Push for stricter cap on rent increases dies in the California Legislature

"Assembly Bill 1157 would have lowered California's limit on rent increases from 10% to 5% annually and removed a clause that allows the cap to expire in 2030. It also would have extended tenant protections to single-family homes - though the bill's author, Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San José), offered to nix that provision. "Millions of Californians are still struggling with the high cost of rent," Kalra said. "We must do something to address the fact that the current law is not enough for many renters.""

"Assemblymember Diane Dixon (R-Newport Beach) said she was concerned the Legislature was enacting too many mandates and restrictions on property owners. She pointed to a recent law requiring landlords to equip rentals with a refrigerator. "That sounds nice and humanly caring and all that and warm and fuzzy but someone has to pay," she said. "There is a cost to humanity and how far do we squeeze the property owners?""

"Debra Carlton, spokesperson for the apartment association, said the bill sought to overturn the will of the voters who have rejected several ballot measures that would have imposed rent control. "Rather than addressing the core issue, which is California's severe housing shortage, AB 1157 places blame on the rental housing industry," she said. "It sends a chilling message to investors and builders of housing that they are subject to a reversal of legislation and laws by lawmakers.""

AB 1157 failed in the California Assembly amid boos and committee opposition. The bill would have reduced the statewide cap on rent increases from 10% to 5% annually and removed the clause allowing the cap to expire in 2030. The proposal also would have extended tenant protections to single-family homes, a provision the bill's author offered to remove. Supporters emphasized widespread renter hardship and the need for stronger protections. Opponents, including apartment, building, business and realtor groups, warned the measure would reverse voter decisions, deter investment, and impose costly mandates on property owners.

Read at Los Angeles Times