Prop 33 would financially impact me and my family. The cost to live in California has gone up so much in recent years that we have contemplated selling the house and condo and moving out of California. The rent of out rental property allows us to provide for our kids and helps us prepare for their education costs.
I am a small landlord and prop 33 will really hurt me. I pride myself on being a good landlord and I also have expenses that I need to cover to keep up my buildings. If I’m unable to pay my expenses to keep up the buildings then my buildings will deteriorate and not be in good shape for people to live in. Prop 33 really will hurt small landlords that count on income for a retirement and to take care of our families.
Prop 33 is bad for me and other small landlords. migrated from Mexico almost 40 years ago. Since the first day I got here in the U.S. I have had to work many times up to 3 jobs at the same time to be able to make it. Over many years of working extremely hard I was able to save some money to purchase my first house, then a few years later a second house to rent out. Now that I’m finally approaching my retirement years after working extremely hard for all my productive life, now proponents of Prop 33 want to take that away and regulate how much I can collect off of the properties that I spend my whole life to get. THAT IS NOT FAIR.
If prop 33 passes, we will have to sell our rental property putting yet another family out of a home. Single family landlords are barely keeping up with average rents in the area which are being artificially increased by low rental volume likely due to the number of short-term rentals available (and not on the rental market) and the number of homes being purchased and rented by wall street firm portfolios. Prop 33 is not the solution.
Rental housing is the only inflation proof retirement option Californians have today. Taking that out without addressing the inflation or providing any pension plans to seniors, we will have seniors forced to work late into their old age to support themselves. This is a tragic misguided proposal making California unaffordable for seniors.
This measure, Prop 33 will destroy one of the last remaining avenues for seniors who rent out their house (or partial) to retain ability of recouping their home to occupy once again without exorbitant outlay of reimbursing renters for relocation, and/or litigation fees. The increase in cost of living may be a benchmark for increasing rents, but it has not even come close to the increase in housing cost of repairs, property tax, interest rates, and insurance increases over the past 2 years. This proposition seems outrageous in light of recent expenses incurred by property owners for maintenance and upkeep.
It disproportionately impacts landlords in a way never seen in this country.
So called "Justice for Renters Act" is actually "Injustice for Renters Act". By permanently freezing the rent, rental owners will pull out of rental market, making the homeless situation worse rather than making it better. Yes, the initial impact would benefit the renters but certainly, there will be less available rental units as time goes on. Furthermore, this proposed initiative will significantly decrease investment in construction of new rental properties. Knowing the rent is frozen forever, what investor would be interested in building new apartment? I worked hard through my life working full time as a professional engineer and at the same time maintaining a rental property over 45 years to build for future and retirement. This injustice "Justice for RenterAct" will cramp my life as I know of it today.
As a small business owning and operating apartments and rental housing, we strive to maintain our older apartment properties and provide good value for our tenants. Existing rent control already makes profitable operations extremely challenging; further restrictions would make it impossible for us to keep investing in our aging buildings. Our only option would be to sell our apartment buildings to developers who will knock them down and build luxury homes, like so many of our competitors have done over the years.
My family has worked hard to create a small family run business that builds and manages homes for average American families in our city. My grandfather came to California during the Dustbowl with nothing but a 6th grade education and the desire to work hard and succeed. He built several homes in Los Angeles and taught my father the trade. Together, with their own hands, they built a number of homes in Southern California that continue to offer housing at a reasonable rate hard working families. We believe it's the right thing to offer rent at a price that is both fair and just-- that we negotiate with our tenants. It will kill our business and the legacy that my grandfather built. This proposition will hurt the small property owners like my family, not just the big investors.
