By Terynce Garner, Staff Reporter
Sophia Greer had high hopes for Proposition 33 on Election Day. A fourth-year psychology student, she believed Californians would support enacting rent control on housing. The measure aimed to repeal a 1995 law that banned rent control, allowing local governments to regulate rental rates. Greer currently pays $2,150 per month for a two-bedroom apartment in Torrance, and for her, the choice seemed clear.
“My rent has been steadily increasing for the past four years,” Greer said. “It feels like all my money is going towards housing, which leaves me little for groceries and other essentials.”
However, Greer’s hopes were dashed on Nov. 5, when 62 percent of Californians voted against the measure.
In addition to being a full-time student, Greer works a 40-hour week. To make ends meet, she has had to make significant lifestyle adjustments. She no longer eats out and avoids unnecessary purchases, focusing only on groceries and essentials. Still, her budget remains tight, even with a roommate.
“Having a roommate helps but it’s still very expensive, since I signed the lease back in 2020, the rent has increased by hundreds every year.”
Opponents of Prop 33 had argued that rent control policies would have unintended consequences, such as discouraging real estate investment and exacerbating the state’s housing shortage.
“Rent control may sound like a good solution, but it can make it harder to maintain properties. If rents are capped too low, it limits the funds available for repairs and upkeep,” said Delmy Alfaro, an on-site property manager overseeing two properties in Torrance.
Alfaro explained that property managers are responsible for various costs, including repairs, property taxes, and insurance – expenses that are also rising. She acknowledged the need for affordable housing, but said rent control alone is not a sustainable solution to California’s housing crisis.
CSUDH economics professor Jose Martinez told The Bulletin that $120 million was spent to defeat the proposition. He said voters were not convinced by the arguments in favor of the measure, partly due to its ambiguous wording.
“I think just the amount of money that was spent trying to discourage people from voting was the main factor,” Martinez said. “It was that people didn’t understand what would be, not so much that the people understood the long-run implications of it.”
While the failure of Prop 33 underscores the state’s housing crisis, Martinez said the issue boils down to basic economic principles of supply and demand, ultimately. As long as California is a popular place to live, he explained, there will always be a strong demand for housing. However, given high interest rates and the current state of the housing market, prices are likely to remain high for now.
That reality brings little relief to renters like Greer.
“Every year the rent goes up and I wonder how much longer I can keep this up, it feels like I’m just working to survive.”
