Prop. 33: Is Rent Control the Solution to the California Housing Crisis?
The California housing market is one of the most expensive in the country; but it’s not just homebuyers who are feeling its financial effects, the rental market is priced just as high. Proposition 33 seeks to expand local governments’ abilities to enact rent control, in the hopes of lowering the price of rent for millions across the state. But is rent control the best solution to this problem?
What is Proposition 33?
Proposition 33 seeks to lift the current limits that are in place for local governments to control rents. In other words, it seeks to expand what types of properties and by how much local governments can impose rent control in their cities and counties.[1]
This summary boils down further into three questions:
1. First, what is rent control?
2. Second, what are the current limits that exist for local governments regarding what they can do with rent control?
3. And third, how is this proposition seeking to change the current limits?
What is Rent Control?
The National Apartment Association defines rent control as “a government-enforced limit on the rents that property owners may charge in private, market rate rental housing.”[2] In other words, rent control generally refers to when the state or local government sets a limit on either 1) how much landlords can increase rents by annually or 2) the maximum that rental rates that can be charged to tenants. Rent control laws usually also make it harder to evict tenants, and there can be numerous other requirements specified in rent control laws, like how often rent can be increased, how much notice is required before raising rent, and what types of properties fall under rent control legislation.[3] If you rent an apartment in California, you may have noticed your rent increases every year around the same time; well, there are statewide rent control laws already in place in California that dictate how much that increase can be for you annually.
\California is the only state in the country that has rent control laws in place on a statewide and local level. Seven other states have rent control at just the local level, and Oregon has rent control just at the statewide level, but California is the only state to have both types.[4] Statewide rent control laws were passed through Assembly Bill 1482 in 2019. California was just the second state to pass this type of rent control legislation, just after Oregon passed the first of its kind earlier the same year. Under this bill, the state required that annual rent increases be capped at either 5% plus the annual inflation rate or 10% total, whichever amount is lower. The law did not establish a cap on total rental rates statewide or dictate rental amounts for new tenants.[5]
AB 1482 made some other requirements as well like tightening eviction protections and requiring certain notice periods before eviction. Landlords cannot evict tenants who have lived in the property for one year or more without a legal reason. Legal reasons fall into two categories: at fault and no fault. At fault reasons for eviction include examples like a tenant not paying their rent or if they engage in criminal activity on the property. For these violations, the tenant must be given a chance to make it right, like paying their rent or correcting how they have broken their lease agreement. No fault reasons include examples like if the owner wants to move into the property, or if the owner wants to convert the rental property from an apartment to a condo. With these no-fault reasons, the landlord must give the tenant one month’s rent back as a relocation fee. There are also restrictions on when rent can be increased and notice that has to be given. Statewide, landlords can only increase rents twice every 12 months, but some cities have their own laws that restrict this to once a year. If a landlord does increase rent twice in 12 months, the total increase can’t be more than the annual increase limit. Landlords have to give 30-days’ notice, or, if the increase goes over 10%, then they have to give 90 days’ notice.[6]
These laws do not apply to every type of rental property. Single family homes, condos, commercial properties, rental properties managed by non-profits, and a few other property types are exempt from these rent controls. In addition to the requirements set in law by AB 1482, certain cities and counties have their own rent control laws in place as well, which are more stringent than the statewide controls. For example, Los Angeles has a max increase of 8%, so lower than the statewide limit by 2%. In Palm Springs, increases are limited to 75% of the annual inflation rate. San Jose has a max increase of 5%, far lower than the statewide restrictions. In San Francisco, the San Francisco Rent Board determines the annual rate increase from year to year. Overall, rent control limits can really fluctuate depending on what local laws have been passed.[7]
What Limits are Currently in Place on Rent Control Legislation?
Local governments currently can enact rent control, but what can’t they put in place? Back in 1995, in response to local rent control legislation being passed in several major cities like the ones just mentioned, the legislature passed Assembly Bill 1164 – also known as the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. There are three main limits Costa-Hawkins put into place for local governments:
1. Any housing built after 1995 is exempt from local rent control laws,
2. Separate units are exempt from rent control – like single family homes and condominiums, and
3. Local rent control can only be enacted for existing tenants, not over rent prices landlords want to charge to new tenants. This means that a landlord can raise the rent on a unit over the rent control limits for a new tenant moving into the unit.[8]
Simply put, local governments can’t create rent control laws that affect single family homes, they can’t enact laws that affect any new housing – which is defined as housing built after 1995, and they can’t limit the rent charged to a new tenant. These limits on local government’s ability to enact certain rent control laws are what Proposition 33 is aiming to overturn.