It’s not right or fair for the government to control the price of rent homeowners can charge. There’s rent control everywhere already. As a result, we homeowners charge very low rent that’s far below rent market value and can’t increase much rent annually or evict tenants. In the future, if it’s necessary to renovate the house or apartment unit after years of wear and tear, we homeowners would need to rent at a higher price to recover the costs of repairs and replacements. If the government controls all rent costs, we owners would not fix the house since we won’t be able to increase prices and people would end up living in broken, deteriorated places. We owners do not rent out places at an extremely unaffordable price. We charge at a price that’s affordable to others. Otherwise, people won’t rent the place either. There’s no need for the government to control homeowners’ rent prices.
My business partner and I own 75 condominiums. We have a huge amount of debt. We have three employees who help manage our units. If Proposition 33 passes, we will sell each condominium to a future homeowner, and all of that housing stock will be removed from the market. We will take any money from these transactions and move it to a more friendly state. This will lower the housing stock available to renters here in California.
I’ve had a long term rental family with which I’ve had a great relationship. As a consequence I haven’t increased the rent in over 7 years. I’m now retired and I’m counting on this income and the flexibility of moving back into my house if needed. The proposed legislation limiting rental increases is compelling me to now increase the rent to the maximum and consider whether I should just move back into the home to avoid government control. Please leave us little guys alone.
I understand the extremely dire negative consequences of this proposed initiative. It must fail or I believe the housing markets in many areas of California, including here in Los Angeles County, will be irreparably damaged.
Aa a small business owner trying to provide safe and habitable housing to the community in Los Angeles City the current stifling rent control laws disincentivzize housing providers from building desperately needed new housing, improving existing housing, and make it extremely difficult to provide current housing. Ask yourself why rents are the most expensive in cities with rent control.
To supplement my social security, I invested much of my savings and purchased a small rental property. The income I receive is a big part of my retirement income, upon which I rely very much. Current rent control laws in California already make it a challenge to keep up with rising expenses (labor, materials, insurance, and taxes). There are many small "mom and pop" owners of rental units, and like me, depend upon the income. By making it harder and harder for folks like me to keep things at least in pace with expenses, many of us are questioning if we should continue to keep our rentals. The overwhelming majority of small investors, have great relations with their tenants, and maintain our properties. We provide housing, hire local contractors, roofers, landscapers, and purchase appliances, fixtures and more. Prop 33 will discourage other families from investing in rental homes (which will lessen inventory even more) and put a burden on small investors like me, that cannot be sustained. Please vote no on 33.
As an elected city councilmember, I am concerned the impacts Prop 33 will have on our ability to provide housing for our community.
I'm a small building owner in Oakland, Calif. I work very hard to create safe clean housing for my customers. I clean the streets, haul extra garbage, planted trees, fix everything. My tenants like me, we all get along very well. I share holiday gifts with each one every year. I feel like small landlords are a lighting rod for the homeless problem. Sure there are some bad greedy ones, but the majority are just running a small business and providing services. We cannot keep up. Actually we are seeing rents fall. Now Prop 33 will lock in those low rents and we will never come again. It's a losing battle.
Prop 33 impinges on property rights of both non landlord homeowners and the ability of landlords to manage and protect their properties and rent to responsible tenants. Prop 33 is an attack of property rights, a cornerstone right on which other rights are based.
Cities like Pasadena had enacted extreme rent control, which eliminated rent growth and decreased property value and made tenants feel like the “owned” the property. The rent limit makes it impossible for owners to keep up with inflation and keep investing back money to the properties, while operating expenses keep rising.
I own 2 rentals in which I rent for less than the going rate because one renter is a veteran and cannot find work. The other has 4 boys to raise and it is all he can afford as now. These rents give me the added income to support my daughter who recently had a stroke plus my husband and myself. I have to raise the rents to cover the new insurance rates and property taxes. You cannot decide for me how much my property is worth.
