You’ve seen the flyers. If you lived in California during the tail end of 2024, your mailbox was basically a graveyard for glossy postcards screaming about "corporate landlords" or "extreme rent control." It was a lot to take in.
California Prop 33 was supposed to be the "Justice for Renters Act," but by the time the dust settled in November, voters had shot it down for the third time in less than a decade. Honestly, the margin wasn't even close—about 60% of people said "no thanks."
But the fight isn't really over. Rent is still sky-high. People are still moving to Vegas or Texas because they can't afford a studio in Fresno. To understand why Prop 33 failed—and what it actually would have done—we have to look at the mess of laws that currently govern your monthly housing bill.
👉 See also: Trump vs Harris: Why the 2024 Results Proved the Economic Argument
The Ghost of Costa-Hawkins
To understand the California Prop 33 pros and cons, you first have to understand the law it was trying to kill: the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995.
For nearly 30 years, Costa-Hawkins has been the "shield" for landlords. It stops cities from doing three big things. First, they can't put rent control on single-family homes or condos. Second, they can't touch any housing built after February 1, 1995. Third—and this is the big one—they can't tell a landlord what to charge a new tenant. This is called "vacancy decontrol." When someone moves out, the price resets to whatever the market can handle.
Prop 33 wanted to take a sledgehammer to that shield.
It was a simple, one-sentence change that would have handed the power back to local city halls. No more 1995 cutoff. No more protections for single-family rentals. Basically, if San Francisco or Los Angeles wanted to cap the rent on a brand-new luxury condo, they could.
The Case for Yes: Why Millions Still Supported It
The "Yes on 33" crowd, heavily funded by Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, had a pretty straightforward pitch. The rent is too high. That's it. That's the tweet.
They argued that the 1995 law is a relic that keeps cities from protecting their most vulnerable residents. Think about a senior on a fixed income. If their apartment was built in 1996, they have zero local rent protection. They’re at the mercy of the market. Proponents said that local leaders know their neighborhoods better than Sacramento does.
Why the "Pros" appealed to many:
- Local Control: Every city is different. What works for a tech hub like Mountain View might not work for a farming town like Bakersfield.
- Protection for Single-Family Renters: A huge chunk of Californians rent houses, not apartments. Under current law, those people have almost no protection against a 20% or 30% rent hike.
- Ending "Vacancy Decontrol": Supporters argued that if landlords can't jack up the price when someone leaves, they have less incentive to "harass" long-term tenants into moving out.
It sounds like a win for the little guy, right? But the opposition was massive, and they had a very different story to tell.
The Case for No: The Unintended Consequences
The "No on 33" campaign didn't just include "corporate landlords." It included the California Association of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and even some prominent Democrats like Governor Gavin Newsom and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks.
Their argument was centered on one thing: supply.
California is short millions of homes. If you tell a developer, "Hey, build this 100-unit building, but we might cap your income at any time," they aren't going to build it. They’ll take their money and build in Arizona or Nevada instead.
Critics of the measure pointed to studies from places like MIT and Stanford. These researchers generally find that while rent control helps the people currently in those apartments, it hurts everyone else. Landlords might stop maintaining buildings because they aren't making enough profit. Or, they might just sell the building and turn it into condos, taking rental units off the market entirely.
The "Cons" that scared voters away:
- Housing Freeze: If it’s not profitable to build, new construction stops. When supply stays low and demand stays high, prices for everything else go up.
- Property Values: Some estimates suggested extreme rent control could tank property values by up to 25%. For many Californians, their home is their only real asset. That’s a scary number.
- The "Red Tape" Factor: Critics argued that Prop 33 would create thousands of tiny, conflicting rent boards across the state, making it a nightmare for anyone trying to manage property.
What Really Happened with the Money?
This wasn't just a debate about policy; it was a war of the wallets. The "No" side spent over $120 million to kill the measure. The "Yes" side, mostly funded by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, put up about $50 million.
When you see that much money being dumped into TV ads, it usually creates a "voter fatigue" or "voter confusion." Many people ended up voting "no" simply because they weren't sure which side was telling the truth.
There was also a weird side-plot: Proposition 34. This was a separate ballot measure that seemed specifically designed to stop the AIDS Healthcare Foundation from spending money on these rent control initiatives in the future. It was a "revenge" prop, basically.
🔗 Read more: Natalie McDaniel Cleveland Heights: What Really Happened at City Hall
Why Prop 33 Failed (Again)
If you’re looking for a post-mortem, it’s not that Californians love high rent. It’s that they’re skeptical of "silver bullet" solutions.
Most people realized that Prop 33 didn't actually create any new rent control. It just gave cities the permission to create it. For many, that felt like a gamble. Would my city council go crazy? Would my neighbor's house value drop?
Also, California already has a statewide rent cap. In 2019, the state passed a law (AB 1482) that limits annual rent increases to 5% plus inflation, with a hard cap of 10%. For a lot of middle-of-the-road voters, that felt like "enough" protection without destroying the incentive to build more housing.
What’s Next for Renters?
The defeat of Prop 33 doesn't mean the status quo is winning. It just means the battle is shifting.
Instead of trying to repeal Costa-Hawkins entirely, look for lawmakers in Sacramento to try "surgical" changes. They might try to move the 1995 cutoff date forward to 2005 or 2010. Or they might try to lower the 10% statewide cap.
If you're a renter or a landlord, here is what you should actually do:
- Check your current protections: You are likely already covered by the 2019 statewide rent cap unless your building is less than 15 years old or you live in a dorm.
- Watch your local City Council: Even without Prop 33, cities are finding ways to implement "rent stabilization" within the bounds of current state law.
- Support supply-side solutions: Most experts agree that the only way to truly lower rent is to build more. Look for "YIMBY" (Yes In My Backyard) groups that push for more construction.
California is in a housing hole. Prop 33 was an attempt to stop digging, but voters decided it might just make the hole deeper for the next generation. We're still waiting for a solution that everyone can agree on.