How Would Proposition 33 Change these Limitations?
Proposition 33 would make three main changes:
· Proposition 33 would make it so that local governments can enact rent controls over any type of housing – so single-family homes and condominiums would no longer be exempt.
· Proposition 33 also seeks to allow local governments to limit how much a landlord can raise rent on a unit when a new tenant moves in. For example, let’s say you have a tenant who has lived in your apartment unit for 10 years, and over the years you haven’t raised the rent too much because they were a good tenant, and you wanted them to stay. Well, if they move out, and your local government has a rent control law in place that limits your increase, you can only increase the rent up to that amount, even though the market value of your apartment may be well above that amount. So, you may not be able to keep rental rates aligned with market rates and current costs.
· Lastly, Proposition 33 would also prevent the state of California from limiting local rent control laws in the future.[9]
Overall, Proposition 33 wants to expand the ability of local governments to enact rent control laws on single-family homes and on rents for new tenants, as well as make it so that there can’t be future legislation restraining local rent control laws.
Support & Opposition
Proposition 33 was written and funded by Michael Weinstein, who is the President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The nonprofit is funding the ballot initiative, and it funded two similar propositions in past elections – Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020. Both previous propositions failed to pass, but Weinstein continues to push for rent control measures.[10]
It is also being supported by the “California Nurses Association, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Housing is a Human Right, and Veterans' Voices.”[11] Officials who support the proposition include Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressmember Maxine Waters, Congressmember Barbara Lee, and Democratic National Committee Member Christine Pelosi, who is the daughter of Nancy Pelosi.[12]
The key reason these figures cite for supporting the proposition is the expensive state of the California rental market. California has the second highest percentage of renters across the country, second place only behind New York, at 44% of our population renting, which is 9% higher than the national average.[13] This isn’t just in the last few years with housing costs surging, this has been the case in California across the past six decades, according to a study from the Public Policy Institute of California. In fact, California is third in line for states with the most rental stress, with nearly 30% of renters reporting they spend over half of their income on rent.[14] Not only that, but one million households report that they are behind on their rent payments, usually by two months or more.[15]
It’s no surprise then that when it comes to the housing crisis in the state, 68% of Californians report housing affordability as a main concern. In LA County alone, 56% of residents say they are considering moving due to the cost of housing.[16] Which makes perfect sense if you are seeing half of your income go just to your housing costs, or if you are living paycheck to paycheck just to pay the rent. This is not a small issue, this impacts the ability of people to afford a reasonable place to live, and to raise their families. The goal then of Proposition 33 is to try to make housing more affordable for the people who live in the state.
But the proposition has extensive opposition from several other groups and elected officials who are saying that allowing more extensive rent control legislation by local governments will just exacerbate the rising rental costs in the state. Outspoken groups who oppose the proposition include the California Apartment Association, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and the California Business Roundtable.[17] Twenty-three mayors across the state have come out in opposition to the proposition, including the San Jose mayor, the San Diego mayor, the Carlsbad mayor, and several others.[18] This really isn’t split between political parties. It can be easily seen as a partisan issue because generally Republicans oppose policies like rent control, but Democratic Senators like Toni Atkins and Buffy Wicks have also been outspoken about their opposition to what is being proposed.[19] The main argument of the opposition is that rent control simply does not help to lower the cost of housing, but actually causes other problems like discouraging landlords and reducing development, both factors which contribute to increasing rent costs.
The Economics of Rent Control
Does rent control lower housing costs in a sustainable way like proponents of the proposition are arguing? What are the economic impacts that it has? Is it the most effective solution to the problem of unaffordable housing in California?
Everything starts with the basics of supply and demand. If consumers in an economy really want a good or service, then demand is considered high; conversely, if no one wants a good or service, then demand is considered low. If suppliers of a good or service have a large amount of whatever they’re selling, supply is considered high; while if there is less production and availability of that good or service, then supply is considered low. When there is high supply for something, then consumers have a lot of choices to choose from, and it drives prices down. Think for example of strawberries in the summer. When I was at the grocery store a few weeks ago there was a huge sale on strawberries – you could buy 3 pounds for just $5. That’s really low for fruit! Why was the price so low? Because it was peak strawberry season, and so farms and producers of strawberries had a large quantity of strawberries to sell. They needed to get rid of them before they went bad, so this high supply drove down the prices, incentivizing consumers to buy them even if they didn’t need such a large amount.
