Latest news with #Proposition33
Malaysian Reserve
12-08-2025
- Automotive
- Malaysian Reserve
Consumer Watchdog's Statement On Initiative Filed To Repeal Prop 103'S Consumer Protections
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Consumer Watchdog executive director Carmen Balber issued the following statement today: Proposition 103 has been a huge success for California policyholders, keeping insurance rates lower than national averages and holding insurance companies accountable for their actions. The law has saved drivers alone over $150 billion on their auto insurance rates since 1988, according to the Consumer Federation of America. Eliminating Prop 103's consumer protections, including public review and approval of insurance rates and an elected insurance commissioner, would mean skyrocketing rates for home and auto policyholders. We are evaluating the ballot measure recently filed by an insurance agent and see no sign of a serious campaign behind it or the millions that would be necessary to qualify it for the ballot. What we know is that consumers want more, not less, accountability from the insurance industry. Consumer Watchdog polling shows voters overwhelmingly support a plan to require insurance companies to cover all those who fireproof their homes, with 77% in support and 15% opposed – with broad support across gender, party, age, income, residence type and region. See the polling. National polls also show consumers overwhelmingly blame insurance companies for the insurance crisis. A March 2025 poll by Data for Progress and the Insurance Fairness Project found that respondents blame insurance executives for skyrocketing insurance rates, with 85% saying they were 'very' or 'somewhat responsible.' See the polling. Twice in recent history the insurance industry tried and failed to convince the voters to overturn provisions of Prop 103. Proposition 17 in 2010 and Proposition 33 in 2012, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, sought to eliminate Prop 103's prohibition on raising prices on poor drivers who have a break in their insurance coverage. The voters rejected both attempts to eliminate the law's consumer protections. What consumers need now is stronger enforcement of Prop 103's protections against price gouging and collusion, not a free pass to raise rates unaccountably.
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What Is Rent Control and How Does It Affect Your Rent Payments?
California is one of the most expensive states when it comes to renting: Residents pay $2,750 per month on average, 38% above the national average. However, in November 2024, around 60% of the nearly 15 million voters rejected Proposition 33, a ballot measure that would have expanded rent control measures in the state. Find Out: Explore More: 5 Subtly Genius Moves All Wealthy People Make With Their Money With an already-low housing inventory now compounded by the devastation of the recent wildfires, Californians have seen rent prices skyrocket, and the idea of rent control is a trending topic once again. Here's some more information about the topic. To manage the cost of rent for their residents, local and state governments can put a cap on how much landlords can charge for or increase a tenant's rent. In theory, it's a measure aimed to keep rent affordable and accessible in places where demand can outpace supply. While it may sound like a good practice on paper, there are two sides to rent control. Learn More: Because rent control limits how much rent can cost or increase at any given time, it can be a positive measure for tenants. Tenants living in municipalities with rent control in place won't have to worry about sudden unaffordable price hikes, meaning they can plan to live in the same home over the long term. Another plus to rent control is its effects on the community. Keeping rent affordable can slow gentrification, protecting low-income and minority tenants from being priced out of their own neighborhoods. It also reduces homelessness, putting less of a burden on the public in terms of providing public shelters, emergency medical care and social services for those who can't afford rent. While controlling rent may help tenants, it can negatively affect housing providers. Groups like the National Association of Realtors argue that rent control unfairly puts the brunt of new economic burdens and maintenance costs onto the landlords. This may cause landlords to sell their properties if they can't afford to continue renting them or convert them into other types of units, leading to less available housing and lower property values. Others believe measures like California's Proposition 33 don't solve the affordability issue. When there's a ceiling on rent prices, developers are less likely to construct new housing. Less housing due to a lack of development then compounds the problem: Existing rental units become more coveted, and prospective tenants are willing to pay more due to the lack of supply — but landlords are unable to raise their prices to cover their costs. Before moving to or from an area with rent control measures in place, assessing your particular needs is a good idea. Areas with rent control may be appealing because they can offer long-term stability. However, this stability may come at the cost of limited housing options. Conversely, areas without rent control may feature a wider array of housing options, but you risk the possibility of significant price hikes. If you're unsure of whether moving to an area with rent control is right for you, reach out to some experts and get advice on how it may affect your personal financial situation. More From GOBankingRates5 Subtly Genius Moves All Wealthy People Make With Their Money 4 Low-Risk Ways To Build Your Savings in 2025 Here's How You Can Stop Paying Interest on Your Credit Card for a Full Year This article originally appeared on What Is Rent Control and How Does It Affect Your Rent Payments?
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Does California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas care more about affordability or Trump?