We have a housing shortage as it is. It will only get worse. NO ON 33
My wife and I are small time mom and pop owners in San Diego. The apartments are our retirement plan. We have had most of the same good tenants for more than 20 years. We are kind to them on the rents etc. We have sacrificed much and deferred to the future for close to 30 years. Prop 33 could upend our three decades of hard work. Prop 33 takes away our ability to control our own business. Of all that is anti mom and pop owner operator provisions vacancy control is the most concerning. The fact that we would not be able to raise rents when re renting would put us in jeopardy of not being able to keep up with expenses forcing us to sell, sooner or later, no doubt at a lower price than pre Prop 33. This really is an anti-Tenant bill in the sense that we are forced to raise rent as much as we can as often as we can to protect ourselves from more restrictive measures down the road. If we the mom and pop operators have to sell the tenants lose out, no doubt corporations will buy up the properties and turn them over to impersonal management companies that did not provide the level of service that mom and Pop operators do. This really is a life and death struggle for those of us who are the little guys.
The reason I oppose this proposal is that, as a property management company and a homeowner, I have personally experienced the potential devaluation of the housing market if this regulation passes. It would be detrimental to the economy and provide opportunities for problematic tenants to take advantage. Landlords would become the weaker party. As a homeowner, the property is mine; why should it be subject to government control to regulate rent? If that’s the case, the government might as well own these properties and make decisions themselves. If rent cannot be controlled, then should the interest be controlled by the homeowners? Otherwise, if rent cannot increase to cover the mortgage on rental properties, does that mean the government can repossess the house? This would be completely detrimental to the economy.
It affects us badly because we have to pay for the mortgages and many fees related to the rental home. It should be decided by the actual market.
My senior husband and I invested in rental property to live on. We also have kept the tenant rates low so our long term ones did not have to move. If not allowed to bring the rents up to market when they do, we will be penalized for being good and caring landlords. It also seems dangerous to have rent control when financial experts and past history have shown it not only to not be effective but to actually be detrimental.
The continued assault on landlords in CA has resulted in this landlord leaving and being done as landlord. The state of California is fast becoming the big landlord in the state and soon will shoot itself on the foot unable to provide housing provide continued maintenance insurance oh and taxing landlords to death. Good riddance!
Justice for Renter's act will force me, as an apartment buidling owner, to keep the property vacant and not lease any units to any tenants. Instead, if Prop 33 passes, I will sell my house and my kids, my parents, and i will all occupy our units and not rent it to anyone else.
Cost of maintaining a rental has gone up dramatically. Limiting how much we can charge for rent will effect landlords to overcome expenses. Also why aren't we talking about property insurance caps. Recently we are paying twice as much and with the rent control how are landlords to over come the expenses.
I am usually a private person but because I believe prop 33 is so unfair, I decided to be more public about my opinions and put a No on 33 yard sign on my lawn.
The other day, I hired a worker to come to my house. I never met her before. She saw my sign and asked me to explain what prop 33 was all about and why I opposed it. She genuinely had no idea what this prop was.
I was going to change the subject to avoid an uncomfortable conversation but something inside of me said to be strong and just speak honestly and truthfully as to why I oppose this proposition. I knew that if I didn’t speak up, I would later regret it.
After I gathered my thoughts and my strength to talk, I spoke from my heart. I told this woman that I have a few units that I rent. I told her that I am a good person and that being a landlord is not easy by any means. I told her that there is a lot of pressure to be a landlord and that I have a lot of anxiety because of having to deal with so much responsibility. I told her that I have to spend a lot of money every month to pay for repairs, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. There are many months that I don’t take in anything because my expenses are more than the rents that come in.
I told her that there are tenants that are living in my units for way under market value. The way the laws are currently written, I am only allowed to raise these tenants a small percentage once a year. I told her that if these tenants were to leave, I would finally be able to ask for fair market rent.
I explained that if this prop passes, I will not be able to get fair market value for this unit when a tenant leaves. The amount I would be able to increase would be determined by the government and my guess is it wouldn’t be much. I explained to her that I am a strong believer in fairness and this prop is plain and simply not fair and could literally destroy my family’s livelihood.