On the flip side, when there is high demand for something, then consumers are willing to pay more money for it and sellers raise prices. Think about the price of a Taylor Swift concert ticket. In 2023, Taylor Swift was the most in-demand performer, with the average concert ticket to the Eras Tour priced just over $1,000.[20] Now, my husband and I are not fans of Taylor Swift, we’re more country music people, and we just went to a concert in LA to see Kane Brown, but our tickets for that concert were around $100 each. Why are Taylor Swift’s tickets so much more expensive? Because she is in much higher demand! She is one of the most famous and well-loved artists, and so she can set her ticket prices high, and she will still sell out a concert. A less famous artist wouldn’t be able to do that. If an artist you had never heard of was trying to sell tickets for thousands of dollars, you would easily pass on spending that money. Ultimately, those prices are set by the market and by the consumers in the market. The more people want something, the more they will pay for it, and therefore, the higher the prices will be for it.
What does supply and demand have to do with the housing market? A study conducted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office asserts that the root cause for California’s high cost of housing is due to high demand, and low supply.[21] Think about it, California just intrinsically is a nice place to live. We don’t have tornadoes or tsunamis or hurricanes. We sometimes get earthquakes, but we don’t get massive ones every single year. We don’t have humidity like the south or snow like the east. We don’t have perpetual rain like the pacific northwest, but we don’t have unbearable heat like Arizona. And on top of that, we are an agricultural powerhouse. We make up 13% of the entire country’s agricultural production with just 4% of the farms in the United States, and we are the only state to grow several crops like almonds, artichokes, figs, olives, walnuts, and several other commodities.[22] Plus, we’re right on the coast, so we have access to incredible beaches and the Pacific Ocean, and can experience some of the most beautiful sunsets in the country. It isn’t hard to come up with several reasons and more for why so many people want to live here.
But, as we just discussed, this constitutes high demand. And unfortunately, California doesn’t have enough supply of housing to keep up with the demand. In the last two decades, the total number of housing units for in-demand areas like San Francisco and San Jose grew by only 0.7 percent per year. Compare that to Seattle, where growth was nearly double this at 1.4 percent. Going back further, from 1980 to 2010, the national average for housing growth across the US was 54%, but California’s coastal metros only grew by an average of 32%, and highly populated cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco were even lower at an average growth of 20%.[23]
What is causing growth in California to slow?[24] First of all, it’s more expensive to develop housing here than it is in other states. Starting with land, the cost of land in California is expensive. Land isn’t a commodity we can just easily get more of, it’s limited, so if people want to live here, and if farmers want to own land here due to the richness of agriculture that our climate lends itself toward, then it makes sense that California’s land costs would just be inherently higher. Additionally, building costs are higher here. In fact, construction labor is 20% more expensive here than across the country. That’s because California has much higher regulations and building codes for developers. Builders are required to use higher quality materials to help reach the state’s goals for energy efficiency, but in turn, that means costs especially of materials are also going to be higher. Further, there are development fees imposed by the state of California, which, in the same trend as everything else, are much higher than the rest of the country. For example, a survey conducted in 2012 found that for a single-family home the average development fee in California is $22,000. The average across the rest of the country? Just $6,000. Taking into consideration these land costs, materials costs, and development fees, the average single-family home in California can be upwards of $50,000 to $75,000 more expensive than other states.
Second, there is often community resistance to new development, especially in California’s coastal communities. There are even growth controls in place for how many new homes or high-density buildings (like apartments) can be built per year. The reality is that cities and counties have a lot of power over housing development, and most of them require multiple steps of review and approval before building projects can move forward. This slows the process, and so getting new housing projects off the ground can be prolonged by an additional 8 months to a year to get these required approvals.
