California is no stranger to ballot propositions that sound great in theory but fail miserably in practice. Prop 33 is one of those measures. While it may be packaged as a solution to a perceived problem, the reality is it could do more harm than good. Voting NO on Prop 33 is the right move for anyone who cares about the future of housing, the economy, and the rights of property owners.
In the words of economist Thomas Sowell, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Prop 33 exemplifies this political disregard for economic reality, and here’s why.
1. Price Controls Lead to Housing Shortages
Prop 33 is, at its core, another attempt at controlling prices in the housing market. If history and basic economics have taught us anything, it’s that price controls, like rent control, do not work. Thomas Sowell has famously argued that “the most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best.” Prop 33 gives more power to politicians and bureaucrats to decide rental prices, but they are far removed from the realities of maintaining and managing housing.
By artificially capping rent, landlords are disincentivized from maintaining and improving their properties, which leads to a decline in housing quality. Furthermore, price controls reduce the incentive for developers to build new housing, which exacerbates the housing shortage and ultimately hurts tenants the most.
2. It Punishes Responsible Landlords
Prop 33 unfairly targets responsible landlords who are already working to maintain affordable housing for their tenants. It imposes restrictions that will make it harder for landlords to cover maintenance costs, upgrade properties, and provide safe living conditions. Rent control measures, like those seen in Prop 33, are notorious for shifting the burden onto property owners without offering any real solutions to housing affordability.
“Rent control does nothing for the people who have no housing, but it does create a shortage for those who are already renters,” as Sowell puts it. The reality is, when landlords are forced to operate under strict regulations like Prop 33, many will simply sell their properties or exit the rental market altogether, leading to fewer housing options for everyone.
3. It Ignores the Real Problem: Supply and Demand
One of the fundamental issues Prop 33 fails to address is the imbalance between supply and demand in the housing market. Instead of focusing on increasing housing supply—through development incentives, zoning reforms, and streamlined building processes—Prop 33 focuses on controlling prices, which does nothing to fix the root cause of the housing crisis.
“Policies designed to make housing more affordable tend to create housing shortages,” Sowell notes. What California needs is more housing, not price caps that will discourage investment in real estate. Increasing the supply of homes will naturally bring down costs over time, something Prop 33 cannot and will not achieve.
4. It Hurts Tenants in the Long Run
While Prop 33 may seem like a win for tenants in the short term, it has long-term consequences that hurt renters far more than it helps. By reducing the number of available rental units and lowering the quality of housing, Prop 33 sets tenants up for fewer choices and higher prices down the road. When landlords leave the market or stop maintaining properties, tenants are left with subpar living conditions and fewer options.
Economist Milton Friedman once said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” Prop 33 is filled with good intentions, but the results will be disastrous for tenants and landlords alike.
Voting NO on Prop 33 is not just about standing up for landlords—it’s about standing up for common sense. Prop 33 ignores basic economics, punishes responsible property owners, and ultimately hurts the very people it’s supposed to help: tenants. As Thomas Sowell so wisely put it, “The real minimum wage is zero.” In the case of Prop 33, the real result will be zero housing improvements, zero new developments, and fewer options for everyone.
Let’s prioritize policies that actually address the root of the housing crisis—by increasing supply, encouraging investment, and ensuring a healthy, competitive market. On Election Day, vote NO on Prop 33 to protect California’s housing future.