Over the past year, the future of Californian renters has appeared increasingly grim. Several bills and measures defending renters have failed, leaving renters unprotected and concerned about future housing options.
The price of a roof
Homelessness and housing insecurity in California has been a hot-butten issue for decades — tracing back to the ‘80s and even earlier. Although citizens have consistently expressed concerns over housing prices, homelessness has only risen. In 2024, a whopping 187,000 individuals were considered homeless, 24% of the entire nation’s unhoused population. The number of people without affordable housing is even larger.
According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), affordable housing exists when an individual pays less than 30% of their income on housing costs, thereby avoiding the constant insecurity of living paycheck-by-paycheck. Approximately 44% of Californians, or 17 million people, are renters of apartments, and the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment is approximately $2,030.
This translates to a $6,766 income monthly to be considered as living in affordable housing, which means a $81,191 income annually. For context, minimum wage is only $68,640 annually if a person works full-time, and this does not account for the fact that many citizens working minimum-wage jobs still earn less than that rate. Nonetheless, it’s particularly difficult to modify the salaries given by individual employers, and, under current job market conditions, to find different work.
Battle of the signatures
To address concerns, several legislators introduced propositions and bills to alter the other factor of housing security—actual prices. Still, when given the opportunity, the majority of Californian voters and law-makers chose to maintain the status quo.
For one, recent California proposition decisions have limited or prevented renters’ protections. This past fall, within a flurry of relatively conservative proposals and voting results, Californians voted “No” on Proposition 5 and Proposition 33, respectively maintaining a higher voting threshold for local housing funding and not allowing local limitations on how and when landlords raise rent. Without the option of available and affordable housing, prospective and active renters were left stranded. Yet, as propositions to support housing efforts fell flat, multiple representatives hoped to address housing concerns through Congress. Through these representatives’ initiative, several pieces of recent Congressional Legislation would have implemented increased protections for renters, but legislators decided to go in a different direction.
For instance, the Keeping Californians Housed Act, proposed by State Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab, would have required a two weeks grace period before eviction. Despite its clear pro-renters lens, Wahab’s legislation did not pass the Assembly. Perhaps even more notably, the bill faced firm opposition from landlord associations, illustrating their control over the real estate industry. On a similar note, the Hiring of Real Property Act, authored by the chair of the Assembly Housing Committee, would decrease landlords’ abilities to charge certain non-permitted fees. Despite Haney’s influence, further action on this act has been postponed until the next session—approximately a year later.
But California real-estate legislation does not end there.
A glimmer of hope
In terms of supporting current development organizations, California legislation has made tangible progress.
A recent housing bill authored by state representative Jesse Gabriel sought to exempt the housing industry from portions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which slowed urban development. On June 30, this bill was approved by Governor Gavin Newsom, to the dismay and criticism of several environmental organizations like the National Resources Defense Council. Regardless of the backlash, this bill eliminates urban developers’ need to research environmental conditions in areas before construction, allowing for easier and more frequent apartment creation. Thus, housing availability is expected to increase, with affordable housing also increasing as apartments may be constructed in less wealthy — and often more environmentally tumultuous — areas.
However, several groups and experts, such as Berkeley planning and developing consultant Mark Rhoades, disagree. Rhoades argues that CEQA alone does not prevent new housing development from occurring; rather, it interferes with the process of current development. As a result, it may still stimulate the creation of more immediately available housing, but it does not solve the issue of population growth and homelessness occurring at a quicker rate than new construction.
A precarious future
For renters and developers in California alike, this piece of legislation could be excellent news. But the potential positive impacts are quelled for renters, who continue to suffer the consequences of recently denied housing protection legislation. Ultimately, as landlords are offered greater pricing power and influence in legislation, renters are endangered by unnecessary fees, rent raises, and expedited eviction. And given rising donations by landlord associations to legislators, this pattern is unlikely to end anytime soon.