I am so proud of myself that I found the courage to speak up. I learned that there are people who are willing to listen and be open minded. I encourage all those people who are opposed to Prop 33 to put up yard signs and educate those who don’t understand this dangerous proposition. We must do everything possible to defeat this dangerous and unfair proposition.
I'm a responsible Mom and Pop supplier of housing in our area. I have great tenants that I've kept the rent low on due to their living on fixed income. ( Social Security) I can help...Every year I would try and hold the rental increases down for those that needed help.. Now.... no longer. I told my tenants, its over..... California liberal laws have forced me to raise your rents or I will never be able to catch up. I may do a 1031 exchange into something that takes my property off the rental market.. It's a strong consideration.. There are many other real investments that are under consideration. I'm voting No on this Prop...
I oppose The Act because I do not want any new restrictions on my ability to properly run my rent stabilized property in Los Angeles where I am already burdened with a 4% annual rent increase restriction. But now with the Act, I may face restrictions with what I can charge when a unit becomes vacant. I have a tenant who is paying $700 less per month than the market rate for their apartment. This tenant may never move but if they do, I should be given the opportunity to remodel the apartment and rent it for a market rate. I need that increase in income to help pay for increased operating costs that include but are not limited to mortgage interest, water, sewer and electric, trash removal, insurance and maintenance.
It is an all around a completely bad prop. Every one needs to vote NO on it.
As a proud resident of California, I strongly believe Prop. 33 will seriously aggravate the state’s housing crisis by discouraging investors and developers from building more rental housing. Such housing is needed to make California more livable and affordable for many young adults who are tenants, like my two sons, and building more housing is the only answer to getting the homeless off our streets. In 2020, there was a measure on the ballot, very similar to Prop. 33, also supported, funded and orchestrated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and that organization’s CEO, Michael Weinstein. Gov. Gavin Newsom strongly opposed that 2020 measure for the same reasons I now believe Prop. 33 – if approved by voters – would hurt California by stifling the new rental housing construction so desperately needed for California to grow and prosper. By the way, tenants should also be warned that AHF currently owns and operates 1,300 rental units in downtown Los Angeles, and it has been accused of being a “slumlord” by its own tenants. A lengthy LA Times investigation, published on Nov. 19, 2023, found that “many of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s more than 1,300 residents live in squalid conditions.” Bottom-line: tenants should NOT trust a “slumlord” that claims its Frankenstein monster – aka Prop. 33 - will make their lives better!
My husband and I worked hard, saved money, and invested in a rental property to help support us in retirement. We have dealt with renters who never cleaned the home, renters that stole appliances and moved out in the middle of the night, and renters who owed several months back rent. All of that, plus maintenance of the home, property taxes, and insurance ends up making one wonder why they chose to be a landlord! Before the last rent control initiative was voted in, landlords raised rents hundreds of dollars a month to try to mitigate rent control. Will the State ensure that the amount of any increased taxation in the future will not exceed the percentage that we are allowed to raise our rents? I think not!
We are a senior couple who have crated a school fund for our grandchild and support our elderly mother who lives with us which is costly and we depend heavily on the nominal income which our rental property generates for us after paying its mortgage n cost of upkeeping and taxes.
Hi my partner have owned little houses over the years. We for the most part have not raised the rents til the renters move on then we made fair market rate adjustments. Can you believe Prop 33 only holds Mom and Pops accountable and not anyone who has homes build after 1980 including giant apartment owners? That just isn't fair. Prop 33 would not solve the current housing problem.
I am a homeowner and work with lower income family and think act 33 will destroy homes and families .
My husband and I are almost 60 years old and near retirement. This is unjust to the property owners and folks that have worked so hard for years to invest in real estate for their rainy day.
