Breaking down the statewide propositions on your ballot

S1: It's time for Midday Edition on KPBS. Today we're talking about the propositions you get to vote on in the upcoming election. I'm Jade Hyndman with conversations that keep you informed , inspired and make you think. From forced prison labor.

S2: Tens of thousands of prison inmates all over California are working in all these jobs. From fighting fires to cooks to to janitor work for very , very little pay $0.16 an hour to $0.74 an hour.

S1: To minimum wage. And how much you spend on rent. We'll break down some of the most impactful ballot measures. That's ahead on Midday Edition. And. Election season is upon us. And aside from candidates , voters will make decisions on ten different ballot measures. The proposals look to change policy on issues like forced prison labor , minimum wage and rent control , among many others , and will dictate how billions of dollars are spent in California. So today , we'll explain what some of the propositions you should know about entail. Here to help us break this down are two reporters who have extensively covered the list of propositions on the ballot this year. Wendy Fry is the California divide reporter at Calmatters. Wendy , welcome.

S2: Hi , Jay. Thanks for having. Us.

S1: Us. Glad to have you here. Also with us is Jeannie Kwong , capital reporter at Calmatters. Jeannie , welcome.

S3: Thank you.

S1: So , Wendy , I'm going to start with you before we dive into the propositions on this year's ballot for Californians , let's talk a little about the history of ballot measures in the state. Not every state has an initiative or referendum process. So how did ballot measures come to be in the Golden State ? Right.

S2: So that's long history ago. California is one of 26 states that has either the initiative process or referendum process or both. Uh , our state adopted our ballot initiative process way back in 1911. The governor was Hiram Johnson at that time that signed into law the ability for voters to enact state law by initiative. Uh , and the way this came about , I guess in late 1800s , there was this push or a movement across the United States for people to have a more direct democracy , have more access. And in California , that movement was fueled by concerns that actually Southern Pacific Railroad and other , you know , powerful , rich interests had too much of a hold over the state legislature. So that's how the push came about to have a ballot initiative process. And since then , since 1911 through the last November ballot in 2020 , There have been more than 2000 initiatives that were cleared for signature collection , but not a lot of those get through. Of that , only 392 actually qualified for the ballot , and the ones that qualified , only 137 have been approved by voters. But that did include 39 constitutional amendments. Yeah.

S1: Yeah.

S3: So as Wendy said , the initiative process started out as a way during the Progressive ERA for , um , ordinary people to have more of a say in state lawmaking. Um , but it has really become something else since then. Um , we've seen in recent years , increasingly , the legislature has gotten more progressive. It's gotten more liberal. You know , there's a Democratic supermajority that's very interested in regulating industries , regulating businesses , whether through labor laws or environmental laws. And , you know , we can argue over whether or not that's a good policy making. But what happens often is that they'll pass a law , and then the industry will then qualify something on the ballot to repeal that law. And that's basically it's kind of the opposite of what had been happening before. So we just have a system now where , you know , it's very expensive to run a ballot measure campaign , whether you're trying to repeal a law , you're trying to enact your own law. So it's kind of just become a system where big business , where , um , powerful interest groups , whatever side of the aisle you're on , if you have money , you're able to put something on the ballot and use that as a political negotiating tool or as a way of getting around something happening in the legislature that you don't like. Wow.

S1: Wow. And so , I mean , it almost sounds like as this has evolved , it's kind of defeating its purpose a little bit , given that so much money has to be poured into these campaigns.

S2: Right ? Even if the businesses aren't successful in actually getting it repealed , they get to delay it for so long. To right Jeanie like that's another. It's sort of a strategy that they might just delay by trying to bring forward a ballot measure. Absolutely.

S3: Absolutely. Um , I we saw this happen with the flavored tobacco ban. There was a measure on the ballot to repeal that. It didn't go through , but it's still delayed that regulation for a few years. Back in 2022 , the legislature passed a law to regulate the fast food industry and potentially require much higher wages in the industry. The industry immediately qualified a ballot measure to repeal that law , um , which put it on pause until November 2024. That's two more years of these businesses not having to pay the required higher wages. And then they ended up pulling it off the ballot after reaching a deal with the legislature last year to set a $20 minimum wage in fast food. Um , so in that case , it was very much both a delay and also , you know , buying time to negotiate for the industry to negotiate with the legislature. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. Well , you know , here we are in 2024. We got ten propositions on the ballot. Which specific ballot measures are catching your eye or may have the biggest impact here in San Diego and across the state ? You think ? Sure. Yeah.

