Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Name	Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act
Enacted	1995
Jurisdiction	California
Status	in force

Contents

Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act

The Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act is a California statute enacted in 1995 that limits municipal rent control programs and regulates vacancy decontrol, unit exemptions, and initial rental rates. It has shaped policy debates involving California State Legislature, Governor Pete Wilson, California Constitution, California Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, AFL–CIO, California Teachers Association, and municipal bodies such as the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Berkeley. The law has produced litigation involving parties including California Apartment Association, Tenants Together, National Housing Law Project, and various county governments.

Background and enactment

Enactment followed policy disputes among legislators like Jim Costa (politician), tenant advocates associated with Eviction Defense Collaborative, landlord organizations such as the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce. The statute arose in a context of prior local ordinances in San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Oakland City Council, and Santa Monica City Council that implemented differing rent control schemes. Legislative proceedings intersected with debates in the California State Assembly, deliberations by committees like the Assembly Judiciary Committee (California), and public hearings attended by representatives of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Service Employees International Union, and Teamsters Local Union. Governor Pete Wilson signed the bill amid commentary from media outlets including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and advocacy groups such as Tenants Union of Washington State and National Multifamily Housing Council.

The act contains provisions addressing vacancy decontrol, limitations on local rent control scope, and unit exemptions. It preserved vacancy decontrol practiced by jurisdictions like San Francisco, permitted initial rent setting by market forces as frequented in Santa Monica, and exempted newer construction and single-family properties similar to rules in Los Angeles. Specific exemptions align with building-year cutoffs used in municipal codes such as Berkeley Municipal Code and Oakland Municipal Code. The law interacts with housing programs overseen by agencies including the California Department of Housing and Community Development, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and housing finance entities like California Housing Finance Agency. It also addresses interactions with landlord-tenant statutes such as the California Civil Code and eviction protections referenced in ordinances from San Jose City Council and Sacramento City Council.

Interpretation of the statute has occurred through rulings by appellate panels of the California Courts of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and decisions invoking federal principles adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Key cases include litigation brought by entities like the California Apartment Association and tenant organizations such as Public Counsel and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (LSPC). Courts evaluated preemption arguments, takings claims under the United States Constitution's Takings Clause, and due process challenges referencing decisions like Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States and Kelo v. City of New London. Precedents from cases decided by the United States Supreme Court influenced lower-court reasoning, while state constitutional law and California precedent—discussed by jurists including justices formerly on the California Supreme Court—shaped outcomes. Enforcement and remedies implicated agencies like the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing in discrimination-adjacent claims and municipal code enforcement offices in cities such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

The act affected rental markets, construction incentives, and local policy choices across regions including the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the Central Valley. Research by academics affiliated with institutions like University of California, Berkeley, Stanford University, University of Southern California, and think tanks such as the Public Policy Institute of California examined links to housing supply, eviction rates, and displacement in neighborhoods like Mission District, San Francisco and Echo Park. Stakeholders including National Low Income Housing Coalition, Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy analyzed economic effects, while developers represented by NAIOP and investors connected to entities like Blackstone Group cited regulatory certainty. Municipalities adjusted affordable housing strategies involving inclusionary housing ordinances, linkage fees, and zoning changes pursued by councils in Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

The statute has been subject to ballot initiatives, legislative proposals, and legal challenges. Notable campaigns involved ballot measures and advocacy coalitions including Yes on Proposition 10 (2018) supporters, opponents organized by groups linked to the California Business Roundtable, and grassroots coalitions like Housing California. Court challenges and legislative bills in the California State Senate and California State Assembly sought to alter vacancy decontrol, unit exemptions, and preemption, invoking stakeholders such as Human Rights Watch and AARP California. Subsequent voter actions and municipal ordinances prompted responses from state lawmakers, think tanks like the California Legislative Analyst's Office, and legal briefs filed by organizations including the ACLU of Northern California and the Pacific Legal Foundation.