The Brief

Rent control can either be your friend or your enemy.

The laws are often the bane of landlords who’d like to charge more and a potential safety net for tenants who can’t afford steep rent hikes. But why it’s around isn’t necessarily because politicians want to protect the little guy — rent control has historically been used to mitigate another problem.

If you want a breakdown of how rent control may work in your area today, here’s the guide for that. But in this one, we’ll explore more of the backdrop: how high inflation, wartime efforts and a housing crisis birthed different eras of rent control.

The wartime effect

L.A.’s first round of modern rent control came more than 80 years ago — and it was perhaps the strictest we’ve seen.

When World War II began in 1939, industrial employment ballooned. The Great Depression was easing, so workers migrated to Los Angeles in the tens of thousands for employment. But the surge in population, combined with the war effort, created a perfect housing storm that lasted for years.

More people were coming at a time when our housing stock couldn’t keep up. About 15,000 residential projects went unfinished because labor and supplies were diverted to the war, according to research from the UCLA Luskin Center. With demand way up, many people had no choice but to live in severely overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. The situation was so dire when a federal study was conducted that a veteran shared how he was living in a house with 18 other people while trying to turn a chicken coop into a place to stay.

A 1945 poster letting tenants know about their rights under rent control.

(

United States Office of Price Administration

/

Illinois Digital Archives, Illinois State Library, and Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias

)

The ultimate solution would be more housing, but that would take years to improve. In the interim, the federal government deployed a rent freeze (and other price controls) in 1942 to ensure essentials remained affordable. Alisa Belinkoff Katz, lead author of UCLA’s study of rent control in L.A., says this move made rent control part of the war effort and more acceptable to landlords.

“It was considered sort of the patriotic thing to do, at least at first while the war was going on,” she said. “It became something that was widely publicized and that people were engaged in.”

That publicity campaign helped to make tenants aware of their rights. Landlords and renters were also required to sign a property registration form that recorded the rent amount under the freeze. To Katz, the tenants who kept tabs on compliance, along with federal enforcement, is what made the rent freeze effective.

A line of people outside of the rent control office at Broadway in Los Angeles on Nov. 5, 1942.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

Property owners register their rentals at the Broadway rent control office in Los Angeles on Sept. 25, 1942.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

The support of landlords didn’t last long, though. The L.A. County apartment association’s president at the time, David Culver, complained about treatment in a meeting with landlords, and together they vowed to take action. They argued that the rent cap was too low to afford taxes and maintenance, and some threatened to take their rentals off the market.

Once the war ended, rent control became a ticking clock. After a postwar federal housing act went into effect, allowing local governments to lose the rules, the L.A. City Council voted to decontrol. Residential rents went back under the sway of the market.

Property owners cheer as the L.A. city council votes 10 to 4 in favor of rent decontrol on July 2, 1950. More than 2,500 owners and tenants packed the council chamber.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

‘Stagflation’ in the 1970s and Proposition 13

Decades later, L.A. was in a different predicament.

An oil crisis was going on, aiding a surge in inflation while economic growth was at a snail’s pace. This is when the term “stagflation” was coined (a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation). Among a number of other things that became more expensive, L.A. home prices were skyrocketing along with owners’ property tax bills.

Landlords again organized around this issue. Howard Jarvis, then-executive director of the L.A. County apartment association, went down in history as the champion of 1978’s Proposition 13 — a measure that aimed to cap property tax rates. But in order for it to pass, he knew that the state’s renters — which made up 45% of households, according to Katz’s research — needed to be convinced to vote for the proposition.

Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, co-sponsor of the measure, celebrating after Proposition 13 was declared a winner on June 6, 1978.

(

Ken Papaleo

/

Herald Examiner Collection/Los Angeles Public Library

)

Landlords got involved to persuade their tenants. They argued that getting their tax bills reduced would trickle down to their tenants, too. Some even offered rent rebates if it was successful. But after Proposition 13 prevailed at the polls, the rose-colored glasses fell off. Despite what they’d said previously, many owners continued to raise their rents — some by more than 20% that same year.