S3: Yeah. I think one of the biggest ones is this question of whether or not we should be returning certain crimes back to felonies instead of misdemeanors. Um , that's prop 36 , um , which we can talk about later if you want. But that , I think , will be one of the most controversial ones , um , kind of pitting criminal justice reform advocates against big box stores , against police , prosecutors and even a lot of Democrats themselves who are more moderate or who are concerned about retail crime. Um , I so I think that one's going to be really hotly contested. Um , and then the other one I would point to is prop 33 , which is the third try for advocates to allow cities in California to expand rent control. Um , that one , I think obviously we all experienced the cost of living crisis here in California. So , um , you know , voters voted down a similar measures like this two times in the past. Um , but as housing costs and homelessness have continued to skyrocket , um , I'll certainly be interested in seeing whether they bite this time on allowing more rent control. Yeah.

S1: Yeah.

S2: Also , proposition six. Just because I've been covering the Reparations Task Force so much. So I'm very interested to see what voters do , um , with that , which aims to limit forced labor and state prisons. Um , and then also , you know , the prop five that seeks to lower the threshold that would allow cities to pass bond measures , uh , lower the amount of voters that need to vote for it from two thirds to just 55% voter approval. I'm very interested to see how that might change the way local cities , local municipalities might be able to put forward more affordable housing projects. Wow.

S1: Wow. Well , you mentioned prop six , which aims to ban forced labor in state prisons. Tell me more about that. Yeah.

S2: So originally the California Constitution said , quote , neither slavery nor involuntary servitude , unless for the punishment of a crime shall ever be tolerated in the state. Uh , that was that was amended in , I think , 1974. It says now it says slavery is prohibited , period. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime. And so the ballot measure would add a provision that would say the Department of Corrections shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment. So California originally , you know , banned slavery when it became a state. But it left that caveat. It made an exception to it that unless for the punishment of a crime. And so some of the from the very beginning of California's founding and its constitution , it is allowed for forced labor as a form of criminal punishment and originally said slavery uh , on that. Uh , and so it's a big argument in the reparations debate of whether California was a slave state. Obviously , it joined the Union as a free state , but there were several thousand slaves in California. And then they also have this institutional legacy of allowing the prison system to require people forced labor in prisons. And right now , you know , tens and tens of thousands of prison inmates all over California are working in all these jobs from fighting fires to cooks to to janitor work for very , very little pay $0.16 an hour to $0.74 an hour. And what proposition six seeks to do is amend the state constitution to ban any kind of slavery or forced work , and to remove that caveat , or that exception of except to punishment , a crime. Um , uh , and I also think it's very interesting to note that , that this is not even the first time that lawmakers have sought to have that removed from the state constitution. A lot of times people are so surprised that that that is even in California's constitution. But an earlier version of this proposition , to remove that language that allowed for forced labor , actually failed to pass the state Senate in 2022.

S1: Ah , well , for those who don't know , talk about why this is an issue. Our Reparations Task Force and Legislative Black Caucus specifically chose to focus on.

S2: Right ? It was authored by Assemblywoman Lori Wilson , who's the chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus. It was a priority bill for the reparations package. And it's the reason why we're talking about this right now , right , is because of the state Reparations Task Force. That committee was appointed in 2020 , in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd , and they were tasked with investigating the harmful and long lasting effects that enslavement had on African Americans in California. And the state Reparations Task Force recommended banning forced labor and getting rid of this this vestige of slavery. Right. And also interesting to note , it is in the US Constitution as well. The language says slavery is prohibited except as punishment of a crime. So as the whole nation watches what California is doing with the reparations movement , that , you know , that is something that if California gets this through of amending their constitution , maybe that's a topic that comes up for consideration with the United States Constitution. Uh , and one of the big arguments that lawmakers make , particularly , uh , Senator Steve Bradford , one of the first times I talked to him , I was talking what ? What are the chances of reparations actually getting through California , you know , and he said , you know , we couldn't even get it taken out of the Constitution today like we're talking about today. We couldn't get people to say , maybe we shouldn't have this in our California Constitution. We can't even get slavery removed. So it's , um , partially symbolic , but also it would have a very real effect on tens of thousands of inmates in the California prison system. There's also , you know , the symbolic element is that one of the five tenets of the United Nations reparations program is non repetition. So you can't apologize for slavery while still allowing slavery in the Constitution or forced labor in the Constitution. Right.

