The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently ignited a heated debate over a nonbinding resolution supporting the repeal of Costa-Hawkins, a 1995 California law limiting cities’ abilities to implement rent control. The board voted 8-2 to endorse Proposition 33, a statewide ballot measure for November, aiming to overturn Costa-Hawkins and expand rent control to combat the city’s affordability crisis.

Supporters, including Supervisor Dean Preston, argue that repealing Costa-Hawkins is crucial for protecting tenants from soaring rents and gentrification. They contend that the law has long hindered cities like San Francisco from adequately shielding residents from the escalating housing costs. Proposition 33, they assert, would empower local governments to set their rent control policies, freeing them from state restrictions.

Opponents, however, warn that the measure could stymie new housing developments. Supervisors Catherine Stefani and Matt Dorsey voiced concerns that expanding rent control could discourage developers, citing reports that suggest rent control might make residential construction unprofitable. They argue that repealing Costa-Hawkins could be a ploy to block state-mandated housing initiatives, ultimately exacerbating the housing shortage.

The debate grew contentious, with accusations flying between supervisors. Supervisor Hillary Ronen dismissed the opposition’s concerns as distortions, while Dorsey insisted his stance did not reflect opposition to rent control but rather apprehension about the measure’s broader implications.

Proposition 33 has polarized San Francisco’s housing advocates, with tenant groups and anti-poverty organizations largely supporting it, while landlord associations and pro-development groups express skepticism. The measure’s outcome could significantly impact over 100,000 housing units in San Francisco currently exempt from rent control.

Despite the resolution’s symbolic nature, it underscores the city’s deep divisions over how to address its housing crisis and reflects broader statewide debates about balancing tenant protections with housing production.