It failed. Again.
If you’ve been following the chaotic world of California real estate, you probably saw the headlines. For the third time in less than a decade, California voters headed to the polls and took a hard look at the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. This time around, the vehicle for change was Proposition 33. On election night, the "No" side took an early lead and never looked back, eventually securing roughly 60% of the vote. It wasn’t even particularly close.
So, when people ask did Prop 33 pass in California, the short answer is a resounding no. But the "why" behind that failure is a lot more interesting than the "no" itself. This wasn't just a random political spat; it was a multi-million dollar war between massive corporate landlords and housing advocates who feel like the state is reaching a breaking point.
The Core of the Conflict: What Prop 33 Actually Was
To understand why this thing crashed and burned, you have to look at what it was trying to do. Basically, Prop 33 wanted to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995.
That 1995 law is the big wall standing in the way of local rent control. It does three things that make tenant advocates lose sleep: it prevents cities from limiting rent on single-family homes and condos, it exempts any housing built after February 1, 1995 from rent control, and it guarantees "vacancy decontrol." That last part is the kicker. It means if a tenant moves out, the landlord can hike the rent to whatever the market will bear.
Prop 33 would have flipped the script. It would have forbidden the state from limiting any city or county's right to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent control.
Why the "No" Campaign Won the Ground War
Money talks. In California politics, it screams.
The "No on 33" campaign, largely funded by the California Apartment Association and big real estate investment trusts like Equity Residential and Essex Property Trust, dumped over $120 million into defeating this measure. Their message was simple: Prop 33 will stop new housing from being built.
🔗 Read more: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
They argued that if developers can't predict their future returns because a local city council might suddenly cap rents, they’ll just take their money to Texas or Arizona. It’s a compelling argument in a state that is already short millions of housing units. The "No" side successfully painted Prop 33 as a "housing freeze" rather than a "rent freeze."
Voters, even those struggling with high rent, seem to have been spooked by the idea of making the supply shortage even worse. It’s a weird paradox. You want lower rent now, but you're told the mechanism to get it will make houses even scarcer in five years. Most people chose the status quo over the risk.
The Michael Weinstein Factor
You can't talk about did Prop 33 pass in California without talking about Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).
AHF was the primary sponsor. Again. They tried this with Prop 10 in 2018. They tried it with Prop 21 in 2020. Both failed. Critics, including some other housing advocates, have pointed out that Weinstein’s insistence on a total repeal of Costa-Hawkins might be too extreme for the average Californian voter.
There's also a weird tension here. AHF is a massive non-profit that provides medical care, but they spend tens of millions of dollars from their pharmacy revenue on these ballot initiatives. This led to a counter-measure on the same ballot, Prop 34, which was essentially a "revenge" initiative aimed at stripping AHF of its funding. The drama was everywhere. When voters see that much infighting and specialized interests throwing around hundreds of millions, they tend to get cynical and just vote "No" on everything.
What Happens to Your Rent Now?
Since Prop 33 failed, the Costa-Hawkins rules stay exactly as they are.
If you live in a condo built in 2005, your landlord can still raise your rent significantly (within the limits of the California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, or AB 1482).
💡 You might also like: Trump Approval Rating State Map: Why the Red-Blue Divide is Moving
Wait, what is AB 1482? This is where people get confused. Even though Prop 33 failed, California does have a statewide rent cap. It’s usually 5% plus the local inflation rate, topping out at 10%. But it doesn't apply to everything. It doesn't apply to housing built in the last 15 years, and it doesn't apply to most single-family homes owned by individual landlords.
Because Prop 33 failed, cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Santa Monica cannot expand their local, stricter rent control laws to newer buildings. They are stuck in time, usually limited to buildings constructed before the late 70s or early 80s.
The Economic Nuance Nobody Likes to Admit
Economists are almost universally annoyed by rent control. They look at it like a band-aid that eventually causes an infection.
The argument goes like this: Rent control helps the person currently in the apartment. It’s great for them. They stay, they pay below market rate, and they're happy. But because they never move, "turnover" disappears. And because the landlord isn't making market rate, they have less incentive to fix the roof or paint the hallways.
More importantly, if a developer sees that a city is aggressive with rent control, they won't build there. They’ll build in the next town over. This shrinks the total pool of apartments, which—guess what?—drives up the price of the few "market rate" apartments left.
Voters in California seem to have absorbed this "supply and demand" logic, even if they hate the high prices. They’re skeptical that local politicians can manage the housing market without breaking it further.
The Regional Divide
Interestingly, the "Yes" votes weren't evenly spread.
📖 Related: Ukraine War Map May 2025: Why the Frontlines Aren't Moving Like You Think
In places like San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles where the housing crisis is most visible, the support for Prop 33 was much higher than in the Central Valley or the Inland Empire. But even in the liberal bastions, the margin wasn't enough to overcome the massive "No" vote from homeowners who fear that rent control might lower their property values or make it harder to rent out their ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units).
The "No" campaign also ran ads specifically targeting homeowners, telling them that Prop 33 would allow the government to dictate what they could charge for a spare room or a backyard cottage. Whether or not that was a bit of an exaggeration, it worked. It scared the "mom and pop" landlords into voting with the corporate giants.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Since the question of did Prop 33 pass in California has been answered with a "No," the focus shifts back to the legislature in Sacramento.
Governor Gavin Newsom and the state legislature have been focusing more on "supply-side" solutions lately. They’ve passed laws to make it easier to build "granny flats," to turn old strip malls into apartments, and to sue cities that refuse to approve new housing developments.
The failure of Prop 33 suggests that the "repeal Costa-Hawkins" movement might be dead for a while. You can only run the same play so many times before the fans stop showing up to the stadium. If advocates want to see lower rents, they might have to pivot away from broad rent control and toward more targeted subsidies or even more aggressive building mandates.
Honestly, it's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. If you’re paying $3,000 for a one-bedroom in San Diego, hearing that "we just need to build more in ten years" doesn't help you pay the bills today. But for now, the rules of the game remain unchanged.
Actionable Steps for California Renters
Since the legal landscape isn't changing through Prop 33, you need to know how to navigate the current system to protect yourself from unfair hikes.
- Verify Your Building's Age: Find out exactly when your rental was built. If it’s older than 15 years and isn't a single-family home owned by a person (not a corporation), you are likely covered by the AB 1482 statewide rent cap.
- Check Local "Just Cause" Ordinances: Even if your rent can be raised, many cities have "just cause" eviction protections. This means a landlord can't just kick you out to reset the rent to market rate unless they have a specific, legal reason.
- Monitor the CPI: The annual rent increase allowed under state law is tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Check the current CPI for your specific region (like LA-Long Beach or SF-Oakland) to ensure your landlord isn't overcharging on your annual increase.
- Join a Tenant Union: Since Prop 33 failed, the power has shifted back to collective bargaining and local organizing. Groups like Tenants Together provide resources for fighting illegal rent hikes.
- Look Into the "Housing Accountability Act": If you want to see change, support local developments that use the state's density bonus laws. These laws allow developers to build more units if they set aside a certain percentage for low-income tenants—a way to get "rent control" on a unit-by-unit basis without needing Prop 33.
The failure of Prop 33 is a clear signal that Californians are wary of broad price controls, but the housing crisis isn't going anywhere. Staying informed about the laws that did pass, like AB 1482, is your best defense in a market that remains one of the most expensive in the world.