S1: Right. And draw the connection for those who don't know. I mean , how much of the prison population is black.

S2: Right ? So , I mean , through the Reagan era and through mass incarceration , a vast majority , not just of the prison population is black , but also black. Residents of California are so much far more likely to be incarcerated for very minor crimes. Right ? So like drug possession , when we had the war on crime , a lot of people are in prison. The three strikes law , a lot of people are in prison for for very minor things that that people in the criminal justice system would argue that white people get away with all the time smoking marijuana on the street or something like that , and then they're being forced to work for. People in the reparations movement argue that this is just another way of continuing to enslave black residents. Mhm.

S1: Mhm.

S2: You know , 174 years after California joined the Union as a free state , they also say that the state should be creating Rehabilitation for inmates , rather than forcing people to work in jobs that really might not have anything to do with something that they can do when they get out of prison , they should be putting their focus on job training , career development , things that might help somebody when they get out of being incarcerated to become a productive member of society. So the supporters say that the state can avoid higher cost of inmate pay by creating these voluntary prison work programs that , you know , the more you work , the more time can be shaved off your sentence. There's no registered opposition to the measure officially , but there was a handful of Republican lawmakers who voted against placing it on the ballot. Um , they've raised some concerns , just verbally. Nothing written , but about the potential cost of it raising inmate pay. You know , the state prison system relies heavily on inmate labor for its operations. And so they argue that it might make it more difficult to manage prisons if the jailers can't force people to work.

S1: Put it all into context for me , because I'm curious how much of the prison industrial complex is really propped up on on forced prison labor.

S2: So while most prisoners make less than a dollar an hour. So there's of the 92,000 people in California prisons , about 60,000 have jobs , according to the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. And so of those 60,000 people , you know , they fight , fight , they go out and fight wildfires. So it saves money from the budget , you know , because they have this free labor , right ? Um , and additionally , when inmates refuse to work , they're punished even if they're sick. So if somebody's sick and they can't go out and fight a fire that day , they can be punished by being put in solitary confinement , by losing phone calls or visitation with their family members , by being barred from participating in rehabilitative classes or activities that might help them when they get out of prison. And so , beyond the benefit to the state budget of having this free labor. There's also the the toll is taking on the individual people.

S1:

S2: I think that there was an estimate at one point. So the the proposition was modified to where they're not going to have to pay people minimum wage when it was considered that they were considering paying people minimum wage for their work , I think it was like 90 , $90 billion or something that it was going to cost , but that got negotiated out of it. So it's no longer pay inmates minimum wage. It's just make it a voluntary program to where they can maybe take time off their sentence.

S1: Up next , prop 32 will raise minimum wage across the board , following along the footsteps of previous wage hikes for fast food workers and other industries. It's all cooling the opposition.

S3: I think that the effect has mostly been that the opponents are maybe a little quieter than you might expect them to be.

S1: We'll break that down when KPBS Midday Edition returns. You're listening to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman , I'm here with Cal Matters reporters Wendy Fry and Jeannie Kwong. We're talking about California's most significant ballot measures this November. So far , we've covered prop six , which would ban forced prison labor. And another big ballot measure this year is prop 32 , which looks to raise the state minimum wage to $18 an hour. Jeannie , how did this ballot measure come to be ? Yeah.