Regardless of what California Assembly members want you to think, President Donald Trump is not the greatest threat harming Californians. Every day, working-class people are struggling to afford to live in California. That's the greatest threat facing our state. Concerned Californians worried about their money are looking to their leaders for answers. Right now they have no answers. Their leaders are focused on Trump. Opinion This week, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas paid lip service to California's affordability problem: 'This year our focus is on the cost of living and housing and other issues that deserve our urgency,' Rivas said to his caucus. 'We all know that because we hear it, they're telling us repeatedly. So our task is urgent and it's clear: to make life more affordable for every resident of our state.' After making this speech, Rivas voted for two bills that would give money towards stopping Trump if he were to go after transgender people or immigrants, $50 million in total. There is reason to be concerned that Trump is exceeding his authority as president by issuing sweeping executive orders that rob the power of Congress and federal courts. But Rivas and Democrats in California's Legislature should be worried that voters trust Trump more than Democrats on the economy. More Americans had confidence in Trump on the economy than former Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Trump defeated in November. Almost 40 percent of Californians voted for Trump, with Trump carrying huge swaths of the state. To the north and east of Sacramento County, Trump won. I am no Trump fan, believe me. But I understand why people like him. More than Democrats, he speaks to issues that they care about and likes the things that he likes. Watching California Democrats this week, I still don't think they get this. They look lost. Governor Gavin Newsom called for this special session on Trump and he could very well do it again. If another session is called, will Rivas stand up to him and say no? Will he tell Newsom that the assembly must stay focused on the issue of affordability? And precisely what real solutions do they have in mind? The Sacramento Bee's opinion team is hard at work sifting through the chaos so you don't have to. Get our weekly Bee Opinionated newsletter straight to your inbox and we'll help you cut through the drone of the news cycle. If the latest election told the assembly anything, it's that the people of California are tired of what they're seeing but they also don't know what to get behind. People are concerned about skyrocketing rents, but Californians rejected Proposition 33, which would have given local governments more power to cap rent. Many people can't pay their bills, voters rejected Proposition 22, which would have helped many people pays those bills by raising the minimum wage. The outcomes of these measures and others (most notably the tougher theft/drug sentences in Proposition 36) demonstrate the lack of leadership on key issues by California Democrats. They haven't been able to find a way to make rents more affordable in a way that makes sense to voters. They were blind to the frustration that people feel about crime, so Californians voted for a measure that could do little to deal with the root causes of addiction and duplicate laws on the books to punish retail crime. This is where leadership on affordability is vital as Democrats can't find a cohesive message to combat Trump. They are giving the impression that culture issues mean more to them than economic issues. Case and point, State Farm, the largest insurer in the state, is seeking to raise insurance costs in California for homeowners by 22% because of the damage caused by the LA wildfires. They are also seeking a 15% increase for renters and condo owners. Further, rental costs in L.A. and surrounding areas have increased as high as 150%. None of that was mentioned in Rivas' speech. How does he expect Californians to believe his crusade for affordability if he doesn't even talk about it? Fifty million dollars given to address 'what ifs' in battles against Trump instead of focusing on the numerous price hikes in our state is not a win. Immigrants, trans people and everyone in between all belong in California, that much I know, but the question that Rivas needs to answer is can they afford to live here?
Associated Press
05-02-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
California Apartment Association and Corporate Landlord Investigated for Shady Campaign Contributions to Kill Prop 33 and Pass Prop 34, Says Housing Is A Human Right
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb 4, 2025-- The California Fair Political Practices Commission is now investigating the California Apartment Association (CAA) and a corporate landlord for shady campaign contributions used to kill Prop 33 and pass Prop 34. AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its housing advocacy division, Housing Is A Human Right, filed a complaint about the contributions this past fall, and were recently informed by the FPPC of its decision to move forward. The real estate industry's slick handling of campaign cash comes as no surprise. 'AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Housing Is A Human Right have battled corporate landlords for years,' says Housing Is A Human Right Policy Director Susie Shannon, 'and we know all too well that Californians can never trust Big Real Estate. Corporate landlords and their front group, the California Apartment Association, will do anything to keep charging outrageous rents and grow outsized profits – no matter the consequences to the poor and middle and working class.' In 2024, AHF and Housing Is A Human Right sponsored Proposition 33, which aimed to repeal statewide rent control restrictions and urgently address California's housing affordability and homelessness crises. Prop 33 would have allowed cities to pass updated rent control policies and finally rein in predatory landlords – widespread rent gouging after the L.A. wildfires, for example, would have been largely prevented with new rent regulations. But corporate landlords and the California Apartment Association raised $135.8 million to not only kill Prop 33, but to also pass Prop 34. The latter initiative sought to stop AHF from using certain money for its housing advocacy work. In November 2024, Big Real Estate successfully defeated Prop 33 and barely passed Prop 34. Both the CAA's No on Prop 33 and Yes on Prop 34 campaigns were funded by the California Apartment Association Issues Committee, and that's where the shady contributions were delivered. Between 2023 and 2024, Housing Is A Human Right found that 13 separate contributions were made to the California Apartment Association Issues Committee by corporate entities that were controlled by the same company, Rafanelli & Nahas, a corporate landlord based in Lafayette, California. Those contributions added up to a significant total: $177,150. By delivering campaign cash that way, Rafanelli & Nahas were essentially trying to pull a fast one over the public – rather than have Rafanelli & Nahas' name attached to the 13 contributions, the names of its corporate entities were linked. For example, Amador Lakes III, LP, operated by Rafanelli & Nahas, sent three contributions totaling $50,250 to the California Apartment Association Issues Committee. State law says the corporate landlord can't do that – the public should know exactly who's delivering campaign cash and how much is coming from that single contributor. In addition, Housing Is A Human Right and AHF made the case that the California Apartment Association should have been aware that Rafanelli & Nahas was trying to pull a fast one and not allowed the corporate landlord to file its campaign contributions in such an underhanded way. On February 4, the California Fair Political Practices Commission informed AHF and Housing Is A Human Right that it will be investigating the matter further. 'AHF and Housing Is A Human Right have always been about holding the California Apartment Association and corporate landlords accountable,' says Susie Shannon. 'We're very pleased that the FPPC has decided to look into this serious abuse of voter trust.' 323.791.5526 SOURCE: Housing Is A Human Right Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 02/04/2025 08:39 PM/DISC: 02/04/2025 08:40 PM