I am the owner of 6 rental units. I provide housing for 6 families. I am voting NO on Prop 33 and this is why: 1. There is no limit to how much the trash company increases my trash bill each year 2. There is no limit to how much my Fire/Liability insurance increases my insurance premium each year. 3. There is no limit to how much my Property Taxes increase each year. The tenants vote for the "Voted Indebtedness" into the tax bill each year. 4. There is no limit on the cost of repairs and maintenance that I have to make on my property each year. 5. There is no limit to how much my water increases each year. If I sell the properties 50% to 65% of my profit will go to State and Federal Income Tax. That is why NO ON PROP 33.
I am a mom and pop operation, with 1 primary residence, I rent out part of it, and 1 other single family dwelling in a nearby beachfront community. These laws chip away at true ownership, and a property owners right, to do with their property as they choose. They have taken on the debt and liability.......and should be able to do what they wish, since it affects their lives dramatically too!!!
My husband and I are both retired. We have had rentals for a long time. We have tenants who know we are very fair people. When our cost of living jumps up, we have been forced to raise rents. We do not use a Property Manager as we like to know our renters personally. We rely on the rentals as part of our monthly income which allows us to properly care for these people. We are already fair and honest with everyone and we’ve worked hard ALL our lives to have the housing and help many who without our help might otherwise be homeless. If we are controlled it may mean we have to sell our property to maintain our own lives!
We own a small 4 unit in LA that been in the family since 1960's. The rent control laws are already too tough here. You had 4 years of no rent raises, while even rent control rates went up on us, and we were not allowed to forward the fees to the tenant. We cant ask people to leave, so we are way under market for our area (people are getting $1000's more for a unit). Exactly why should someone live in our apartment over 10 years anyways? I cant tell you how many people had lots of money and stayed in our building and BOUGHT something to rent to someone else for more money. So unless you create limits on renter, and require them to move into their own homes, not buy reits (that owning now adays), and live no more then 10 years in an apartment. Please stop making my life more stressful.
I am a widowed homeowner with an adult son with Autism. I support us by renting out our property. I bought my place from an owner who was renting the home to a friend for only $600 per month. The place had no heat, broken windows and pipes, and old everything. I fixed it up and rented it to a section 8 tenant for market rent. Under this new proposal, I would have to continue to rent it for only $600! There would be no incentive to buy it and fix it under this new proposal. We are already struggling with the high interest rates and increasing repair costs. Please don’t pass more laws that will make us bankrupt.
My wife and I need to be able to cover our mortgage by renting out our home. The state shouldn’t cause us any further hardship as we try to live the American dream.
I own a few rental properties. I depend on the income from those units to pay my bills, to pay property taxes, to pay property insurance and maintain the units. Often I have to put money in just to keep the properties functioning. I have tenants that have been in the property longer than I’ve owned them and I’ve raised their rents very little even though they were paying a quarter of market value, and my costs keep going up, but they are seniors on fixed incomes or otherwise trying hard to make ends meet. So I’ve left them with very, very low rent, however, when they move on at some point, I would like to put those units back into the rental market at fair market value not a few dollars more than what these people have been allowed to pay. I have been subsidizing them and it’s not fair to not get fair market rent just because I gave these tenants a break. If more rent control passes, I will be forced to raise their rents to the maximum each year because I won’t be able to get the fair market rent that I should get when they vacate. All rent control does is hurt the tenants that are there now.
Prop 33 would only REDUCE rental units and discourage new construction of more affordable housing.
My mother bought a house 2 years ago when she was 59. A few months later she had a stroke and is now completely disabled and cannot live in the house anymore. Right now I have renters in the house and my mother is breaking even on the rent and property taxes. I hope to be able to raise rent in the future so that it will generate a profit for my mother even if it’s just a hundred dollars a month. My mother is expected to live another 20-30 years how is she supposed to have income in the future when California is so expensive and she no longer works?