S3: So , uh , California passed a $15 minimum wage a few years back. If you remember the slogan fight for 15. For a very long time , restaurant workers , unions , advocates had kind of believed that to be the right standard of wages. Um , the $15 wage went into effect in 2022. So by the time we got there , it was sort of instantly clear to worker advocates that that at that point was already not enough to live on. And the prop actually came about in a less traditional way , in the sense that it wasn't necessarily the same , kind of like the Democratic Party , you know , the most powerful unions that really pushed for it. But it was one , um , rather wealthy anti-poverty advocate. His name's Joe Sandberg. He's a startup investor. Um , and he has a nonprofit where he advocates for policies to help working families , so he got it on the ballot. But he did miss a deadline. He intended for this to be on the ballot in November 2022. The some of the counties were slower to get the signatures returned , so it ended up that it got kicked to this November's ballot. And so at the time , it was supposed to be a gradual increase each year. But , you know , a couple of those years , it's irrelevant now because the ballot measure isn't getting voted on until November 2024. So instead , you know , if it were to pass , it would be a much quicker increase to $18 an hour. Mhm. Um , in the meantime , you know , since 2022 , in that time that we've been waiting for this to go on the ballot , um , a lot else has changed in California. There's just been a lot of other wage hikes. Um , you know , hotel workers in individual cities have one wage increases fast food workers. You know , as we discussed earlier , they now get at least $20 an hour statewide. Health care workers this year started to get a minimum of $25 an hour. So this $18 would really apply to other kinds of workers who maybe did not fall into one of those categories , who are still making a minimum of $16. Yeah.

S1: Yeah.

S3: They're estimating that there is about 2 million workers who would still be helped by this measure. I think that the effect has mostly been that the opponents are maybe a little quieter than you might expect them to be. The fact that other workers have gotten much higher increases in the past two years , I think it's basically made this prop less of a big deal , but also less of a fight than than you might have expected. You know , it was a huge deal when California raised the minimum wage $15 an hour. It was , you know , heavily negotiated with the governor , with the legislature. This is more modest , and that might attract some support. The fact that it's more modest , you know , wouldn't be as big of a shock to the economy. But , you know , a lot of cities also have their own minimum wages right now , too , and many of them are also on track to go up to $18 on their own in the next couple of years. The state minimum wage is actually going up on its own to 1650 in January 2nd. So , you know , it's just a more modest increase than it was originally envisioned. But certainly I think you'll hear both proponents and opponents say it does still matter. You know , a business owner does still have to find room in their budget for that. And , you know , it does still provide a low wage worker a raise.

S1:

S3: Um , labor groups are very pro prop 32. They're saying the cost of living is extremely high in California. Um , they're pointing to the MIT living wage calculator , which looks at , you know , cost of living across the country. And they're finding that on average , you need more than $27 an hour. Even if you have no children and or a single adult , you would need at least $27 an hour on average in California to afford basic needs. You know , that's the argument for the arguments against , you know , they're mostly coming from businesses. They're coming from the Chamber of Commerce. Restaurant owners , grocery store owners , they're pretty concerned about , um , just having had a lot of wage increases over the past few years. Um , they're concerned that having to raise prices at this point in time , when people generally feel really pessimistic about the economy , that that's going to start getting to the point where they're going to lose customers and lose business over it. Like I said , I do think we've seen that opposition be a little more muted than I think I would have expected , or maybe others would have expected leading into it.

S1:

S3: Obviously among the most vocal opponents to this are restaurant owners and that's a famously difficult industry in terms of your profit margins. So I think it just kind of depends. The ballot measure does build in like a slower ramp up to the raise for smaller businesses. So if you have fewer than 25 workers , it would just be a slower ramp up for you. But everybody does eventually get to $18 an hour. In the past , we've seen statewide studies showing that if you do it gradually , um , minimum wage increases do not necessarily lead to job losses. They do not necessarily lead to major price hikes. But I think it just remains to be seen here because it is slightly more sudden than than it would be before , because we'd be going straight to 18 from 1650 in January. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. I mean , and to be clear , $18 still doesn't meet the cost of living in California , correct ? Correct.