“It should be an incentive to keep rents low, one would think,” Katz said. “But it hasn't worked out that way because property values continue to rise all over the city. [It helps landlords] because their taxes aren’t going up. So if their taxes are stable and their rents are allowed to increase all the time, then of course it helps them.”

In effect, the law was a type of rent control but for landlords, because it lowered their property taxes and limited increases.

Renters feeling the pinch

Demand for tenant protections was high in this decade, especially in middle-class communities. Renters had few rights and people were feeling the pinch.

“Our phone started ringing off the hooks,” said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival. “It appeared that the speculators discovered Los Angeles. They were buying up rental units throughout the area, raising rent, putting a fresh coat of paint on it, some minor repairs, and then selling it again."

Gross was one of the key people leading the fight for rent control and helped organize tenant unions. He says some apartment buildings were getting flipped four to five times a year. And after Proposition 13, he says the “lid blew off” with rent.

“It was the first of many broken promises that landlords provided to their tenants.”

Renters rallied, urging L.A. leaders to take action. The city council members who represented white, middle-class districts supported the measures, but the ones leading Black and Latino districts did not. Back then, rising rent was viewed as a middle-class problem, and community leaders in lower-income districts worried that rent control would drive away investment in their communities.

Still, the council got enough support to roll back and temporarily freeze rents. Mayor Tom Bradley claimed it was a necessary step to halt “outrageous rent increases.”

The freeze gave the council time to draft a long-term response, which is where the Rent Stabilization Ordinance in place today came from. With this law, landlords can only increase rent in certain properties (built on or before Oct. 1, 1978) generally between 3% and 8%, based on inflation. (There’s a rent freeze on these properties currently because of COVID-19.)

Where we are now

Since the '70s, a lot has changed. Rent control has grown to multiple cities, but so have the legal battles surrounding it.

“It's literally been somewhat of a cat-and-mouse game with landlords,” Gross said. “Because landlords will find loopholes in the law and then use that to evict tenants or increase rent. And then we'd identify those loopholes and we get the city council to close them.”

Property owners looked to change these rules, too, and they got key laws passed from higher up.

New rent laws

1985: The Ellis Act, a California law that allows landlords to evict residential tenants in order to leave the rental business, passes. A landlord filed a lawsuit against Santa Monica, which instituted rent control six years earlier, for refusing to let him demolish his rental property, claiming it was in bad repair. He lost the case when it reached the California Supreme Court, but shortly after the state legislature passed the Ellis Act.

1995: The landlords’ grand slam, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, passes. This was the state legislature’s response to landlords' building frustration with rent control laws, which were more regulated in some cities.

West Hollywood and Santa Monica, had the strict “vacancy control” rule. Under that provision, owners couldn’t raise rents to market rates between tenants, but small increases were allowed during tenancy. The act made that provision illegal statewide.

“It literally puts a bullseye target on the back of particularly low rent, long-term [rentals],” Gross said on the removal of vacancy control. “If they get those tenants out by any means, they can jack up rents to whatever they want.”

The act also prohibited rent control on residential properties built after Feb. 1, 1995, excluded single-family homes and condos, and generally tied city leaders' hands.

“It froze existing local rent control laws,” Katz said. “It had a huge impact because it prohibited what local governments were able to do to protect renters in their jurisdictions.”

2019: The Tenant Protection Act created a statewide rent increase cap. This cap is adjusted yearly based on inflation. It’s intended to prevent very large increases. And, coming soon, California will be voting on rent control in 2024 (for a third time).

Navigating rent control

It can be tough to easily understand how, when, and where rent control affects you. Everything can change depending on what city you’re in, your building type and when it was built.

Some basics you should be aware of are the main types of rent control:

• Rent freeze (rents are not allowed to rise at all in a given period).
• Vacancy control (rent can’t rise to market rates between tenants, but smaller increases are allowed during tenancy — this is illegal in California).
• Vacancy decontrol (rents can rise to market rates between tenants, and increases are allowed during tenancy — the standard in the state now).

Another way that rent control can change is with how much of the consumer price index, which measures inflation, gets factored in.

For example, the city of L.A. typically lets rent controlled properties increase between 3% and 8% a year, depending on the full rate of inflation. But Katz says that other cities have used a lower percentage of CPI. And the city of L.A. has a freeze on increases in rent controlled buildings until February 2024.