My husband and I are both in our 70s and retired. We have a three bedroom condo that we have owned for 15 years. When Covid hit our renter did not have to pay us for more than five months. We do not have the luxury of having the extra income to carry the renter. Even though he had the money to pay us because the county said that he did not have to, he wouldn’t do it. We had to borrow money in order to stay afloat. If there are permanent rent controls , our rights will be taken away from us. There are already laws in place controlling the amount of rental increase you can do each year.
I lived with 20 years of no vacancy decontrol in Santa Monica. I watched apartments buildings fall apart because rents could not go up when tenants moved out. And nothing was built during that time period
Operating costs are growing much faster at our modest triplex than the rent increases that are allowed under local rent control. This is due largely to inflation on costs beyond an owner's control such as trash, utilities, water and insurance. Our only means of catching up is raising rents to market when tenants voluntarily move out. Prop. 33 threatens this necessary lifeline for mom-and-pop providers such as my husband and me. Without it, we can't stay in business.
I am opposed to this, I am a registered nurse that has work very hard to be able to have 3 rental properties that I rent very proud to others, but the increase on property taxes, insurance and interest rates from bank, makes me have to rent at a higher prices. I am a good person, my properties are well taken care of, I am an older adult almost ready to retire. I am afraid this law will send me into bankruptcy. Please vote NO on this proposition.
All of these propositions that help the tenant only hurt the good landlords.
My mom and dad owned rental property for years and kept the rents charged low helping families to meet all their obligations and not be totally rent burdened. Prop 33 will put a lot of mom and pop landlords out of business! New tenants rents are higher to try to keep up with increasing insurance and utility bills landlords pay to maintain their property. Too many mom and pop landlords will have to sell their property to corporate landlords who I believe will not be as caring of their tenants over profits. Vote No on Prop 33!
We rely on our rental income to pay our bills. We are small time landlords. We have lived thru being required to provide free rent during the pandemic. We have had to lower our rents due to market forces after the dot com crash and again during the Great Recession. No one supports us during those tough times yet when rents go up they want to limit our ability to make a fair profit from our risk based investment . Rents have increased with inflation but so has food and insurance and many other things yet no one is telling big grocery chains or insurance companies what they have to sell their product for. But us small time landlords are picked on because they can. I urge all to vote no on 33.
We had a tenant we inherited when we purchased a 7 unit apartment building. John was well into his 80s, a delightful caring man with the energy of a 30 year old and a positive outlook. He took the bus everywhere. He paid about 600 a month, below 50% of the market value of the apartment. We never raised the rent on him. Not only could he not afford it but we didn’t want to put additional pressure on him. We were happy to have him. This law would force us to raise the rent the maximum every year on every tenant. John eventually moved to a retirement home closer to his son and we miss him.
My husband and I oppose prop 33 because we feel that it is not a fair answer to the problem. Aside from the income we generate from our three rental properties, we have no way to adjust our income to keep up with inflation. We believe that there are better ways to combat the high cost of housing in California, ways that avoid penalizing the small property owners.
My husband made the choice for retirement income because it was not offered in his job. We purchased homes as we could and did without a lot of things for this . Why should we be punished for this, buy not being able to cover our investment.
I am a renter on the California coast. Local government in my area has historically been anti-housing, leading to decades of underproduction. This lack of supply of course leads to absurdly unaffordable rental prices, my rent is $2000 for a 550 square-foot 1 bedroom apartment. Prop 33 would be another tool for anti-housing politicians and residents to further restrict housing options in communities like mine. Prop 33 and the expanded rent control it will bring is an ineffective and unequal method of reducing rents for low income and working class families. The loss of municipal and state revenue will cut funding to programs that actually help, such as housing vouchers. No on 33!
The so called Justice for Renters Act, if inacted, will tend to make owners charge the legal maximums allowed and offer the minimum of owner funded services. Taxes increase, insurance rates increase, HOA fees increase, Home Warranty plans increase, utilities increase, mortgage rates increase, costs of appliance and floor covering increase, cost of repairs increase, etc. So the owner has no other option than to charge the legal maximum and offer the least amount of ammenities lest they lose money in the future with Prop 33 rent control limits.