S3: Yeah. And the current minimum wage is indexed to inflation. That's why it's been going up every year. And this proposition would also be indexed to inflation. But yeah I mean I've been talking to workers business owners and just community members as I've been talking about the voter guide. And I think there is this question of like , well , it's you know , the minimum wage clearly is not enough to meet the cost of living raising it. This amount still isn't enough. We just face this question right now in California of whether this is really the right way to do it. Like , is it worth kind of the cyclical nature of every year , having to come back and revisit the minimum wage ? It's clearly not enough. And yet , you know , it doesn't seem like the cost of living is going down either. So I think that's leading to a lot of frustration out there. Yeah.

S1: Yeah. Well , Wendy , there are a few other high profile ballot measures in front of Californians this year too , like prop five and 36 , the first of which looks to lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds. What can you tell us about prop five and what are the arguments for and against that measure ? So this ballot.

S2: Measure would lower the threshold needed for voter approval , as you mentioned , to fund affordable housing and public work projects. Currently , when voters are asked whether they want local municipalities to be able to borrow money to build these projects , those measures can get a majority of voters saying yes , but then fail anyway. And that's because back in the 70s , Californians voted to make it much , much harder for local governments to raise taxes or borrow money. And ever since then , whenever a city or a county wants to go into debt , they have to get permission from voters. Not only that , they have to most cases , they have to win the support of at least two thirds of voters. So what five would do is reduce that threshold for bonds that fund affordable housing , and the new cutoff would be 55% voter approval rather than the current two thirds or 66%. Um , supporters say that the current system just makes it way too hard for local governments to fund important projects , and they argue that the current system is sort of , you know , held hostage by this small majority of voters. That overrides the wishes of a simple majority. But opponents say the choice to go into this huge debt , to build these huge projects should only be made when there's very broad agreement , and especially because , you know , bonds tend to get kicked down the road to future generations. They get paid back through higher taxes on property. So those are the fours and against. I'm really important to note that this this is not saying that local municipalities are able to pass these bond measures. It's just lowering the threshold for voters on what they need to get them approved. It doesn't say they have to issue bonds. It would be up to each individual city to put those measures before voters , and then voters would decide on the individual , you know , project and the individual bond. The details of the bond. Uh , also , it doesn't apply to all all revenue measures. It's not. It's limited to measures that raise revenue for subsidized housing , for down payment help for infrastructure projects like hospitals and parks and police stations and stuff like that. Right.

S1: Right. Well , and finally , Jenny , prop 36 is another measure with a good amount of stakes. It looks to increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking.

S3: I don't know if everybody remembers , but prop 47 was a major criminal justice reform measure that voters passed in 2014. You know , at the time , there had been several years of reform measures where California and , you know , liberal voters were trying to reduce the prison population. You know , the state prison system was super overcrowded over decades of , you know , kind of tougher on crime policies. The prison system was even under , uh , monitoring by the federal courts because it was so overcrowded that it was dangerous , you know , to the health and safety of the people housed in them. So prop 47 was one of the efforts to try to have a less harsh criminal justice system and reduce the prison population. It re categorized a lot of different drug and theft related crimes from felonies down to misdemeanors. So you wouldn't necessarily have to serve prison time for those. Um , one of the main things that it changed that has now become very controversial was re categorizing theft of anything , you know , up to $950 worth of merchandise that got classified from a felony down to a misdemeanor. And this has all become very controversial in recent years because of the way that we've seen kind of shoplifting and other crimes have really gone viral , as well as those videos of smash and grab robberies and in stores and things like that , and a group of up prosecutors and police and , and people who believe that we should be returning to a tougher on crime approach. They qualified this for the ballot this year to kind of reclassify some of those crimes back up to felonies , as well as introduce warnings to drug sellers about the possibility of them being charged with murder if somebody buys their drugs and ends up dying , and just other kind of measures like that , harsher punishments , kind of like longer sentences , particularly looking at drug and theft crimes.

S1: All right.

S2: It might make more immigrants deportable and ineligible for lawful status if they if one of these minor crimes is reclassified again , back to felony. Um , so that's something to maybe look at too.

S1: All right. Some things to really think about and be made aware of. I've been speaking with Wendy Fry , the California Divide reporter at Calmatters , and Jeannie Kwong Capital reporter at Calmatters. Wendy , Jeannie , thank you so much for joining us.

S2: Thanks for having. Us.

S3: Us. Thanks.

