The lowdown on how L.A.’s tenant protections began
Cato Hernández
has scoured through tons of archives to understand how our region became the way it is today.
Published August 30, 2023 5:00 AM
Coalition for Economic Survival members walk to City Hall ahead of the rent rollback vote on Aug. 16, 1977.
(
Herald Examiner Collection
/
Los Angeles Public Library
)
Topline:
Rent control has been a way for governments to keep prices of tenant costs low, but it’s never just been about fighting for the underdog. We explore key moments that have shaped the controversial protections over decades.
When did rent control start? It depends. There was a federal rent freeze amid WWII, but L.A.’s form of rent control started in the late 1970s, an effort that arose out of frustration with inflation and a combination of other factors that many say benefited landlords more.
Are all rent control laws created equal? Definitely not. Rent control increases are often tied to inflation, but sometimes rates change depending on how you crack the math. Some areas had rules about whether rents could rise between tenants, which was considered a strong measure that ultimately got tossed out in California.
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.
RENT CONTROL GUIDE
How much can rent go up in my neighborhood?
Read our rent control guide to find out how much your rent can be legally increased each year, depending on where you live in L.A. County.
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.
— Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival
“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].
— Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival
“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.”
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.
Suzanne Levy
is a senior editor on the Explore LA team, where she oversees food, LA Explained and other feature stories.
Published April 21, 2026 5:31 PM
The iconic King Taco sign at the original Cypress Park location, which opened in 1974 and is now being considered for Historic-Cultural Monument designation.
(
Suzanne Levy
/
LAist
)
Topline:
The original King Taco restaurant in Cypress Park will become a Historic-Cultural Monument after the L.A. City Council voted 10-0 on Tuesday. Raul Martinez launched the business in 1974, when it started out as a food truck.
Why it matters: King Taco helped establish the template for the modern L.A. taqueria — shifting the city's understanding of tacos from the hard-shell, Americanized version to soft tortillas filled with carne asada, carnitas and tacos al pastor. It's now one of the few designated restaurant landmarks recognizing Latino culinary contributions.
The backstory: Founder Raul Martinez launched King Taco from a converted ice cream truck in 1974, eventually opening the Cypress Park brick-and-mortar location that became the chain's flagship. The business grew to 24 locations across Southern California.
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez
is an arts and general assignment reporter on LAist's Explore LA team.
Published April 21, 2026 4:49 PM
One of the many "personal delivery devices" bots in cities across the U.S.
(
Courtesy Serve Robotics
)
Topline:
They may be cute, but cities are now deciding how to regulate them — and charge them for their use of public infrastructure. Glendale and Long Beach are in the process of creating new rules and fees for personal delivery devices, as they're called, while L.A. is looking at overhauling existing regulations to increase city revenue.
Why it matters: There’s significant growth projected for companies that create and run delivery bots. City officials see that as a source of revenue and are thinking about how to increase it as the bots become more prevalent, potentially charging a fee per trip rather than a flat fee as is current practice.
Why now: Delivery bots perform an essential service delivering products from Domino’s pizza to Walmart purchases. Companies that create the bots say their tech cuts down on the number of car trips making such deliveries.
What's next: Officials in the cities of L.A., Long Beach and Glendale say staff will submit their recommendations for delivery bot regulations in the next several months.
Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.
Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.
That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."
He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.
“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.
Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.
The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages
The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.
One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.
A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach
“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.
That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said.
She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots.
Tell city officials what you think about delivery bots
L.A. residents can give the city their opinion at this link.
Glendale residents can email: CityCouncil@GlendaleCA.gov
Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.
“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.
Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.
(
Meg Kelly
/
NPR
)
The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.
A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
CSULA receives money to expand social work program
By Laura Anaya-Morga | The LA Local
Published April 21, 2026 4:00 PM
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
(
Courtesy CSULA
)
Topline:
A $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.
How the money will be used: The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.
Why it matters: The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care. Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services. At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans.
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.”
Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.
What will the funding do?
The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program.
Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.
Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care.
“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”
In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million.
When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.
(
Courtesy CSULA
)
Why representation matters
For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal.
Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up.
“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said.
Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home.
Barriers to access
The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.
Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.
At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession.
In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.
Students hope to give back
For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.
The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA.
Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness.
After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.
“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.
For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.
Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.
People walk past a homeless encampment near the waterfront in downtown Stockton on March 26.
(
Larry Valenzuela
/
CalMatters
)
Topline:
California for now has prevented the Trump administration from changing priorities in homelessness funding to favor temporary shelters rather than long-term housing.
More details: California scored a legal victory Monday that, for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing. Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.
The backstory: In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.
Read on... for more on the new development.
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.
“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”
In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.
Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.
The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.
Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.
A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.
“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”
About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.
In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”
“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”