My wife and I recently purchased a rental property in California with hopes to have a rental property for our retirement The interest rate is high at 7%, so the rental payment does not cover the rent, we still have put $2,500 monthly out of our packets to cover home mortgage and expenses for the property. Our hope is that rents continue to go up at a normal pase, so one day rent can cover the mortgage and expenses related to the property. If rent is further controlled and we are not allowed to increase rent at a normal pase then that will burden us making us continue to pay out of pocket for years to come to keep the rental property. With such strict rent increases laws, regular people will not be able to buy a rental investment property because rental income will never cover for expenses and only people with large amount of money will be able to purchase rental property since they would not have to pay a mortgage at high interest rates, since they have the cash to buy.
Market determines rental rates and limiting the limit will effect property values drastically- it’s counter productive for the growth of California’s economy. There other measures and ways to balance the equation properly but not by umbrella limiting rent limits
Why you should vote NO on Proposition 33
The Costa Hawkins bill was passed in 1995 because several cities which are 70% to 80% renters enacted radical rent control laws that caused many small rental properties to fail and halted construction of new rental properties. In West Hollywood and Santa Monica the radical laws did not allow an owner to raise the rent to market when someone moved out (Vacancy Control) so the owners stopped doing maintenance on their properties as there was no incentive to do so. Rent increases were based on a percentage of the CPI and were very low. One year there was no increase at all.
Builders were so frightened by the prospect of vacancy control that they just stopped building apartments.Rental property owners could get no relief locally so they went to the state to plead their case and Costa Hawkins was passed. It provided that any buildings built after the implementation of rent control would be exempt from local rent control laws so that the builders would build more housing to ease the shortage which still exists. Costa Hawkins prevented cities from passing Vacancy Control ordinances so the owners would have some incentive to keep their buildings in good condition so that they get better rents for their vacancies.
My wife and I are both retired and depend on rental income from one rental condominium to supplement our Social Security. Our annual income, including the rental income, is less than 59,000 a year. The median income in my Northern California county is about $100,000, so we are clearly not comfortable. We can buy food and gas for our car, but the cost of living has increased so much we can no longer do much of anything in our "golden years". We rent the property at a little below market rates to keep our exceptionally good tenants. If we lose the ability to increase the rent, we will be facing some dire circumstances. My wife has had to undergo two eye surgeries to correct a detached retina, and she has recently completed a grueling regimen of chemotherapy to fight Stage 4 cancer. The medical bills are staggering. If we can't depend on increasing rents to keep up with inflation, and work on paying the medical bills, I'm not sure we can ever get out of debt, much less pay our day-to-day bills. If we weren't in our mid-eighties we would move to a different state, but that ship has sailed. Proposition 33 is wrong headed and destructive to the livelihood of older California residents.
"Justice for renters act" is a deceptive phrase to get votes in favor for this proposition. I will explain why people need to vote NO on Proposition 33, especially renters. I am a landlord who rents out single family houses in Chatsworth CA (3 bedrooms/2 baths). I have tenants who have being renting for 5, 6, 7, 14, and 29 years. They are good longtime tenants. The tenants take a good care of the houses and I take a good care of them by only increasing their rents accordingly to property taxes, insurances increases, and repairs. Minimum increases. Now, due to its ban on vacancy control - prohibits adjusting the rent to market rent (or below market rates) when tenants move out -, if Proposition 33 passes, I MUST increase the monthly rates to the maximum allowable by law to protect me when tenants move out. This increase will be very unpleasant to me -the landlord- as well as the tenants. This situation explains that what it seems to be Justice for tenants, it becomes UNJUSTICE FOR TENANTS.
