Rent Control Is Up for a Vote This Year. Its Effects Aren't.
Voters in Orange County, Florida, and Pasadena, California, will vote on ballot initiatives that cap rent increases at, or below, inflation.

The high inflation of the 1970s spurred jurisdictions across the country to adopt rent control. The 2020s' high inflation might end up doing the same thing.
Come Tuesday, voters in a handful of communities across the country will vote on ballot initiatives that cap rent increases or tighten existing caps.
Activists argue the policy is necessary to stem post-pandemic skyrocketing rent and housing costs. History suggests these measures, if passed, will come with a long list of unintended consequences.
The most sweeping rent control initiative up for a vote next Tuesday is Measure H in Pasadena, California. It would cap rent increases at 75 percent of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), impose a raft of new limits on evictions, and require landlords to pay tenants' relocation expenses should they want to move into their property or take it off the rental market.
That effectively requires real rents to fall each year. Measure H is far stricter than California's 2019 rent control law that limits annual rent hikes to 5 percent plus inflation (capped at a maximum 10 percent annual rent hike). State law generally exempts single-family homes and apartments less than 15 years old from rent control and forbids localities from imposing rent control on housing built after 1995.
Landlords predictably oppose Measure H, citing the strictness of the rent caps, the costs of enforcement, and the poorly targeted nature of rent control generally.
"Measure H is the least effective way to ease the cost of housing, particularly for our lower and middle-income households," said Matt Buck of the California Apartment Association, which represents landlords. "There are no assurances that rent control helps the lowest-income renters and those who need rental housing the most."
The measure was put on the ballot by a coalition led by the Pasadena Tenants Union. It's got support from the local YIMBY (yes in my backyard) group Abundant Housing L.A.
"Rent stabilization is an important tool to protect renters from being forced to leave their long-time homes solely because their landlord wants to raise the rent," said Abundant Housing L.A. executive director Leonora Camner in a statement to Pasadena Now. "The smart design of Measure H minimizes the risk of negative consequences for renters and the housing market overall."
A handful of other California cities have ballot initiatives that would tighten pre-existing rent caps, reports the Associated Press.
History suggests that rent control has a good chance of passing in Pasadena. The preamble to Measure H notes that 54 percent of Pasadena voters supported a 2018 state rent control ballot measure that received approval from only 40 percent of statewide voters.
A more modest measure in Orange County, Florida, (which includes Orlando) might face a tougher path to victory, both legally and electorally.
That measure would limit rent increases to inflation, as measured by CPI. Landlords who increase rent by more than that could be sued by their tenants and hit with fines of up to $15,000.
Florida has much tighter state-level restrictions on rent control than California. City councils and county commissions must pass a rent control ordinance before putting it on the ballot. The policy must also sunset after a year. The local government must also declare a housing emergency "so grave as to constitute a serious menace to the general public and that such controls are necessary and proper to eliminate such grave housing emergency."
That last requirement could be the measure's undoing, even if it does pass.
A coalition of state trade associations representing landlords and realtors sued to get the measure off the ballot, arguing that the Orange County Commission had failed to establish such a grave emergency when it voted to place the initiative on the ballot.
Last week, the Associated Press reports, a Florida appeals court sided with property owners in ruling that the county had failed to establish a housing emergency exists and therefore rent control couldn't go into effect.
The county is trying to get a new hearing on its measure. Orange County election officials also say they're not going to print new ballots, so voters will still have the opportunity to check the box for rent control at least. Should the courts reverse themselves, there's still a chance rent control will come to Orange County.
The rent spikes that rent control supporters are responding to are real and painful. In a place like Pasadena especially, rent was already unaffordable high for many working people.
That doesn't make rent control a good idea.
Limiting the returns on rental housing reduces its supply. Landlords either convert existing units to owner-occupied condominiums or developers decline to build new units. When rents can't keep pace with rising costs, landlords start to cut back on maintenance. That reduces unit quality.
St. Paul, Minnesota, got a lesson to this effect when voters passed a 3 percent rent cap with no allowances for inflation, vacancies, or new construction in last year's municipal elections. Developers responded by walking away from in-progress projects totaling thousands of units. The city has since softened its cap.
Pasadena's rent control measure doesn't affect post-1995 units so it won't disincentivize new construction. But the harsher caps will likely see more rental property owners convert their units to condos. A landmark study of rent control expansion in San Francisco found that the policy prevented the displacement of tenants but also sped condo conversions.