A third reason for the low supply in housing is due to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, passed in 1970 – which is actually the exact timeframe that we see housing growth slow and housing costs begin to rise. California has the most environmental policies of any state; it is the only state with statewide, local, and private environmental policies, as well as a separate climate change policy.[25] CEQA required state and local governments in California to carry out an “environmental impact review” for all planned projects, including development.[26] A few of the requirements CEQA enacted were public review of these projects, a greenhouse gas emissions analysis, and the use of a robust methodology to compare the project’s impacts to the state’s long-term climate goals.[27] In 1972, the California Supreme Court expanded the scope of CEQA to also apply to private development. Soon after that ruling, banks pulled back on approving construction loans because of how long projects could be held up due to the new CEQA requirements.[28] Since its passage, there have been multiple studies conducted showing that CEQA has had direct effects on the creation of the housing crisis in California. Because of the requirement of public review, anyone can raise environmental concerns and use CEQA as a way to block or hold up projects they don’t want to move forward.[29] A study in the Hastings Environmental Law Journal found between 2013 and 2015 that 14,000 housing units in developments were tied up with legal CEQA challenges.[30]
All of this is to show that ultimately there is high demand for housing in California, supply isn’t keeping up with that demand for a variety of reasons – stringent regulations on new development, required environmental analyses, and higher costs to develop here – and because of the basic laws of supply and demand, this means that prices have been driven higher and higher, thus resulting in the crisis we have today where the cost of housing in California is a burden to a good majority of its citizens.
Where does rent control come in? Well, rent control is one of the remedies that is sought by the state government to address these high housing costs. By capping the amount rent can be increased from year to year, as well as all the other ways rent control can be enacted that we discussed earlier, the theory is that this will keep housing costs lower, which is good for California citizens. The problem with this is that rent control does not address any of the basic economic factors we just discussed. Demand for housing is still high, supply of housing is still low, and as such, prices are still driven upward. What rent control does is slap a price ceiling on landlords so that even though their costs associated with the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and upkeep of their property stay the same or even increase with inflation, they do not have the freedom to adjust rental rates beyond the limits the government sets. This means that landlords will end up with smaller profit margins, or losses altogether on their rental properties.
Common sense then follows – if you have a property that you’re losing money on because of the limits the government has imposed on how much you can set the rent for, what would you do? You would either sell the property, or live in it yourself, anything to stop losing money. So rent control discourages landlords from renting out their properties, because it essentially says yes you will incur costs to pay for this property, and yes you will need a certain amount of rent to cover those costs, but no you cannot adjust rates in accordance with the market.
It also follows that it would discourage new development. If you set out to develop a high density housing project, like an apartment building, and it will cost you an exorbitant amount of money in the state of California because of materials cost and development fees, and you know you face the risk of being tied up in legal challenges due to environmental and other development related regulations, and then on top of that you know in the end your rent is capped at a certain amount, would you feel like it is worth it to move forward with the project? The answer is, and should be, no, you wouldn’t. It wouldn’t be worth it to you.
Another unintended consequence to consider is that rent control also keeps renters from moving. This is especially true in states like California where to purchase a house is often far more expensive from a cash flow standpoint than to rent. This keeps the housing market stagnant, as fewer households move through different stages of life like buying their first house, moving as their family grows, or downsizing when retiring. If units are rent-controlled, renters know they will face greater costs moving or owning a home, and it keeps them from making these changes which are necessary to keep the market in balance.[31] The National Apartment Association’s stance on rent control clearly states, quote, “Decades of empirical research have shown that these policies distort the housing market by discouraging the development of new rental housing and the maintenance of existing units. With little to no ability to earn a profit, investors will transfer their funding to other non-rent-controlled jurisdictions. In practice, these policies have the effect of increasing the cost of all housing by forcing a growing community to compete for fewer units.” Doesn’t that make sense when thinking about just basic economic principles?
Going back to Proposition 33, let’s look at it again through the lens of what we’ve just discussed about economic principles and the unintended consequences of rent control. Proposition 33 would make it so that local governments can enact rent controls over any type of housing – so single-family homes and condos would no longer be exempt. If we apply the laws of supply and demand here, think through how this will affect homeowners. As previously mentioned, if you own a single family home, and you pay a mortgage and taxes and insurance on that home, but you know that your county or city has rent control laws in place regulated how much you can increase rent annually or sets a maximum ceiling on rent overall, you will be disincentivized from renting out your property, which only means that California will have less and less single family homes within the market for rent, further lowering the already low supply of homes, and perpetuating the same problems.