Cities with floors for increases, like L.A., can wind up with a problematic deal for renters and a better one for landlords if rents rise above CPI.

“Several times in the last few years, CPI has actually risen less than 3%, but landlords were allowed to raise the rents by 3%. So that's another question, whether that should be adjusted," Katz said.

Figure out where you stand

Rent control is a tangled web of seemingly boring rules, but it does have real effects. To supporters of the protections, the aim is about keeping things affordable and fair.

“It helps to give some security to tenants in a sense that it extends the protections that homeowners have,” Gross said. “What rent control does is level the playing field.”

If you're a renter and would like to know more about where your home stands with rent control, check out my colleague David Wagner’s cheat sheet to rent hike. If you’re in the city of L.A., you can also put your address into ZIMAS and check the housing tab to see what laws apply.

Los Angeles Unified School District’s cell phone ban turns 1 year old today.

The state’s largest district announced a “bell to bell” cellphone and social media ban in June 2024, which expanded the district’s existing phone ban to include lunch and passing periods. The policy took effect Feb. 18, 2025. District officials cited rising concerns about the effects of phones and social media on youth mental health, bullying and distraction from classroom instruction.

How well did the ban go at the beginning?

Over the first semester, we heard from educators and students who had mixed opinions. Some teachers reported positive results, while others said that passing periods remained a challenge. Some students found the ban stifled their ability to get important things done, and some also said their screentime stayed the same or increased while at home. We made a whole episode of our Imperfect Paradise podcast about it:

Listen 46:11

Apple

Spotify

On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. We headed to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Did the cellphone ban in high schools work?

On February 18th, 2025, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school district in the country, implemented an all-day cell phone ban for its students. We headed to Venice High School to see how the ban actually went.

Subscribe

• Apple
• Spotify

What don't we know?

Since LAUSD’s proposal went into effect, other districts have also rolled out changes to cellphone policies in advance of a July 2026 state deadline. The long-term effects are unclear, although more researchers are investigating.

How’s it going?

You tell us! Has it improved your educational experience? (Whether you’re a teacher, student, parent or caregiver.) Here’s a quick survey you can use to share your thoughts.

Los Angeles remains on shaky financial ground with increased liability costs, overspending by city departments and revenue shortfalls forcing it to dip into its reserves, according to a financial report released Wednesday.

The annual report for the fiscal year that ended in June, from Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia, said the culmination of decades of “unstable budgeting” is seen and felt by Angelenos across the city “in crumbling infrastructure and deteriorating services.”

Additionally, short-term budget balancing over the past two years resulted in unpaid furlough days for city employees and the elimination of thousands of unfilled positions.

“The service impacts of those cuts are still hitting departments as they struggle to address growing needs with severely diminished capacities,” the report read.

Key takeaways

Here are some of the major points made in the report:

• The top area of overspending continued to be liability payments. Liability claims exceeded the budget by $199 million or 228%, totaling a record of $287 million for the year. The top three areas include police at $152 million, street services at $44 million and transportation at $20 million. 

• The top area of underspending was capital improvement projects. The city only spent $25 million (19%) of the $131 million budget.

• Salaries and employee benefits increased by $162.6 million (4.7%) compared to previous  years, primarily because of cost-of-living adjustments associated with labor agreements with civilian and sworn employee unions, sworn employee hiring, increased overtime usage and higher benefit and insurance premium costs. Property taxes, which represent 40.6% of general fund revenues, increased by 4.3%. Business tax revenue increased by 8.6%, while sales tax revenues declined by 2.2%

• The city had to make up $160 million in revenue shortfall by tapping the reserve fund, which dropped from $648 million two fiscal years ago to $402 million for fiscal year 2024-25. The reserve fund currently sits at 5.06% of the total general fund budget, according to a December financial status report from the city administrative officer — barely above the 5% minimum set by the City Council.

