The Brief

In the city of Los Angeles, some 650,000 apartments are subject to local rent control. How much rents can go up each year has been the subject of ongoing controversy between tenants and landlords, who often disagree about what’s fair amid a regional crisis in affordable housing.

The L.A. City Council, which sets policy, has been at the center of that tension. Last October, Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Hugo Soto-Martinez put forward a motion calling for a fresh look at the city’s decades-old formula for setting annual limits on rent hikes. The council approved that motion and called for a study to “conclude within 3 months.”

This May, the Economic Roundtable, the nonprofit research organization the city commissioned to carry out the study, submitted its report to the L.A. Housing Department. Four months later, the city still has not released it publicly. LAist obtained the report through a public records request.

The independent analysis found some of the city’s rules governing rent increases have favored landlords over tenants. The report recommends changes that could lower the rent hikes tenants face each year, setting up what is sure to be a fierce debate at city hall.

LAist has published the full report here (and you can also read it below).

What’s in the report? 

Over the course of 193 pages, the report offers an extensive analysis of the L.A. rental housing market, challenges facing both tenants and landlords, and the impact of the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Among the findings:

• About 35% of the rent L.A. tenants pay goes to operating expenses for apartment buildings, on average. This includes maintenance, utilities, insurance, payroll and other routine costs. Landlords can use the remainder to cover mortgages and turn a profit.
• From January 2020 through January 2023, 4 in 10 rent-controlled L.A. apartments became vacant. When a tenant leaves a rent-controlled unit, the city’s rules allow landlords to raise rents to market rates. These higher rents helped landlords absorb the impact of a nearly four-year freeze on rent hikes.
• Many expenses have risen sharply for landlords in recent years, outpacing inflation. Property insurance costs have roughly doubled since 2020. However, the report notes these expenses make up a relatively small portion of overall costs.
• About one-fifth of L.A. renters are living below the federal poverty line. According to U.S. Census data, just over half of those renters spend 90% of their income or more on rent. Rent increases can leave these low-income renters vulnerable to displacement and homelessness.
• The city’s current range of allowable annual rent increases — anywhere from 3% to 8% depending on inflation — is higher than the increases permitted in most other California cities with rent control.

The report makes some recommendations on how the city could change its formula for determining annual rent increase limits:

• Either eliminate a provision allowing landlords to raise rents an extra 1% per year if they pay for a tenant’s gas, plus another 1% if they pay for electricity — or replace it. The report estimates each 1% increase could raise rents an additional $150 to $240 per month after 10 years, more than the actual cost of providing those utilities. One option, the report says, would be to instead use a surcharge that better captures the increased costs of providing those utilities.

The report recommends considering changing which version of the consumer price index is used to calculate allowable increased to one that excludes housing costs, shown as "Less Shelter" in the chart above.

(

Courtesy Equitable Rent report

)

• Change how annual rent increases are calculated. Instead of using a version of the consumer price index driven to a large degree by housing cost inflation, the report recommends a different index that excludes housing costs. The report argues this would stop the feedback loop of allowing high housing inflation to create further housing inflation.

What do landlord advocates say?

LAist shared the report with advocates for landlords and tenants.

Landlord advocates strongly disputed the report’s conclusions. Daniel Yukelson with the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles pointed to recent data from the National Apartment Association, a trade group for property owners, concluding that California landlords earn 7 cents of profit on average for every dollar of rent.

“What [the report] is trying to do is make a PR effort to lay the groundwork to chip away at what little ability landlords have in L.A. to be able to raise rents and be able to keep up with their costs,” Yukelson said.

He said the report takes a macroeconomic view of the city’s rental market, but fails to capture the unique struggles facing many small landlords.

“There are plenty of owners out there who have had their renters in place for many years,” Yukelson said. “They're way below market. And they're having trouble today keeping up with the growing costs of insurance, maintenance and supplies.”

What do tenant advocates say?

Tenant advocates took a very different view of the report. They said it correctly identifies problems with L.A. rent control and validates their demands for stronger limits.

“Small landlords are able to maintain their profits and draw income above their expenses — they haven't been overly burdened by rent stabilization,” said Christina Boyar, a legal fellow with Public Counsel and a member of the Keep L.A. Housed coalition.