Proposition 33 also seeks to allow local governments to limit how much a landlord can raise rent on a unit when a new tenant moves in. This is disastrous, because as we’ve seen, landlords need the freedom and flexibility to set their rental rates based on their adjusted costs. Limiting their rent for new tenants entirely prevents them in many cases from moving their rental rates up to market value, and again, would discourage landlords from renting entirely. Think about how long a property would be under water for rent! If you start out at under market value, and rent control limits you to only increasing rent by 5% annually – which is commonly less than the inflation rates these days – you will forever be renting out your unit for far below its value.
Lastly, Proposition 33 would also prevent the state of California from limiting local rent control laws in the future. Which is just bad news for anyone who disagrees with the measure.
The Commonsense Response
There is a similar pattern with this proposition as the one we discussed last week – Proposition 36 – and that pattern in that there are underlying, root causes to the issues California is facing – like rising crime and high housing costs – but the solutions proposed in our state are not addressing those root causes, but are arbitrary, temporary, surface-level fixes, that actually end up exacerbating the problems. We saw that with crime. The root cause is a poorly maintained prison system, and so the surface-level fix is to change laws to keep criminals out of prison, but the result is more crime, and on and on it goes. It’s the same with Proposition 33. The root cause is low supply in the California housing market, and so the surface-level fix is to impose limits on how much landlords can charge for rent, but the result is even less supply due to discouraging further housing development and discouraging future landlords, and on and on it continues to go.
My response to this is that Proposition 33 is disastrous, but much like I mentioned with crime, there are even further issues that need to be addressed than just this proposition. We can vote down this initiative – and I believe we should – but the statewide rent control legislation passed in 2019 remains in place, local jurisdictions still have rent control laws over properties not protected under Costa-Hawkins, and the barriers to new development are still incredibly high in our state – and so housing costs will continue to be an issue for Californians. We again need representatives in government who are willing to be honest and who also understand economics enough to stop proposing silly solutions that have no grounding in reality or how the economy actually works.
We again return to many of the same action items discussed with Proposition 36 – starting with your local leaders and representatives. This isn’t and doesn’t have to be a partisan issue. As I mentioned, there are Democrat officials and representatives who oppose this proposition. And so even if you don’t love the options in front of you on the ballot for your district, investigate local candidates’ positions on things like housing development, rent control, price ceilings, and affordable housing. Find candidates who are willing to be honest about the housing crisis, and not just offer solutions that sound appealing – like the promise of lower rent – while ignoring the long-term effects.
I also would encourage you to view the bigger picture on issues like this. It is easy for politicians to sway the votes of people by offering to make their lives better in the immediate. For many of us who rent, it might seem like on a philosophical level we disagree with rent control, but we like low rent and don’t want the price of our housing to increase, and we let that sway our vote. We must instead look at the bigger picture. Lower rent in the immediate future leads to higher costs in the long run, and that is exactly what we’ve seen with this issue in California worsening since 1970. At some point, the broader issue must be addressed and compel us as voters to consider the large-scale impacts that the policies we vote for have on our state.
For the Christian, why should you care about an issue like rent control? It’s not a moral issue, there’s no clear biblical mandate for or against it. Some might even say Christians should support rent control because we shouldn’t care about profit margins, and we need to help the poor. But I think the key issue is that this is a matter of understanding what is true, and then determining to not make existing issues worse. We want to seek truth, and of course that applies to theology and doctrine, but we also seek truth in the commonsense areas of life. It is not good to turn a blind eye to deep-seated issues and to support initiatives and policies that we know for a fact will not help. We do care about the poor, and we care about the ability of people to raise their families in their communities. We also care about the church having access to states all over America, and not being priced out of certain states like California, where Christian influence is desperately needed. But advocating for policies that end up exacerbating the problem in the long-term only hurts the poor and vulnerable more.
We need to speak with conviction on what is true so that we can bring clarity to an issue that has instead caused chaos – even an amoral issue like housing prices and rent control. We seek the good of our neighbor – it is not good that 30% of renters spend over half of their income on rent and that 1 million households are behind on their rent. It is not good that so many households consider leaving the state because of rising costs – many of which most likely are Christian households. And so, to reverse these trends, we need to know what is behind them and what would help them.
Overall, we have in front of us this election the choice to restrain legislation from being enacted that would further perpetuate the issues we are already all too familiar with specific to the housing market in our state, and we should take that opportunity in front of us and be faithful with it.
My recommendation? Vote no on proposition 33.