S1: Still ahead , prop 33 , which limits rent increases and what that could mean for you.

S2: I think it's back on the ballot , because.

S4: The majority of Californians spend more than a third of their monthly income on rent and utilities , and that keeps increasing.

S1: More when KPBS Midday Edition returns. Welcome back to KPBS Midday Edition. I'm Jade Hindman. You've heard about some of the most pivotal ballot measures impacting Californians. Now we focus on proposition 33. This ballot measure will allow local governments to impose rent controls. It's the latest attempt to roll back a state law that generally prevents cities and counties from limiting rents in properties first occupied after February 1st , 1995. Here to break down prop 33 is Katie Hyson. She's the racial justice and social equity reporter at KPBS. Katie , welcome back to Midday Edition. Glad to.

S2: Be back.

S1: Glad to have you. So , so make this plain for us. What does prop 33 entail.

S4: So right now California limits rent control increases , but only for existing tenants of older apartments. And another state law prevents cities and counties from passing rent control for things like single family homes , newer apartment buildings and new tenants. Prop 33 would overturn that law. So in the plainest English , it gives cities and counties more power to control rising rents.

S1:

S4: The last two times it was turned down by 60% of voters. I think it's back on the ballot because the majority of Californians spend more than a third of their monthly income on rent and utilities , and that keeps increasing.

S1: So let's talk more about that.

S4: That's more than I paid for my college rent in total. Um , and in San Diego , it's now more than $2,600 per month.

S1: That's a steep rise.

S4: But I think it's it's important to note those aren't necessarily the same people living in California. We know rising rents are displacing people. California has been having a record number of people moving out of the state , about double the number that are coming into the state. And I think it's fair to guess that it's generally higher income people able to move in and lower income people being forced to move out , so it's hard to use that median income stat to compare. Yeah.

S2: Yeah.

S1: With those steep increases in rent.

S4: I think the January floods gave an unfortunate snapshot of this issue. They hit some of San Diego's poorest neighborhoods and displaced people who had been living in their home for years , and now those people have to find new leases , but they're facing rents in many cases higher than their monthly incomes. I spoke with the San Diego Housing Commission , and they had offered to cover rent for certain flood survivors up to that average monthly rent amount , and said most still could not find housing they could afford. This is also being framed as a public health issue by some proponents. I found this , um , interesting report by the Princeton's eviction Lab that each 10% increase in rent is associated with an 8% higher risk of death. Wow.

S2: Wow.

S1:

S4: The rent is too damn high. Yeah , but yeah , California has a housing crisis , and it's going to take a while to solve. And in the meantime , proponents say we need to stop the bleeding or people won't survive. It's framed very much as a matter of survival for renters. Yeah.

S1:

S4: So if they think it's not going to be that profitable , they're going to stop building new housing , which California desperately needs. And opponents also say that rent increases are necessary to cover repairs. And if you limit them , that would drive even existing landlords out of the market. And they also say rent control laws don't necessarily target the families that need it the most.

S1: I mean , like repairs and things like that. I mean , do they cost more here in California than they do , say , in the next state ? Over.

S3:

S4: This caught my ear when when I first heard it. And I had the same question. One of the arguments that they use to back that is especially in San Diego , is that most of our housing stock is I think it's over 30 years old. But what the research shows is that in places that have passed rent control , that it hasn't stopped necessary upkeep and repairs , but it has kind of slowed more aesthetic improvements.

S1:

S4:

S1: And which groups are contributing.

S4: So supporting it are mostly tenant advocacy organizations , labor unions , the California Democratic Party opposing it , which kind of points to that like double the money figure , is real estate and apartment associations , but also a long list of local leaders , including Mayor Todd Gloria , Senator Toni Atkins and some pro affordable housing groups like California Yimby , as.

S1: Well as so much money is dumped into this proposition.

S2:

S4: It's just important to be very critical of all the mailers people are getting the ads. I know I'm seeing ads on on my Hulu and I , I see flyers and mailers posted up by the elevator in my apartment building. And I think it's just important to realize that more than $100 million has been given to sway your decision on this vote. And so when you see that advertising , really think of who's behind it and what their motivation might be and just try to be try to be savvy about your information gathering as you try to inform your vote.