I have been a landlord for 33 years. I do not raise rent on my renters as long as they are caring for the house. The average stay of my renters is eight plus years. This allows my renters to have stable expenses. Several have gone on to purchase their own homes. When a renter leaves, I make large improvements on the property, then I raise the rent according to the current market rate, often a tad under the going rate. Prop 33 would force me to change my strategy which has been successful for me and for my renters for 33 years.
I am outraged by the sheer injustice of Proposition 33. I was stunned that politicians could propose something so absurd and unfair. As a landlord of a triplex, I have always kept rents for all three units well below market rates because my tenants are long-term residents. I rarely raised rents, choosing stability for my tenants over good profit. Isn’t this exactly what affordable housing is supposed to look like? And yet, Prop 33 unfairly punishes landlords like me—the very ones who have worked to keep housing affordable. While rent increases are capped, the costs of owning and maintaining rental properties continue to skyrocket. It’s unjust to place this burden on landlords, who are essential to a stable and healthy housing market. Penalizing those of us who are keeping rents low is not only counterproductive—it’s harmful to the housing system as a whole.
My wife is 85 years old and has dementia. Since I am older than her and unable to care for her myself, we decided to move her into an Assisted Living facility. Given the high cost of care, we also chose to rent out our home to help cover part of the expenses. Even with the rental income, it's still a financial stretch. Based on what I’ve learned, Prop 33 would impose strict controls on the rent that homeowners can charge, even if they’re renting out their own home to help make ends meet. This seems unfair, especially given our situation. If Prop 33 passes, I’m not sure how we’ll manage. Please vote no on Prop 33 to help protect people like us.
NO ON PROPOSITION 33. It will hurt me in a big way. I spent my lifetime/income building my rental house. I'm 100% OPPOSING Prop 33.
I’m a homeowner and a small rental owner. I take good care of my two small rentals which are a big part of my retirement plan. My tenants (one Section 8) have been with me many years now but between property taxes, maintenance, and rapidly increasing insurance and utilities I have had to make modest rent increases. Due to inflation my wife and I may need to rent out a room in our house to cover my daughter’s college tuition (we are older parents in our 60’s). If I can’t rent a room in my house or make any needed rental increases then I would be forced to sell my properties and move out of the Bay Area where I’ve been living since 1981. My tenants would also be forced to move out of the the area also since they have already told me they wouldn’t be able to afford to rent any place else. Prop 33 would be a potential disaster for me.
I am an owner of eight rental units, I have always maintained a formula based on tenant retentions. In order to create and maintain that model I’ve always kept the rents on the lower side as my feelings have always been that to force people out of their homes is not only disruptive to families but also very costly. That worked quite well for over thirty years as this was plan for my retirement. I’m wondering if those folks in Sacramento who submit and implement such assaults on small businesses take into consideration that Proposition 33 is not only very destructive, counter productive and possibly unconstitutional. This action must stop now, the invasion of private property rights by the State is wrong. If Prop 33 should receive voter approval and I cannot raise the rent to a new tenant, how can I recover the money I have spent to rehabilitate a townhome after a move out? The people who are proposing Prop 33 are misleading the public, price control has never worked. Sacramento has no clue about how destructive that the passage of this proposition will be, at least not until they begin seeing neighborhoods with run down properties. I for one will be out of the rental business.
I am a small property owner in CA and have 2 rental properties. I believe with Prop 33 we deincentivize investors like me to invest private funds to provide residents housing and divert these funds to less restrictive and more lucrative investments, thus reducing the available rental stock. We can do this by selling our properties to owner occupants instead of tenants. I fear your legislation may get you votes, but harm your tenants voters in the long term without them understanding this.
We’re small scale landlords with a couple upscale rentals. We’ve invested a lot in our investments to provide nice homes to our tenants. Both our tenants rents are well under market value for the area, partly because they’re both good long term tenants. And if in fact this regulation does pass. We’d be forced into selling our homes, which provides LESS housing for people.
In my opinion, this Prop will only discourage more small real estate investors, who will take their resources elsewhere and will worsen the housing situation.