 2, 2018
28. ↑ NBC Los Angeles, "Los Angeles County Votes to Support Rent Control Ballot Measure," October 17, 2018
29. ↑ NBC Los Angeles, "City Council Endorses Prop 10 on Rent Control, Rejects Prop 6 on Gas Tax Increase," October 23, 2018
30. ↑ Desert Sun, "Palm Springs City Council passed a resolution to support Prop. 10, the Costa-Hawkins repeal measure," October 17, 2018
31. ↑ Facebook, "Yes on 10," October 10, 2018
32. ↑ BusinessWire, "Yes on 10: California Democratic Party Endorses Proposition 10 Campaign to Expand Rent Control," July 15, 2018
33. ↑ ACLU of Northern California, "ACLU of California Endorses Proposition 10," September 17, 2018
34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed October 8, 2018
35. ↑ Facebook, "Democratic Socialists of America - Los Angeles," October 7, 2018
36. ↑ Twitter, "Sacramento DSA," October 30, 2018
37. ↑ Our Revolution, "Our Initiatives," accessed September 23, 2018
38. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "AFSCME California PEOPLE Endorses Proposition 10 to Expand Rent Control," July 13, 2018
39. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "California Federation of Teachers Endorses Proposition 10," October 1, 2018
40. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "California Nurses Association Endorses Statewide Rent Control Initiative," June 26, 2018
41. ↑ LA School Report, "Analysis: California Teachers Association to spend up to $10 million supporting two statewide ballot initiatives — and opposing three others," June 26, 2018
42. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "SEIU California Endorses Prop 10 Campaign to Expand Rent Control," July 13, 2018
43. ↑ Facebook, "Yes on 10," October 30, 2018
44. ↑ Facebook, "Vote Yes on 10," October 18, 2018
45. ↑ Twitter, "Boots Riley," accessed September 30, 2018
46. ↑ Coalition for Affordable Housing, "Affordable Housing Act, to Remove State Barriers to Local Rent Control, Launches Signature Gathering Kickoff," February 16, 2018
47. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California gearing up for big battle over rent control," July 21, 2018
48. ↑ Californians for Responsible Housing, "Homepage," accessed April 2, 2018
49. ↑ No on Prop 10, "Homepage," accessed July 30, 2018
50. ↑ City Lab, "Rent Control Is Gaining Steam in California," July 26, 2018
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 Herald-Whig, "Gas tax, Trump, housing drive race for California governor," October 6, 2018
52. ↑ California Republican Party, "Initiatives Committee Report," accessed July 17, 2018
53. ↑ Institute of Governmental Studies, "Ballot Measure Endorsements: November 6, 2018," accessed October 19, 2018
54. ↑ CalMatters, " Bringing Back Rent Control," accessed September 18, 2018
55. ↑ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "Endorsements and ballot-measure recommendations," accessed September 18, 2018
56. ↑ Mortgage Bankers Association, "MBA Mobilizes Against California Rent Control Proposal," October 4, 2018
57. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Rent control foes hire California NAACP leader after her group opposes initiative," August 9, 2018
58. ↑ Stat News, "In unlikely alliance, PhRMA sides with landlords in Calif. referendum on rent control," September 19, 2018
59. ↑ Bisnow, "Los Angeles Apartment Association Launches 'No On Prop. 10' Campaign," July 17, 2018
60. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "‘Extreme’ rent control could be coming to California soon," January 31, 2018
61. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Unsure about rent control? Here’s another way to protect California tenants," January 31, 2018
62. ↑ The Mercury News, "Renters rally to repeal California’s rent-control restrictions," April 24, 2018
63. ↑ Long Beach Business Journal, "Proposition 10 Is A ‘Mirage,’ Real Estate Investment Company Executive Says," September 10, 2018
64. ↑ California Fair Political Practices Commission, "Multipurpose Organizations Reporting Political Spending," accessed July 10, 2018
65. ↑ California Fair Political Practices Commission, "When to File Campaign Statements: State & Local Filing Schedules," accessed December 6, 2017
66. ↑ East Bay Express, "The Express' November 2018 Endorsement Guide," October 17, 2018
67. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Rent control isn't the answer to California's housing crisis, but it could help. Yes on Prop 10," September 15, 2018
68. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego Progressive Voter Guide, November 2018," October 8, 2018
69. ↑ San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements," October 7, 2018
70. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Afraid of rent control? Here’s why you should vote yes on Proposition 10 anyway," September 14, 2018
71. ↑ The San Luis Obispo Tribune, "From gas tax to rent control, here are The Tribune’s recommendations on 11 statewide props," October 26, 2018
72. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: We recommend: Fix our roads, deliver clean, abundant water," September 30, 2018
73. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Proposition 10, the wrong fix for California’s housing crisis," September 28, 2018
74. ↑ The San Bernardino Sun, "No on Proposition 10, the wrong fix for California’s housing crisis," September 28, 2018
75. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ’s recommendations on state propositions," October 17, 2018
76. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle Recommends: No on Prop. 10," September 14, 2018
77. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: No on Prop. 10, which will make housing, rent problems worse," October 20, 2018
78. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Props 1,2,5,10: Housing-related measures need close scrutiny. Not all should pass," October 19, 2018
79. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "When it comes to rental costs, Proposition 10 is not the answer. It deserves a no vote," October 1, 2018
80. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Prop. 10 would exacerbate California’s housing crisis," August 27, 2018
81. ↑ The Modesto Bee, "Can’t afford the rent? Then do something! Just don’t make it worse," September 27, 2018
82. ↑ The Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 10, the wrong fix for California’s housing crisis," September 28, 2018
83. ↑ The Press-Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Prop 10: Don’t make California’s housing crisis worse," October 5, 2018
84. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Proposition 10: Vote no on rent control, a 'solution' that worsens housing crisis," September 13, 2018
85. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Vote no on Prop. 10 and rent control," October 6, 2018
86. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government," October 24, 2018
87. ↑ SurveyUSA, "26 Yrs After Entering the U.S. Senate, Democrat Feinstein Cannot Get Above 40% Today, 3 Wks Till Votes Are Counted; Two-Thirds of Republican Voters Cannot Decide Whether Feinstein or Fellow Democrat de Leon Is Lesser of Two Evils," October 16, 2018
88. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 10, which would expand rent control, is 'in deep trouble,' poll shows," October 19, 2018
89. ↑ The Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians & Their Government," accessed September 27, 2018
90. ↑ American Apartment Association, "Rent Control Laws in the 50 States," accessed July 24, 2018
91. ↑ 91.0 91.1 California Department of Finance, "California State Data Center," accessed June 5, 2018
92. ↑ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Rental Burdens: Rethinking Affordability Measures," accessed July 24, 2018
93. ↑ Pacific Standard, "In Defense of Rent Control," April 1, 2015
94. ↑ Tenants Together, "Making the Case for Rent Control," January 22, 2018
95. ↑ The Economist, "Do rent controls work?" August 30, 2015
96. ↑ Market Urbanism, "Rent Control Is Bad For Both Landlords And Tenants," April 2, 2016
97. ↑ City of San Francisco, "Voter Information Pamphlet for Election on November 8, 1994," accessed June 5, 2018
98. ↑ 98.0 98.1 Diamond, R., McQuade, T., and Qian, F. (2017). "The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (pages 1-72).
99. ↑ Autor, D., Palmer, C., and Pathak, P. (2012). "Housing Market Spillovers: Evidence From the End of Rent Control in Cambridge Massachusetts." Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. (pages 1-34).
100. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed August 29, 2017
101. ↑ Curbed, "California rent-control limits repeal set for November election," April 23, 2018
102. ↑ KRCA, "California rent-control measure qualifies for November ballot," accessed June 16, 2018
103. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," accessed June 16, 2018
104. ↑ 104.0 104.1 104.2 Capital Public Radio, "California Rent Control Initiative Supporters, Opponents Sought Deal To Avoid Ballot Fight — But Failed," June 22, 2018
105. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 2: Polling Place Hours," accessed October 17, 2019
106. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed October 6, 2019
107. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
108. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
109. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed October 6, 2019
110. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed November 20, 2019
111. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed November 20, 2019
112. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," June 5, 2017
113. ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014

v • e

2018 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington

Non I&R States|

• Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

• Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2018 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy