At the recent C.A.R. Winter Meetings, PWR joined REALTOR® associations from across the state in celebrating a major legislative victory: the defeat of AB 1157 in committee. This bill would have significantly expanded California’s statewide rent control policies and made an already challenging landscape even more restrictive.
Under current law (AB 1482), statewide rent control is scheduled to sunset in 2030, does not apply to single-family homes, and allows annual rent increases of CPI plus 5%, capped at 10%. AB 1157 would have removed the 2030 sunset provision, expanded rent control to include all housing types—including single-family homes—and reduced the maximum allowable rent increase from 10% to 5%. In short, it would have made statewide rent control far more severe and permanent.
While we are proud to celebrate this win, we must remain realistic: the rent control movement is not going away. We can fully expect similar legislation to resurface well before AB 1482’s 2030 expiration. For now, we have won this battle—but the larger fight continues.
At the same time, we were disappointed to see AB 1406 pass the Assembly. However, our advocacy efforts made a real and measurable impact. The bill passed by the narrowest of margins, 41–39, and only after the author was forced to significantly weaken its provisions in order to secure the necessary votes. Current law permits liquidated damages of 3%. The bill initially proposed increasing that figure to 10%, but after extensive lobbying by REALTORS® and our partners, the author reduced the proposal to 6%—a clear sign that our voice was heard. The bill now moves to the Senate, where we will continue the fight. Stay tuned for updates as this legislation progresses.
Another major issue discussed during our Government Affairs Directors (GAD) meeting involved a troubling interpretation issued by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The situation arose in Burbank, where a City Councilmember owns a property with four rental units. The FPPC advised that the councilmember must recuse himself from voting on rent control policies due to a personal financial interest. Interestingly, the FPPC indicated that if the property had three units or fewer, it would not be considered a conflict.
What makes this interpretation even more concerning is the double standard it creates: City Councilmembers who rent in the city are still allowed to vote on rent control policies—even though they clearly have a direct personal financial interest in the outcome. This uneven playing field unfairly disadvantages property owners and appears inherently biased in one direction.
The Burbank Association is exploring whether to challenge the FPPC’s guidance, and C.A.R. is currently reviewing the issue to determine whether it should be addressed statewide—either through new legislation or other regulatory relief. This is an important development to watch, as it could have broader implications for property rights and fair representation in local policymaking.
