Amid a tense battle over rent control in California, real-estate interests are writing big checks to defeat a November ballot measure that would give cities more power to regulate what landlords can charge tenants — and the initiative’s backer responded this week with a $10 million cash infusion.
“We know we will be significantly outspent by the opposition, backed by deep-pocketed developers and investors who continue to wreak havoc in the housing markets,” AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein wrote in a news release Tuesday. “The greed of these billionaire corporate landlords is causing widescale misery for millions of Californians, and the scourge of homelessness will get much worse because the rent is too damned high. The California dream is dying, and only the voters can save it in November.”
The latest contribution to Proposition 10 — a campaign that until Tuesday had raised only about $2.5 million, nearly all of it from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and spent most of that gathering the necessary signatures — further ups the ante in a contentious contest that’s growing more costly by the day. In the five-plus weeks since the initiative to lift California’s restrictions on rent control was placed on the ballot, opponents have raised an eye-popping $11.9 million, campaign finance records show.
In all, as of Wednesday morning, committees determined to defeat the measure have received $21.5 million in cash, compared to the roughly $12.5 million raised by rent-control proponents, records show. That total includes the Los Angeles foundation’s latest contribution, which did not appear on the state contribution database as of Wednesday morning.
Much of the debate over rent-control — on both sides — has focused on tenants and the lack of affordable options in the Bay Area and elsewhere. But the flood of early contributions against the measure highlights how much is at stake for real-estate investors and landlords as Californians consider whether to roll back the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1995 law championed by some of the same players.
Nothing would immediately change if voters approved Proposition 10. But if it passes, cities and counties will regain the authority to cap rent increases for single family homes, condominiums and apartments built in recent decades. Costa Hawkins forever defines as “new construction” — and exempt from rent control — apartments built after 1995 or the date when a city first enacted a local ordinance, whichever is earlier. In the case of San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, those cutoff dates are in the late 1970s or early 1980s.
If it passes, cities would also have the authority to enact a policy known as “vacancy control,” which limits how much a landlord can raise the rent for the next tenant.
The threat of the measure’s passage “scares the bejeezus out of everyone in the rental community,” said Steve Maviglio, a consultant for the campaign against Proposition 10. “We’re going to run a full-scale campaign to inform voters about the consequences this will have on worsening California’s housing crisis.”
Contributions made to defeat Proposition 10 included $3.8 million from the Western National Group, a large Orange County real estate company that develops and manages apartments; $2.4 million from the San Mateo-based Essex Property Trust, which has ownership interests in nearly 60,000 apartment units, many in California; and $1.7 million from Equity Residential, which owns at least a portion of over 78,000 apartment units in 10 states and Washington, D.C., according to its SEC filings.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles nonprofit led by Weinstein, has a history of spearheading and underwriting initiative battles in California and elsewhere. The organization gave almost $18 million in cash to an Ohio drug-pricing campaign in 2016 and another $23 million to two California ballot measures that year related to adult films and prescription drugs, according to California campaign finance records and Ballotpedia. All three measures failed.
But, she said, on issues such as rent control, people often vote based on their personal experiences, whether it’s being a landlord or facing eviction or simply watching neighbors move away because of the cost of living.
“People who are hurting or struggling to find affordable housing,” she said, “aren’t going to be convinced to vote no just because they see a barrage of direct mail, and television advertisements telling them about the dangers of rent control.”
- Leasing-What A Renter Needs To Know About Rent Control In California
- Southern California Pest Control
- Low Investment Business Opportunity-Making Big Money Within 12 Months
- Lowest Home Mortgage Refinancing Lender - Save Big Money!
- A Plan For Making Big Money Online
- Make Big Money Fast - Cash Out of Thin Air!
- Make Big Money Online With High Ticket Direct Sales
- Big Money Stocks And How To Obtain Them!
- Big Money Stocks - How To Find Them
- How To Save Big Money On Your Car, Truck or SUV