References:
[1] Legislative Analyst’s Office. “Proposition 33 [Ballot],” 2024. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=33&year=2024.
[2] “Rent Control: Policy Issue | National Apartment Association,” n.d. https://www.naahq.org/rent-control-policy.
[3] Bitton, David. “California Rent Control Laws (2024) | the Complete Guide.” DoorLoop, December 27, 2023. https://www.doorloop.com/laws/california-rent-control-laws#:~:text=Rent%20control%20refers%20to%20legislation,City%2C%20have%20rent%20control%20laws.
[4] “Rent Control: Policy Issue | National Apartment Association.”
[5] Bitton. “California Rent Control Laws (2024) | the Complete Guide.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] California Apartment Association. “Limits on Local Rent Control,” August 2024. https://caanet.org/91263.kbdl.
[9] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 33 [Ballot].”
[10] Nemeth, Mike. “Once Again, Extreme Rent Control Measure Officially Heads to Fall Ballot.” California Apartment Association, July 25, 2024. https://caanet.org/once-again-extreme-rent-control-measure-officially-heads-to-fall-ballot/.
[11] Ballotpedia. “California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia,” n.d. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_33,_Prohibit_State_Limitations_on_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2024)#Support
[12] Kenslea, Ged. “California Rent Control Ballot Measure Now Proposition 33.” MarketWatch, July 4, 2024. https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/california-rent-control-ballot-measure-now-proposition-33-54b95d37.
[13] McGhee, Eric, Cuellar Mejia, and Hans Johnson. “California’s Renters.” Public Policy Institute of California, February 27, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-renters/.
[14] Johnson, Hans, and Eric McGhee. “Many California Renters Remain Financially Stressed.” Public Policy Institute of California, February 27, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/blog/many-california-renters-remain-financially-stressed/.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Public Policy Institute of California. “Californians and the Housing Crisis,” April 1, 2024. https://www.ppic.org/interactive/californians-and-the-housing-crisis/.
[17]“California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia.”
[18] Salmonsen, Mary. “23 Mayors Oppose California’s Rent Control Ballot Measure.” Multifamily Dive, August 15, 2024. https://www.multifamilydive.com/news/23-mayors-oppose-california-prop-33-rent-control-san-diego-san-jose/724258/.
[19] “California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024) - Ballotpedia.”
[20] The Economic Times. “How Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour Compares to Buying Super Bowl 58 Tickets,” February 9, 2024. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/how-taylor-swifts-eras-tour-compares-to-buying-super-bowl-58-tickets/articleshow/107564990.cms?from=mdr.
[21] Legislative Analyst’s Office. “California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences,” March 17, 2015. https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx.
[22] USDA. “State Fact Sheet,” May 2011. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/10cafacts_v3.pdf.
[23] Legislative Analyst’s Office. “California’s High Housing Costs: Causes and Consequences.”
[24] Ibid.
[25] Mortazavigazar, Amir. “A Tale of Two States: Comparing Implementation of NEPA in Virginia and California.” Global Change Center | Virginia Tech, March 20, 2023. https://globalchange.vt.edu/news/news-stories/2022-23-news/NEPA-IGC-blog-post-by-Amir.html#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20main%20key,also%20multiple%20opportunities%20at%20later.
[26] Vankin, Jonathan. “CEQA: The Surprising Story of the State’s Keystone Environmental Law.” California Local, February 14, 2024. https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/94237-ceqa-california-environmental-quality-act-housing-gavin-newsom/.
[27] Mortazavigazar, “A Tale of Two States: Comparing Implementation of NEPA in Virginia and California.”
[28] Vankin, “CEQA: The Surprising Story of the State’s Keystone Environmental Law.”
[29] The Times Editorial Board and By The Times Editorial Board. “Editorial: CEQA Is Too Easily Weaponized to Block Housing - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-30/editorial-ceqa-is-too-easily-weaponized-to-block-housing-and-slow-environmental-progress.
[30] Hernandez, Jennifer. “California Environmental Quality Act Lawsuits and California’s Housing Crisis.” Hastings Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 24. Hastings Environmental Law Journal, season-04 2018. https://www.hklaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Articles/121317_HELJ_Jennifer_Hernandez.pdf.
[31] “A Comprehensive Study of Rent Control.” California YIMBY, April 2, 2024. https://cayimby.org/blog/a-comprehensive-study-of-rent-control/.