Tenant advocates have called for a 3% ceiling on annual rent hikes and elimination of the 2% surcharge for landlords who provide gas and electricity. They point to other L.A.-area cities that currently limit rent increases to less than 3% with no add-ons for utilities.

“The report shows that rent costs exceeding what tenants can pay is a primary cause of homelessness,” Boyar said. “We are obviously in a homelessness crisis in L.A., and if this formula isn't updated soon, more folks will just fall into homelessness.”

How LAist obtained the report

The city’s housing officials have been in possession of the Economic Roundtable report since May.

When LAist first requested the report, officials told a reporter the study was not subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, saying there was an exemption for “deliberative process.”

They provided the report shortly after LAist’s public records lawyer intervened.

Why had the city not released the report? 

Daniel Flaming, president of the Economic Roundtable and a co-author of the report, said he didn’t have a good answer for why the report was kept under wraps.

“I think when it's a politically contentious issue, there are attempts to manage the conversation,” Flaming said. “The substance of the report is final. It was submitted as a final report and accepted by the city as a final work product.”

Sharon Sandow, a spokesperson for the L.A. Housing Department, told LAist last week the document was still a “draft report,” and they didn't have a specific date lined up for its release.

“There are several rounds of revisions left to go before this report is considered final,” Sandow said in an email. “Economic Roundtable is under contract to complete this report through January 2025 — though clearly we hope to have it finalized before then.”

By the end of last week, Sandow sent LAist a version of the report she described as "final."

Under state public records law, preliminary drafts must be released if they are retained in the ordinary course of business, as this one has been. LAist noted in its correspondence with housing department officials that the report was not a draft but was a finished product submitted by the contractor.

Why it matters

The city’s rent increase limits apply to a huge number of L.A. residents. Almost two-thirds of L.A. households rent their homes. Local rent control rules cover about 650,000 apartments — 44% of the city’s entire housing stock. Apartments in L.A. are generally covered by local rent control if they were built before Oct. 1, 1978.

Housing costs are a major burden for many L.A. households. About 59% of the city’s renters spend more than 30% of their income on rent, a level considered unaffordable by federal government standards.

The report notes that because L.A. has a 3% floor on annual increases — even in years when the consumer price index is lower — landlords have often been allowed to raise rents above inflation. Between 2010 and 2020, the consumer price index in L.A. rose 21%. During the same period, rents in rent-controlled L.A. apartments were allowed to rise 36%.

The issues facing landlords

On the other hand, the report finds that landlords have faced unique challenges — particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

State and local regulations allowed tenants who lost income during the pandemic to delay rent payments. Annual increases in rent-controlled housing were banned. And landlords were restricted from evicting tenants who fell behind on rent. That all played out during a time when the cost of maintenance, utilities and insurance was rising faster than inflation.

L.A. kept COVID-19 protections in place far longer than many other jurisdictions. The city faced strong criticism from landlords who argued too little was being done to help property owners.

Some of these hardships were addressed by government rent relief programs, which provided funds to landlords with tenants behind on rent. The report also notes that high turnover helped landlords raise rents to market rates and keep rental income nearly at pace with inflation.

But landlord advocates say some property owners have yet to fully recover from the pandemic. They now worry about the potential cost of proposals to remove gas stoves and install air conditioners.

“The cost of electricity is just going to continue going up,” Yukelson with the Apartment Association said. If the city stops landlords who provide electricity from raising rents an additional 1% per year, he said, “The next tenant is going to have to pay that burden, because the rents are going to have to go up.”

How L.A. stacks up to other cities

On balance, Flaming said the report shows that L.A.’s policies diverge significantly from how other California cities handle rent control. He said the utility surcharge in particular seems “arbitrary.”

“The Los Angeles ceiling and floor are atypically high for rent-controlled cities,” he said. “Among cities that have elected to control rents — and not all cities have — Los Angeles appears to be tilted toward landlords.”

Some L.A. city council members have floated the idea of establishing different rent control rules for “mom and pop” landlords and larger, corporate landlords. The report recommends the city instead target aid to small landlords, rather than allowing additional rent increases on tenants.

What happens now? 

The clock is ticking for the city to develop a new rent-control formula in time for Jan. 1, 2025. That’s when landlords will be required to give tenants notice of any rent increases starting in February. Many tenants in rent-controlled housing received a 4 to 6% annual rent increase on Feb. 1, 2024 due to the lapse of the L.A.’s COVID-19 rent freeze.

Soto-Martinez, one of the council members who requested the report be commissioned — has already called for capping increases at 3%.

In an email reacting to the Economic Roundtable report, Soto-Martínez told LAist, “As we await the finalized version of this report, it’s heartening to see so much data supporting the policy changes that renters have been demanding — especially when it comes to preventing excessive rent increases that can devastate working families.”

The city’s rent control debate is playing out against the larger backdrop of an election season where rent control — and many other housing-related measures — are up for a state-wide vote.

Read the full report

Link: Equitable Rent Rent Stabilization Standards in the City of Los Angeles

Note: The initial report released to LAist early last week was dated May 2024. Late last week, L.A. housing officials resent the report, now dated September 2024.

Yes, we did just wrap up the primary election, but believe us — November will be here before you know it.

There will be new ballot measures to vote on in L.A. County, and now is the time they're being finalized.

Local jurisdictions (county, city, school and district) have until Aug. 7 to get them completed, according to Mike Sanchez, a spokesperson at the L.A. County Registrar's Office.

Here’s what we know so far about what’s coming.

LA County ballot measures

Enshrining LA County’s ethics commission

Two years ago, voters approved Measure G — a batch of historic county government reforms that included establishing an independent ethics commission and compliance office by 2026.

That's now happening — the Board of Supervisors recently approved an ordinance to create it, and officials are getting into the nuts and bolts of how it would work.

The seven-member commission’s job will be enforcing ethics laws, conducting investigations and levying penalties for violations. Three of the members will be appointed by elected officials, with the rest coming from a public application process.

There are concerns about the body's independence, however, and a Governance Reform Task Force set up to guide Measure G’s implementation has recommended permanently safeguarding its autonomy by enshrining it into the county charter.

That needs voter approval — hence, the new measure on the books in November, which would add the ethics commission, compliance office and governing procedures to the charter.

While the official ballot language hasn’t been made public yet, it’s expected to mirror the ordinance that directed its creation.

The board is also using this opportunity to correct a mistake. Back in 2025, after voters approved Measure G, county officials discovered an “administrative error.” The structure inadvertently put a different measure, Measure J, on the chopping block, which mandates funding for community investment and alternatives to incarceration. So the board is adding additional language that would lock the county into spending money on those issues.

This ballot measure is still pending approval from the Board of Supervisors. That’s expected to come later this month.

The Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in Los Angeles.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Binding arbitration in LA County labor disputes

This is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration in certain labor disputes between the county and public safety organizations, if passed.

It would cover unions representing firefighters, deputy sheriffs, sworn law enforcement supervisors and lifeguards, among other employees.

Currently, when disputes can’t be resolved, the county can implement its best and final offer, even if the union disagrees with it. This creates a “challenging dynamic,” according to Supervisor Lindsey Horvath’s motion for the measure, because public safety employees have important roles and can’t strike under California law.

That power imbalance is what this measure aims to equalize.

Under the terms, a three-member arbiter panel would decide disputes about working conditions — such as wages and working hours — that the county and union haven’t been able to settle. Each party would be able to appoint one arbitrator, and the third would be picked by both parties. The county and union would be required to share the costs.

This measure would need a simple majority to pass.

City of LA ballot measures

Funding the city of LA’s fire department

The L.A. Fire Department’s labor union, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, sponsored this initiative, which was approved by the L.A. City Council last month. It proposes a half-cent sales tax to fund the LAFD.

This would raise the city’s sales tax to 10.25%. If approved by voters, it’s expected to raise $345 million in its first year. That money would be spent on things like hiring new firefighters, building stations and brush clearance.

United Firefighters says it’s needed because the department is too small to appropriately serve 4 million residents.

“Due to decades of underinvestment, the LAFD currently operates with the same number of firefighters as in the 1960s, six fewer stations and five times the call load,” the union previously said in a statement.

The measure would require a simple majority to pass. If approved, the tax would be in effect until repealed.

A Los Angeles City Council meeting April 2, 2025.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

Reforming the LA city charter

Charter reform has been a big talking point in L.A. ever since the 2022 leaked-tapes scandal at City Hall — and now, we’re seeing the outcomes.

While the City Council controversially opted to forgo a slate of major changes on this year’s ballot, including ones on LAPD oversight and expanding the City Council, we still have six ballot measures proposing reforms.

The language of these measures is still being finalized, according to Josué Marcus, a spokesperson at the City Clerk’s Office. Here’s a peek at what they include:

• Modifying ethics and campaign finance rules
• Doubling the Recreation and Parks Department’s budget percentage over time
• Moving the city of L.A. to a two-year budget cycle instead of one-year
• Removing a restriction that prohibits the city from taking part in commercial activities
• Changing contracting rules about accepting the lowest bidders
• Requiring a capital infrastructure plan

We should know more about these measures soon. In the meantime, you can keep an eye out for the specifics on the city’s elections website here.

If you're online, anywhere adjacent to the World Cup, you'll see that the Argentina team, which will play England in the semifinals Wednesday, is attracting a lot of criticism.

It can be largely grouped into two categories: soccer and culture. In soccer, Argentina’s comeback win against Egypt last week prompted accusations, including from Egypt’s head coach, that the FIFA referees in that match favored Argentina.

Meanwhile, cultural clichés online accuse Argentines of being arrogant and looking down on other Latin Americans.

“I get sad,  I must say, that when I see that, it hurts me a little bit, to be honest,” said San Fernando Valley resident Roxana Lissa. She was born and raised in Argentina and moved to the U.S. more than 30 years ago.

But she's used to it.

“The thing about Argentines is we have such thick skin,” Lissa said.

California’s Argentine population has grown in the past couple of decades. The state is now home to the second-largest concentration of Argentines in the U.S. after Florida.

Exclusion by other Latinos

The negative comments are not new, but social media has fueled them into a firestorm.

Some Argentines in Southern California say they’ve not seen negativity this bad against their culture before.

Mariana Ferrero, who moved to the U.S. from Argentina when she was 13 years old, said the comments are opening old wounds of exclusion by other Latino immigrants in Southern California.

“What bothers me is [the criticism] goes beyond soccer. It's more of saying, "Oh, you're Argentinian. You're not a real Latina,'” Ferrero said.

She says many Latinos assume she’s privileged because she’s lighter skinned.

But Ferrero says her background is not like that at all. Argentina’s struggling economy led Ferrero’s parents to leave their home, their language and their country.

“We packed up. We came here. We lived with nothing in a tiny one-bedroom apartment, worked really hard, odd jobs,” she said.

Ferrero has some explanation for the hostility, however.

“I think some of it is just a perception that we come from a country that tends to be proud and tends to be loud and tends to be boisterous about our wins and about our accomplishments. And let me tell you, there's not many of them,” Ferrero said.

Since soccer prowess is one of those few wins, she says she and other Argentines are going to take this World Cup as an opportunity to be loud and proud.

IRL people love Argentines

Ferrero and Lissa say people who’ve visited Argentina gush to them about the warmth and hospitality of its people and the country’s beauty. And few people question that Argentina soccer star Lionel Messi is one of the greatest soccer players of all time.

“I was wearing my Argentina jersey,” Lissa said of a visit during the World Cup to L.A.’s Guelaguetza Oaxacan restaurant to watch Mexico play.

“People were coming to me and saying, 'I love Messi. I love Messi.' And I felt for the first time, 'Damn, I'm not being criticized,'” she said.

Pablo Baler, a professor of Latin American literature at CSU L.A., says the disconnect during this World Cup may be that people don’t believe Argentina represents the underdog soccer nations of Latin America anymore.

“At times, [the team] can feel more like a corporation than a national team, but the country it represents was in many ways the victim of the same imperial powers now competing for the title: France, England and Spain,” he said.

Baler grew up in Argentina and has many Latin American friends. He doesn’t believe the negativity against his homeland will tarnish its reputation. He said a Nicaraguan friend said to him this week that he’s proud Argentina made it to the World Cup semifinals because the team is “one of us.”

Topline

The background: In June, the City Council voted to establish the moratorium as city staff drafted a proposal for a permanent citywide ban. At the time, the moratorium was authorized for 45 days.