• Four ratings agencies, including S&P, Fitch, Moody’s and Kroll, have given the city a “negative outlook” over a variety of concerns including liability payments and damages from the Palisades Fire. A negative outlook indicates a heightened risk that a city’s credit rating may be downgraded within the next 12 to 18 months. L.A. still holds an Aa2 rating from Moody’s, which is considered a high grade.

The controller issued a series of recommendations, including shifting to a two-year instead of one-year budgeting process, more realistic revenue projections, and more revenue generation by growing the tax base (for example: implementing a vacancy tax or taxing rideshare/autonomous vehicles, not just raising the sales tax).

General fund challenges

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, a member of the city’s Budget and Finance Committee, said in the report that the city can’t keep relying on short-term fixes, while “structural deficits,” like ongoing budget shortfalls, grow.

She added that “years of draining reserves, soaring liability payouts, and underinvestment in infrastructure have left us in a perilous financial position that our communities are now forced to absorb.”

“We need transparent, multi-year budgeting rooted in long-term planning and fiscal responsibility,” Hernandez said.

Mejia said that although the city is halfway through its fiscal year, it continues to have general fund budget challenges.

“The current fiscal year’s budget assumes moderate revenue growth, however, the long-term impact of current economic activities on revenue growth remains unknown and revenue has been stable during the first half of the year.”

LA’s demographics

In addition to providing a financial picture, the report provided a demographic look at the city. L.A.’s population is 3.84 million, the average age is 37.5, the total school enrollment is 409,108 and the unemployment rate is 6%.

The city employs more than 50,000 workers, the metro L.A.’s GDP is $1.3 trillion (among the top 20 economies in the world), and LAX has 75 million passengers a year.

Erroneous and politically charged statements by Trump administration officials, as well as the district attorney for San Bernardino County, have complicated the prosecution of a truck driver charged with vehicular manslaughter in a crash on the 10 Freeway last year.

The statements highlighted the national origin of the driver, 21-year-old Jashanpreet Singh, who was born in India, contained false information on his immigration status and made unfounded allegations that he was driving under the influence.

It’s the latest in a series of instances where federal officials have injected politics into developing events. In some cases, statements by federal officials later turn out to be false and detrimental to prosecutions, as the New York Times recently found in at least four instances. Here in Southern California, statements by federal officials have ended up in court documents where Singh’s defense argues his prosecution has been tainted by anti-immigrant bias.

Statements by the Department of Homeland Security labeled Singh a “criminal illegal alien” who was driving under the influence. Singh was seeking asylum and authorized to work in the U.S. by the federal government. Toxicology tests taken after the crash came back negative for all substances.

“It is a terrible tragedy three innocent people lost their lives due to the reckless open border policies that allowed an illegal alien to be released into the U.S. and drive an 18-wheeler on America’s highways,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an Oct. 23 statement.

Arjun Sethi, a racial justice advocate, civil rights lawyer and adjunct professor at Georgetown University said these statements have compromised Singh’s ability to receive a fair trial.

“When you think of the variety of federal statements in this case, you see blatant racial and xenophobic rhetoric that is highly prejudicial,” Sethi said. “How can any juror set aside that rhetoric … and be able to ascertain the truth?”

Public defenders representing Singh argue similar statements by San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson, a deputy in Anderson’s office and the California Highway Patrol violate California's Racial Justice Act, a 2020 law prohibiting prosecutions influenced by racial bias.

Hearings on the Racial Justice Act claims will continue March 10. Singh's trial will commence after a judge rules on those claims. Preet has pleaded not guilty to the felony charges against him.

“I think authorities made statements infused by racial bias in this case,” Sethi, who has served as an expert in Racial Justice Act litigation, told LAist. “Bottom line, California authorities in this case mirror the racist political rhetoric we are hearing from the federal government.”

How we got here 

Six months before the crash that led to the charges against Singh, President Donald Trump took steps to restrict states from issuing commercial driver’s licenses to immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Transportation issued new emergency regulations in September that CalMatters reported could revoke the licenses of up to 61,000 immigrant truck drivers, amounting to 8% of the total commercial licenses in the state.

The department gave California 30 days to come into compliance with these new rules or risk losing millions of dollars in federal highway funds.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office disputed the Trump administration's claims, arguing that California’s licensed truck drivers had a lower fatal crash rate than the national average.

