Proposition 10

Proposition 10 -- Rent controlWhat it does: Would allow local governments to enact broader rent control laws by repealing a 1995 state law that limited the approach of cities and counties. The law prohibited rent control laws that apply to:Units built after 1995Single-family homesCondominiumsDuplexesTextEditorProposition 10 would allow local rent-control ordinances to cover all housing. It would also allow local laws to limit how much a landlord can raise rents when a new renter moves into a unit. It would also conform with court decisions that say rent-control laws cannot limit landlords’ right to a fair return on their property.How much it costs: The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure could have a variety of economic effects – including a decline in the number and value of rental units – depending on how many cities enact rent control. It also would likely lead to a unknown decline in government revenue, because landlords would pay less property and income tax.

Click a candidate icon to find more information about the candidate. To compare two candidates, click the "compare" button. To start over, click a candidate icon.

  • Yes - For the Measure

  • No - Against the Measure

Social Media


Statements for and against the measure:

Supporters: Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation; unions representing teachers, nurses and government workers; housing advocacy organizations and tenant groups.

What they say: High rents are forcing people from their homes and need to be controlled. The measure does not require rent control, but would allow it in cities that need it. Greedy real estate interests are fighting the measure to protect profits.
Opponents: Real estate investment companies and apartment building owners; state building trades unions; California Chamber of Commerce.

What they say: The measure would make the housing crisis worse because landlords would convert their properties to vacation rentals and condos. It would add too much regulation to the housing market, allowing housing boards to regulate the use of private, single-family homes. It would cost local governments millions, as property tax and income tax payments would be related to housing decline.