I would argue that landlords in California should vote “No” on Proposition 33 for several reasons:
Potential Loss of Property Control: Proposition 33 could introduce more stringent rent control measures, which might reduce landlords’ ability to set rents at market value. This could lead to financial losses, particularly in a high-demand market like California, where operational costs such as maintenance and property taxes are already high.
Discourages Property Investment: If landlords are forced to accept lower rent increases, it may discourage investment in property upgrades or future development. This could lead to a decline in the quality of housing stock, which ultimately hurts both landlords and tenants.
Increased Government Regulation: Proposition 33 would likely result in more government oversight of private property. Conservatives generally prefer limited government intervention in private markets, and additional regulations could be seen as overreach, limiting landlords’ ability to manage their own property.
Reduced Housing Supply: Imposing additional rent control measures can reduce the incentive for developers to build new rental properties. If it becomes less profitable to invest in rental housing, the state could face an even worse housing shortage, driving up costs for tenants in the long run.
Impact on Small Landlords: While large corporate landlords may be able to absorb the financial impact of rent control, smaller landlords who rely on rental income may struggle. This could force some small landlords out of the market, reducing competition and choice in the rental sector.
For these reasons, California landlords may want to vote against Proposition 33 to preserve their financial stability, property rights, and investment opportunities.