S1: Well , we touched on this a bit earlier. I want to dig into it more.

S4: Preparing to report on this hike made me go crazy. But most of that research is theoretical , so it's people's ideas of what would happen under rent control. So what I did is I found a researcher who just looked at just the studies of what's actually happened in places that have already passed rent control laws. And here's what they found. It has worked to keep below market rent levels and increase housing stability for those tenants. Like I mentioned , there's little evidence that it prevents necessary upkeep and improvements , and there's actually not a lot of data showing that it slows new construction , but it does lower the amount of rental units overall as owners take them off the market. And there is a lot of debate whether the majority of benefits from rent control go to the families who need it most. But I will say to that point of Lowering the amount of rental units overall. I moderated a panel on this , and the response from the supporters of prop 33 was that , you know , great. If people are changing these from rental units to selling them , we want more people to own homes. And we would love the housing supply , uh , to increase in that way. So they did not see that as an issue. Okay.

S1: Okay. So what would this actually affect if it was passed ? Does this not create rent control laws everywhere ? Right.

S4: And I think that's so key because I'm seeing some what could be called fear tactics being used that almost make it sound like if this is passed , then cities and counties everywhere would suddenly place absurdly low caps on rent and destroy the rental market. I heard one opponent give the hypothetical of landlords only being able to charge 500 bucks a month. I think that's really unlikely. All this does is put the power in the hands of local governments to decide what rent control measures , if any , best serve their residents. So it's really flexible , right ? Like maybe , for example , they place that same 10% rent increase limit on single family homes. Or maybe they put a 20% increase limit for new tenants , or maybe they don't pass more rent control at all. So all this really does is remove a limitation. It doesn't actually put anything in place.

S1:

S4: But those mayors don't necessarily speak for all of city council , um , or all of , you know , the county board. So it's really hard for me to tell where different municipalities stand on this , but I think it's important to realize , like , you know , local government is not usually fast , right ? Like things take time. And so I don't think anything's going to happen overnight if this were passed. Yeah.

S1: Well , you recently reported a feature length story on on this proposition. Tell me about the voices you heard from.

S4: I spoke with a community organizer , Jose Lopez. Um , I spoke with the former president of the Southern California Rental Housing Association , Lucinda Lilly , and an affordable housing advocate , Ricardo Flores.

S1:

S4: Um , he was displaced. He and his family after his landlord remodeled his house and hiked the rent , which is a story I've heard many times in San Diego , and he's now paying almost $2,000 more monthly to live a couple blocks away from his old house. Um , so he had to ask a family member to move in and split the rent , which is also something I I'm hearing more and more. Lily consults for housing providers , so she sees the challenges that especially smaller landlords face. She says that California already over regulates rental housing , and she's seeing it drive landlords out of the market. And Flores is not a renter , but he's advocating for this. And he says rent control is not a perfect solution , but sees it as necessary and thinks it has to be done with changes to zoning as well. Mhm.

S5: Mhm.

S1: In general , how could this proposition affect San Diegans. Yes.

S4: Yes. So again hard to say because if it passes then it would be totally up to county and city governments. And they could decide whether to expand rent control increases or not for what types of tenants , how much , and if they decide not to , it might not affect San Diegans at all.

S1:

S4: It's probably the most obvious statement I've said all year. We need more housing. Some estimate that California's short millions of homes , and so more homes need to be built to increase supply and bring those rents down. Zoning , like Flores brought up , plays a big role in that. Most of San Diego's residential land is zoned for single family housing. Um , and he thinks until that changes , um , we'll never have enough affordable housing.

S1: Well , thank you for breaking this all down for us. I've been speaking with Katie Hyson , racial justice and social equity reporter at KPBS. Katie , thanks again for joining us.

S4: Thanks for having me.

S1: That's our show for today. If you missed anything , you can download KPBS Midday Edition on all podcast apps. Don't forget to watch KPBS Evening Edition tonight at Five for in-depth reporting on San Diego issues. Join us again tomorrow as we highlight the popularity of soccer in our region. I'm Jade Hyndman. We'll chat again tomorrow. Thanks for listening.