13 Votes on Housing Proposals to Watch On Election Day

California isn’t the only state that will decide on important housing issues at the ballot box on Nov. 5, but it is one of the most prominent. Thirteen state and local ballot measures concerned with multifamily or landlord-tenant relationships and housing laws will be decided when voters go to the polls.

Here’s a look at 13 proposals to watch on Election Day.

California: Proposition 33

California’s Costa-Hawkins Rent Control Act mandated that rent control could not apply to any residential housing (including single-family homes) built after Feb. 1, 1995. Additionally, local laws cannot currently dictate what landlords can charge new renters when they first move in; they can only limit rent increases for existing renters.

Prop 33 would increase rent control laws by limiting the amount landlords can charge for rent, regardless of an apartment’s rental history, and expanding them to single-family homes. Proponents of Prop 33 cite California’s unaffordable rent as a reason for tougher, further-reaching rent control laws, while opponents feel that the proposition would ward off future construction and investment—the one thing affordable housing needs to alleviate the crisis.

Five local measures—four in California and one in New Jersey—could have a direct impact on multifamily operations and the landlord-tenant relationship:

Berkeley, California: Measure BB

The measure uses existing revenue to fund housing retention and homelessness prevention. It would remove some rent control and registration exemptions, allow tenant associations, and mandate that property owners meet with them. It would also modify some eviction conditions and eliminate rent control suspension during high vacancy. Additionally, the measure seeks to control how tenants could be charged for utilities and limit the maximum rent increase to 5%.

Berkeley, California: Measure CC

The measure seeks to use existing revenue to create a fund for rent payments to property owners. It also aims to expand exemptions from rent control and permit tenant associations while modifying some eviction conditions. 

If passed, the measure would remove powers from the city’s rent board and raise the maximum rent increase to 7.1% from 7%. This measure conflicts with Measure BB, so if both pass, the one with the most votes would prevail and come into law.

Fairfax, California: Measure 1

This measure repeals the city’s Just Cause Eviction and Rent Stabilization Ordinance. It replaces it with state law and prior town code.

San Anselmo, California: Measure O

This requires property owners with three or more units to provide longer notices, offer relocation benefits, and the right to return to the apartment in a no-fault lease termination. It also mandates that landlords pay for temporary displacements.

Hoboken, New Jersey: Ballot Question

Under current rent control laws, Hoboken’s landlords cannot raise rent by more than 5% or to the Consumer Price Index Rate—whichever is greater. However, there is a caveat: If a unit has been occupied for three or more years and then goes vacant, a landlord can increase the rent by up to 25%.

The ballot question aims to change this. If passed, it would allow landlords to raise the rent on newly vacant rent-controlled units to market rates without restriction. This is regardless of the length of the previous lease, under the condition that the landlord makes a $2,500 contribution to Hoboken’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The units would then fall under rent control, with increases restricted while occupied.

Measures in California and Rhode Island specifically concern approvals for affordable housing:

California: Proposition 5

This targets local ballot measures requiring bonds for affordable and public housing. Specifically, it amends the state constitution to lower the supermajority necessary to issue such bonds from 66.67% to 55%. This would also apply to future ballot measures concerning affordable housing funding.

Rhode Island: Question 3

This asks voters to authorize $120 million in bonds for housing development, including acquisition and infrastructure. $80 million of the money would be used specifically for affordable housing.

Five prominent affordable housing measures include:

Baltimore, Maryland: Question A

This allows the city to borrow a maximum of $20 million to operate its affordable housing program.

Charlotte, North Carolina: Housing Bond Measure

This measure uses increased property taxes to fund a $100 million affordable housing bond.

Los Angeles County: Measure A

This repeals and replaces the Measure H tax—a quarter-cent sales tax expiring in 2027—with a half-cent sales tax that supports affordable housing, among other causes.

Oroville, California: Measure N

This specifically addresses the approval of an 18-unit low-income housing property.

San Francisco, California: Proposition G

This apportions a minimum of $8.25 million annually to cover rental subsidies for extremely low-income affordable housing.

Final Thoughts

With the country in the grip of an affordable housing crisis, even if your state, city, or town does not have specific housing-related measures on the ballot, votes in the areas where they are—principally in California—could influence other parts of the country. Regardless of your political persuasion or geographic location, 2025 could signal a new era of housing regulations. 

Find the Hottest Markets of 2024!

Effortlessly discover your next investment hotspot with the brand new BiggerPockets Market Finder, featuring detailed metrics and insights for all U.S. markets.

Note By BiggerPockets: These are opinions written by the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of BiggerPockets.