Then, in the early afternoon of Oct. 21, Singh’s semi-truck crashed on a crowded interstate.

Dashboard camera footage shows his truck colliding with passenger vehicles and another truck as one car went up in flames.

Singh was arrested and held without bail. Prosecutors charged him with vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving.

He was initially charged with driving under the influence, but the district attorney dropped those charges after toxicology reports came back negative for all substances.

As a deputy district attorney said in a filing, the crash immediately “generated high media interest and touched off a federal and state official-driven debate surrounding immigration policy and the state's issuance of commercial driver's licenses.”

Two days after the crash, the Department of Homeland Security published a news release arguing Singh, an asylum seeker, entered the country illegally in 2022 “and was RELEASED into the country under the Biden administration.”

DHS officials have not responded to LAist’s requests for comment. McLaughlin will reportedly leave the agency soon.

The U.S. Department of Transportation also issued a news release on Singh’s crash and California’s compliance with the new licensing rules. The release stated that Singh was operating his truck under the influence of drugs, despite a lack of evidence to support that claim.

In an email to LAist, a Department of Transportation spokesperson said California issued Singh’s Commercial Drivers License without properly vetting his qualifications.

Newsom’s press office directed LAist to the California Transportation Agency, which has yet to respond to emailed questions.

But in an earlier statement on social media, Newsom’s office stated that the federal government approved and renewed Singh’s federal employment authorization multiple times, and it was that approval that allowed him to obtain a commercial driver’s license in California.

Racial Justice Act claims

Public defender Jason Tucker argued in an Oct. 31 filing that Singh, his client, has faced multiple violations of the California Racial Justice Act, a law passed in 2020 that prohibits state authorities from seeking convictions or imposing sentences based on race, ethnicity or national origin.

Tucker has not responded to an emailed request for comment.

The filing highlights a motion to increase bail written by a California Highway Patrol officer shortly after the crash that claimed Singh was subject to deportation, despite being an asylum seeker who was authorized to work in the U.S. by the federal government, and a comment by a deputy district attorney about Singh’s use of an interpreter in court.

The primary violation, according to Tucker’s filing, occurred Oct. 23, when Anderson, the district attorney, issued a news release that tied the crash to state and federal policy.

“Had the rule of law been followed by state and federal officials the defendant should have never been in California at all,” Anderson’s statement said, before adding that Anderson’s office would “aggressively prosecute” the case.

According to the defense, this statement “injected Mr. Singh’s national origin, by way of his immigration status, into the criminal justice proceedings, despite evidence to the contrary.”

The DA’s reply

Deputy District Attorney Phillip Stemler, argued in a Nov. 10 court filing that the statements made by the office focus on policy without referencing or disparaging Singh’s identity, do not contain discriminatory language and do not meet the standards of a Racial Justice Act violation. Further, the district attorney is protected by the First Amendment, giving him latitude to speak on policy matters, according to the filing.

Stemler’s response stated that the Oct. 21 crash that killed three people and injured several others in Ontario “touched off a debate” about immigration and truck driving but that it was not Anderson’s office who politicized the case.

“It was federal officials who injected defendant’s immigration status into the media narrative on the defendant’s case,” reads the filing by Stemler, the Racial Justice Act coordinator for the office.

First, the filing references an Oct. 22 social media post by Duffy stating that his department was withholding $40 million from California because the state did not comply with the new federal rules.

“The following day, federal officials ramped up further,” the filing reads, pointing to the Oct. 23 DHS press release on the crash that referred to Singh as a “criminal illegal alien from India.”

Stemler’s filing says that the California Racial Justice Act does not apply to federal officials.

Sethi, the civil rights lawyer, said the statements by federal officials nevertheless compromise Singh’s ability to receive a fair trial.

“Long before Mr. Singh ever sets foot in a courtroom, there is a long shadow of political theater and xenophobic rhetoric that will be cast over him,” Sethi said, “and his case that is the fault of state and federal officials.”

Mara Harris loads a box of produce into her car, along with canned food and boxed goods. It marks the second week in a row she will drive the groceries to families across Los Angeles who say immigration raids are keeping them inside their homes.

