Extending Rent Control Will Not Improve Housing Affordability for People with Disabilities

Rent control is often heralded as a solution for making housing more affordable, particularly for vulnerable populations like those with disabilities. In a recent article, Julia Métraux from Mother Jones highlights emerging claims that repealing California’s state-level rent control limitations would significantly boost accessible housing for disabled individuals. The core argument suggests that existing policies, particularly the Costa-Hawkins Act, hinder the ability of disabled and aging residents to secure affordable, accessible housing. Advocates for Proposition 33 believe that repealing these restrictions will make it easier for disabled tenants to find suitable living arrangements. However, the article fails to clarify how these proposed changes would practically translate to better housing access for those with disabilities.

Critics of the argument proclaim that while the idea of repealing Costa-Hawkins sounds appealing, the mechanics of such changes are flawed. Currently, rent control policies typically focus on limiting the rate of annual rent increases rather than directly setting rent prices. Consequently, if a property is unaffordable to individuals with disabilities now, merely slowing down rent increases does little to improve housing access. Essentially, the existing high costs of housing would still outpace what disabled individuals on fixed incomes can afford, creating a scenario where homes remain unmanageable regardless of any increase in affordability initiatives.

Should Proposition 33 pass, local governments could impose rent control on new, handicap-accessible housing, theoretically making these units initially more affordable. However, the practical implication of establishing such rent controls is that it would likely deter developers from constructing new housing units, particularly if they are expected to sell or rent these homes at below-market rates. The incentive for developers to build accessible housing would vanish without the promise of fair returns on their investments, leading them to either build fewer units or rely on subsidies for affordable housing—a point that Proposition 33 does not address.

However, the situation could be remedied by municipalities independently increasing subsidies to encourage the construction of accessible housing. In the current respect, localities are not restricted from providing these incentives; they simply choose not to prioritize them. A repeal of Costa-Hawkins and subsequent rent control on new units, absent additional subsidies, could result in fewer available options for individuals with disabilities who currently might afford such housing. The industry common sense posits that low-development incentive environments yield fewer housing options, thus worsening the plight of disabled individuals seeking affordable, accessible units.

Another concerning aspect of increased rent control is the potential for exacerbated shortages and competition among renters. If localities lowered legal rents on upscale accessible housing, theoretically, this would result in more properties being available for disabled tenants. However, the sudden affordability would likely create an overwhelming demand from all prospective renters, thereby not only increasing competition but also leading to scenarios where disabled individuals find themselves in a lengthy queue to access housing. In instances such as this, landlords might resort to subtle discriminatory practices—like requiring higher credit scores or other qualifications—as mechanisms to manage applicant pools irrespective of the legal prohibitions against discrimination based on disability.

Lastly, the overarching research on the effects of rent control suggests that such policies generally result in decreased rental housing availability. When rents are artificially lowered in comparison to the market rate, there may be a substantive reduction in the total rental supply as landlords either convert their units to owner-occupied residences or cease maintaining the properties altogether. Thus, in the pursuit of ostensibly altruistic goals of aiding disabled individuals in finding affordable housing, broadening rent control measures may inadvertently aggravate market conditions for all potential renters, including disabled individuals. As rent control complicates housing logistics for everyone, it stands to reason that disabled individuals will remain just as vulnerable in a modified rental market where options become increasingly scarce.