You've probably seen the signs. They’re plastered on freeway overpasses and shoved into your mailbox every Tuesday. One side says it’ll stop homelessness. The other says it’ll kill new housing. It’s the same old California drama, just with a new number attached to it. Deciding on prop 33 yes or no isn't actually about whether you like your landlord or think rent is too high. Everyone thinks rent is too high. The real question is who gets to hold the steering wheel when it comes to local housing markets.
California is expensive. Ridiculously so.
For years, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 has been the "big bad" for tenant advocates and the "holy grail" for developers. Basically, it’s a state law that puts a leash on how much power cities have. It stops cities from capping rent on single-family homes or any apartments built after 1995. It also protects "vacancy decontrol," which is a fancy way of saying when a tenant moves out, the landlord can reset the rent to whatever the market will bear. Proposition 33 wants to take that law and throw it in the trash.
Why the Prop 33 Yes or No Debate Is So Messy
If you vote yes, you’re voting to repeal Costa-Hawkins. That’s the core of it. It doesn’t automatically lower your rent tomorrow. Instead, it gives the "green light" to cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, or even tiny suburbs to pass whatever rent control laws they want.
Michael Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation are the ones pushing this. They’ve tried before—remember Prop 10 and Prop 21? They lost both times. But they’re back because, honestly, the housing crisis has only gotten worse. They argue that local leaders know their neighborhoods better than Sacramento does. If a city wants to protect its seniors from being priced out of a 1940s bungalow, they think the state should stay out of it.
On the flip side, the "No" camp is fueled by a massive war chest from the California Apartment Association and various developer groups. Their argument is pretty simple: if you make it harder for landlords to make a profit, they’ll stop building. Or worse, they’ll take their properties off the market entirely. They point to places like St. Paul, Minnesota, where a strict rent control measure led to a massive drop in building permits almost overnight.
It's a classic supply vs. stability argument.
👉 See also: NYC Subway 6 Train Delay: What Actually Happens Under Lexington Avenue
The Rent Control Paradox
Economists usually hate rent control. It's one of the few things people with PhDs from both Stanford and Berkeley tend to agree on. They argue it creates a "lucky winner" system where long-term tenants stay forever in cheap units, while young people and newcomers are forced to pay astronomical prices for the few units left.
But if you’re a 70-year-old on a fixed income in Oakland, you don’t care about "market equilibrium." You care about staying in your home.
That’s where the nuance of prop 33 yes or no sits. It’s a choice between long-term economic theory and short-term human survival. If Costa-Hawkins disappears, a city could theoretically tell a homeowner they can't raise the rent on their ADU (accessory dwelling unit) by more than 2% a year. To a tenant, that’s a godsend. To a homeowner who built that ADU to pay their own mortgage, it’s a financial disaster.
What Happens If the "Yes" Votes Win?
If the measure passes, expect a flurry of lawsuits. Seriously.
Landlords aren't just going to shrug and walk away. They’ll likely sue cities that pass aggressive new caps, claiming "inverse condemnation"—basically arguing the government is taking their property value without compensation. You’d also see a massive shift in where developers put their money. Why build in a "Yes on 33" city when you could build in Arizona or Nevada where the rules are more predictable?
The Case for "No"
The "No" side isn't saying the status quo is perfect. They’re saying this specific solution is a "housing killer." They argue that California already has statewide rent control thanks to AB 1482, which caps annual increases at 5% plus inflation. They think Prop 33 goes too far by allowing cities to freeze rents entirely or apply them to brand-new buildings.
✨ Don't miss: No Kings Day 2025: What Most People Get Wrong
There's also the "NIMBY" factor. Some critics of Prop 33 fear that wealthy cities will use rent control as a weapon to stop new housing. If a city is forced by the state to build more apartments, they could just pass such strict rent control that no developer would ever touch the project. It’s a sneaky way to keep neighborhoods exactly as they are.
Real World Impact and the "Missing Middle"
Think about the "missing middle"—the teachers, nurses, and firefighters who make too much for subsidized housing but not enough to buy a $1 million condo. These are the people caught in the crossfire of the prop 33 yes or no decision.
In San Francisco, existing rent control only applies to buildings built before June 1979. If Prop 33 passes, the Board of Supervisors could move that date up to 2024. Suddenly, thousands of newer units would be under price caps. Great for the current renters? Yes. But if those buildings were financed with the expectation of market-rate returns, the owners might face foreclosure if they can't cover their rising insurance and maintenance costs.
And let's talk about insurance. It's skyrocketing in California. If a landlord's insurance goes up 40% but their rent is capped at 3%, the math just doesn't work.
Breaking Down the Ballot Box Confusion
The messaging is intentionally confusing. You’ll see ads featuring veterans and nurses on both sides.
- The "Yes" Message: It’s about local control and stopping corporate greed. It’s about keeping families in their homes and preventing the "homelessness pipeline."
- The "No" Message: It’s a "tax" on housing. It’ll make the shortage worse. It’s backed by a single billionaire-run non-profit with a grudge.
The reality is usually somewhere in the boring middle. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would give cities a powerful tool, but it’s a tool that can easily backfire if used poorly. Some cities might use it responsibly to prevent price gouging. Others might use it to essentially ban new residents.
🔗 Read more: NIES: What Most People Get Wrong About the National Institute for Environmental Studies
What You Should Actually Look At
Before you fill out that bubble, look at your own community.
Is your city council pro-growth or are they trying to stop every new apartment complex? If they’re anti-growth, Prop 33 gives them a new way to say "no." If your city is struggling with a massive displacement crisis and has a thoughtful plan for moderate rent caps, you might see the appeal of a "Yes" vote.
Don't forget the fiscal impact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says the effect on state and local finances is "uncertain." It could lead to lower property tax revenue if apartment values drop. That means less money for schools and roads. But if it keeps people off the streets, it could save money on social services. It’s a giant "maybe."
Actionable Steps for Voters
Instead of just staring at the TV ads, here is how you actually figure this out:
- Check your current status: If you live in an apartment built after 1995 or a single-family home, you currently have zero local rent control protection because of Costa-Hawkins. A "Yes" vote is the only way that changes.
- Look at your City Council's track record: Research how your local electeds feel about housing. Do you trust them with the power to set price ceilings on private property?
- Read the Legislative Analyst’s Office report: It’s the only truly neutral breakdown of the fiscal impacts. Search for "LAO Prop 33 analysis" to get the non-partisan dirty details.
- Evaluate the "Vacancy Decontrol" aspect: This is the most underrated part of the bill. If a city can stop a landlord from raising rent even after a tenant leaves, that building's value will likely plummet. Decide if you think that's a fair way to keep housing affordable or a violation of property rights.
California's housing market is a broken engine. Prop 33 is an attempt to let local mechanics try to fix it, but there’s a real risk they might just end up stripping the gears. Whether you land on prop 33 yes or no depends entirely on whether you trust local government more than the "invisible hand" of a very lopsided market.