The issue first made its way to city hall earlier this year after a group of neighbors raised concerns that a proposed new In-N-Out in Culver City could hurt air quality and create safety issues for pedestrians.

Status of the proposed ban: Culver City staff wrote in a report to City Council this week that they’ve begun drafting a potential permanent ban on new drive-thrus citywide.

The proposal will first go to the city’s planning commission, a five-person body that makes recommendations to the City Council on development and zoning matters in the city, then head to the City Council for a final vote. Those dates have not yet been set.

One councilmember left door open for a different approach: At Monday’s meeting, Councilmember Albert Vera, who was among the four votes supporting the moratorium extension, said he would be open to seeing recommendations from the planning commission that don’t ban drive-thrus citywide outright.

The contractor building the long-awaited LAX People Mover project has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of L.A. breached its contract in several disputes.

In the suit, filed with the L.A. County Superior Court on July 9, LINXS alleges the city is misplacing blame in construction-related disputes and refusing to extend contract deadlines. LINXS also alleges it’s owed additional payment for the work as a result of the delays.

The project, a 2.25-mile-long elevated train designed to transport riders between airport terminals and local transit, is currently undergoing testing. Work on the train is scheduled to be complete “in a few months,” according to a June interview with Los Angeles World Airports CEO John Ackerman on the L.A. in a Minute podcast.

Chief among the disputes detailed in the lawsuit is one involving repairs to faulty electrical equipment in the system that powers the train, resulting in testing delays last year. LAist reported on this dispute last November and in April.

A spokesperson for LINXS said it has attempted to engage in “extensive good-faith efforts over the past two years” to resolve the ongoing contractual disputes.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that manages LAX, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. They added that the agency remains committed to “delivering a safe, durable and reliable” train as soon as possible.

The L.A. City Attorney’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In its lawsuit, LINXS said that by not granting the contractor’s compensation and time-extension requests, the city is attempting to evade accountability for the delayed train, which was once expected to open in 2023 and is nearly a billion dollars over budget.

The contractor warned in its lawsuit that without an extension of contract deadlines, it might be forced to repay lenders who financed the project as soon as this fall. In that case, the contractor said in its lawsuit that it could become “insolvent and unable to perform,” adding that possibility would have “catastrophic consequences.”

Dispute over metering cabinet

Last February, staff from Los Angeles World Airports and the city’s Department of Water and Power directed LINXS to repair equipment in a metering cabinet that had degraded due to moisture and debris, as LAist previously reported.

LINXS completed the repair work, which required power to be partially shut down between February and July 2025. That temporary power disruption delayed critical testing of the technology that allows for central control of the People Mover’s systems.

LINXS said last year, and also in the current lawsuit, that the repair work is not in its scope of work. As a result, the contractor has said it's owed compensation and a minimum of a 141-day extension to complete construction.

“Since then, [Los Angeles World Airports] has stonewalled the discussions of [LINXS’] compensation and a time extension,” the contractor alleges in its lawsuit.

LINXS, citing information it received from a public records request, alleges the issue stemmed from an instance where LADWP opened the metering cabinet in September 2024 to rectify design issues with the equipment contained in it.

Whereas past disputes between LINXS and the airport were resolved through settlements that have so far totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and resulted in schedule extensions, the dispute over maintaining electrical equipment has been uniquely contentious.

“Other relief events that we’ve dealt with up to this point … we could agree there were some things that were not totally within LINXS’ control,” Jake Adams, an airport executive who is overseeing $5.5 billion in LAX upgrades, said in an interview with LAist in April. “This relief event is very different. We believe there is absolutely no merit to this claim.”

The lawsuit also alleges that the contractor is owed additional time and money for several other ongoing disputes, including that Los Angeles World Airports is refusing to sign a power agreement with LADWP for solar panels installed as part of the People Mover project and that workers on separate airport projects have “demolished” work LINXS completed for the train.

What’s the status of the People Mover?

The People Mover is operating in a testing phase where it simulates how the train will operate when it begins shuttling travelers between airport terminals and the L.A. Metro system.

The testing of the train won’t be impacted by the lawsuit, a spokesperson for Los Angeles World Airports told LAist.

A hearing on the case filed last week has been scheduled for December, according to the L.A. County Superior Court’s website.