“I got involved because I live in Highland Park, which is a primarily Latinx neighborhood, and I was feeling really frustrated and angry about our neighbors being unfairly treated,” Harris said.

Harris is a member of Nefesh, a Jewish outreach community that has partnered with local faith leaders to deliver goods. Her role is straightforward: pick up the groceries, drive them to families who have requested help, and drop them off.

“My husband is an immigrant,” she said. “I just think about the anxiety that we have going through the process, even with the resources we have access to, and I think about how impossible it is for other people to navigate that.”

She added, “It’s just chance that some people were born in countries that are safe and that provide them with opportunities, and other people are not. And I think the U.S. has an obligation to extend that opportunity to those people.”

The grocery deliveries are being organized by a Koreatown church that has seen a decline in attendance at its regular food distribution program in recent months. At the request of church leadership, The LA Local is not naming the church or its congregants out of privacy concerns and to avoid drawing attention to their immigrant community. It’s just one of a network of faith-based organizations responding to the need, and as raids show no signs of slowing down anytime soon, the group is seeking to expand its delivery hubs to more church sites.

Before the recent enforcement activity, the Koreatown church’s regular food distribution served between 500 and 600 people, according to one church organizer. In early February, they saw around 350.

“People are afraid, and unfortunately don’t know about services like this,” she said.

Multiple families have said they’re just too afraid to go out into the neighborhood, according to church leadership.

Since last summer, federal agents have carried out workplace raids, targeted day labor sites and arrested people in public spaces across the region. The Department of Homeland Security reported in December that more than 10,000 people had been detained in the LA area since June.

“There are members of our congregation that have immigration concerns that have told me they’re afraid to go out,” the pastor of the Koreatown church said. “I’ve spoken to at least four different families that are just afraid to go get groceries, are afraid to take their kids or their grandkids to school, and are worried about ICE activity in the neighborhood that’s been happening over the past seven months or so.”

In response, the church began coordinating home grocery deliveries in partnership with Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, or CLUE. The partnership started last summer after church staff noticed a drop in attendance at their weekly food distributions.

“A lot of people were afraid to go to the food bank at (the church), so they saw a big decline and understood that it was because people were afraid to come out, so CLUE partnered with them to do this delivery service,” said Liz Bar-El, a community liaison for CLUE.

Another staff member who has worked at the Koreatown church for six years said operations have been directly affected by enforcement activity in the area.

“I’ve been doing this for about six years. Last week, we had to stop at 11 a.m., and we used to close at 12, 12:30 because the ICE agents were around here,” he said. “And the number of people is decreasing because of ICE raids.”

The church pastor said families do not simply call and request food; there is a screening system to ensure that the program reaches those who are most concerned about leaving their homes.

CLUE has “folks that help call through the list of people that requested it to confirm for the day of their deliveries. They also have somebody that does a screening process to make sure that the people that are getting the deliveries qualify for the parameters of the program so that they’re not just getting people who are like ‘Yeah, you can deliver food to me’ but rather are really concerned about their status,” he said.

But Bar-El, the organizer with CLUE, said identifying families can be difficult.

“It’s likely due to fear of trusting somebody, they are hiding in their homes,” she said. “One way to reach them is through their pastors and the rapid response network that CLUE is a part of.”

Many of the requests stem from sudden changes in a family’s circumstances.

“This current situation with grocery delivery is mostly people who need help getting food because somebody got detained, deported and or the main breadwinner lost their job,” Bar-El said. “In one case, the husband was recently bonded out, and the wife was left home with three very small children.”

For Harris, the volunteer delivering food across multiple neighborhoods, the work is personal. She often thinks about her own family’s immigration status.

“My husband is British and he’s been working here off work visas for six years. He just applied for a non-conditional green card last year. So I take our anxiety and worries and extrapolate it,” she said.

Organizers don’t expect the need for this service to ease anytime soon. Bar-El said they plan to expand the effort to another church in Hollywood and are seeking more volunteers.

“I believe it’s my responsibility as someone who is one of the lucky ones and who does have resources and privilege to do what I can for my neighbors and for my city that I love that is so diverse and wonderful,” Harris said.