The allowable rent increases of Pasadena and Orange County's measures will also likely see landlords reduce maintenance given that they, too, are experiencing the strain of high inflation.
Given enough time, reduced unit quality can also reduce supply.
New York City has kept rent increases on rent-stabilized units below inflation for years. A 2019 state law also limited the ability of landlords to pass on maintenance and capital improvement costs to tenants. The result, according to a study from one landlord association, is that many rent-stabilized units are being "defunded" to the point of being uninhabitable.
It's easy to see why rent control is an attractive solution to rising rents. The costs of the policy vastly outweigh its purported benefits. That's not going to change this election cycle.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First, waiting to see what Paul has to say.
But also:
The measure was put on the ballot by a coalition led by the Pasadena Tenants Union. It's got support from the local YIMBY (yes in my backyard) group Abundant Housing L.A.
This really, really adds to my theory that YIMBY's are not necessarily connected in any reasonable way to libertarian or free market principles and so one should be very careful how one associates with them.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (odi-06) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
"This really, really adds to my theory that YIMBY’s are not necessarily connected in any reasonable way to libertarian or free market principles and so one should be very careful how one associates with them."
My take:
Not a 'false flag', but a 'selective' one; some members prefer dense populations, others more YIY(our)BY.
Regardless, they are addressing an issue, claimed to be a crisis.
It is a fact that more people want to live in cities like SF than can afford to live here, and yes, zoning regs add to that, but in small amounts. There is no "crisis".
Oh, and if YIMBY is backing rent control, it is obvious that A) they are econ-ignoramuses, or B) hypocrites; rent control takes rental units off the market.
(could be both)
How about (C) they are a progressive front organization deliberately spreading economic falsehoods on housing policy?
It could also be (D) They really don't want any rental units in their towns, and this is a politically expedient and acceptable way to make this happen in a progressive state.
How would Pasadena voters react to a measure limiting wage increases to 75% of inflation for those in rent controlled apartments?
Entirely dependent on which voters have a mental desire to make their living from Gov-GUN THEFT against those 'icky' people versus people who desire to EARN their living.
Thank you, CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI! I have been around and in the small-time landlord business since the 1960s in Glendale which is the next town to the northwest of Pasadena. Rent control privileges tenants who already have an apartment over literally everyone else. Obviously landlords are harmed by rent control, but people looking for housing are perhaps harmed even more, because these people are actually competing in market for housing that has been inflated by rent control constricting supply and the burdensome regulations that always go along with it. For example, every rent control ordinance has a just cause eviction provision, requiring the landlord to prove why they want their unit back from a short list of acceptable reasons. It’s like getting a divorce before no fault divorce laws except that irreconcilable differences won’t cut it, and tenants can request a jury trial. Tenants in rent control apartments are exempted from competition in the housing market.
Rent control does not take into account the wherewithal of the tenant (some my tenants make more than I do), the rent level in relation to the market rent, or any of the costs of operating the property. Any rational public policy addressing rent levels would take all of these factors into account. I can’t think of any small business people who supply food, clothing, or shelter who are treated more irrationally than landlords in rent control jurisdictions. Thank you and Reason Magazine for speaking up for us.
"...Rent control privileges tenants who already have an apartment over literally everyone else..."
Two other classes benefit greatly; the legal profession and the city bureaucracy.
Darn the government that y’all hate Bailed the Want to be British Lords of the Land out from under the housing debacle then landlords greed raised rents to pay for their losses causing inflation & now they complain when it comes to protection to their tenants who they think are their serfs !!
"Rent stabilization is an important tool to protect renters from being forced to leave their long-time homes solely because their landlord wants to raise the rent," said Abundant Housing L.A. executive director Leonora Camner in a statement to Pasadena Now.
Fuck you. The best way to not have to move when the landlord raises the rent is to buy your fucking house.
If you're renting, you have made the choice to accept that level of instability.
Brought to you by the same leftard mentality that thinks Gov-GUN theft (crime) is the solution to everything. Pretending they 'own' anyone else's property just because they hang their hat their just cures their criminal mentality.
Buy the house and you have to move when the government raises property taxes.
Except you have to sell the house first.
I applaud this: I think we need repeated natural experiments like this to demonstrate how disastrous such policies are, and California is the natural place to carry out such experiments. So, I fully support these measures, and I hope the people in those towns will suffer the full consequences.