PSAR has endorsed the following candidates for the November 2024 General Election.

___________________________________

Measures and Propositions

National City
Vote NO on Measure R - Parcel Tax

Chula Vista
Vote YES on Measure P

California
Vote NO on Prop 33 - Rent Control

No on Prop 33 Video

_______________________________________________

PSAR's mission is to empower REALTORS®.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth, and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

Understanding Rent Control and Proposition 33

Rent control policies, such as those proposed under Proposition 33, aim to limit the amount landlords can charge for rent. While these policies are often introduced to protect renters, they can lead to unintended and harmful consequences for renters, property owners, and the broader housing market. Proposition 33, in particular, seeks to expand rent control by eliminating the protections provided under the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which currently exempts single-family homes and new construction from local rent control ordinances.

Distortion of Supply and Demand

Rent control disrupts the natural balance of housing supply and demand. By capping rents, developers and property owners lose the financial incentive to build or maintain rental properties, leading to a reduction in the overall supply of housing. As the supply decreases, demand continues to rise, particularly in high-demand areas, resulting in a housing shortage. This shortage makes it increasingly difficult for renters to find available units, driving up competition and ultimately exacerbating the very affordability issues rent control aims to address.

Impact on Single-Family Homes and Property Owners

Proposition 33 would remove the current protections for single-family homes under Costa-Hawkins, allowing local governments to impose rent control on these properties. This change would have far-reaching effects on homeowners, including retirees, service members, and others who might want to return to their homes after renting them out. These homeowners could be restricted from setting their own rental rates, limiting their ability to use or sell their properties as they see fit.

For property owners looking to sell their rental properties, Proposition 33 would further complicate matters. Under rent control, the value of these properties may decrease, limiting the pool of potential buyers. Instead of selling to first-time homebuyers or middle-class families, owners may be forced to sell to wealthy investors who can navigate the complexities of rent-controlled properties. This dynamic could further exacerbate housing inequality and reduce homeownership opportunities for many Californians.

Does Rent Control Truly Benefit the Poor?

While rent control is often marketed as a tool to help low-income renters, it does not require that applicants pass a means test to qualify for these benefits. As a result, rent-controlled units are sometimes occupied by higher-income tenants who do not need the financial assistance intended for the poor. This situation creates an unfair advantage for wealthier individuals who secure these below-market rents at the expense of property owners, who are forced to subsidize these tenants.

Moreover, wealthier individuals living in rent-controlled units are unlikely to leave, as they continue to benefit from artificially low rents. This reduces turnover and makes it more difficult for new residents, especially those from low-income backgrounds, to find affordable housing. In some cases, these individuals can even maintain their rent-controlled units while subletting them to others at higher rates, further distorting the market and benefiting those who do not need the help.

This inequity highlights a fundamental flaw in rent control policies: they do not necessarily target those most in need of housing assistance. Instead, they can provide significant benefits to those who are already financially secure, exacerbating the challenges faced by low-income renters who are unable to compete in a market with limited affordable housing options.

Landlords Targeting “Better” Tenants

Another unintended consequence of rent control is that it incentivizes landlords to be more selective about the tenants they accept. Knowing that they could be stuck with a tenant indefinitely, landlords may prioritize applicants with higher incomes, stable jobs, and strong credit histories, effectively shutting out lower-income renters. This selective process can deepen inequalities in the housing market, making it even harder for vulnerable populations to secure housing.

In some cases, landlords may even choose to convert rental units into condominiums or sell their properties to avoid the restrictions of rent control altogether. This further reduces the availability of rental housing and can contribute to gentrification, where lower-income residents are displaced from their neighborhoods.

Impact on Local Governments

The ripple effects of Proposition 33 extend to local governments as well. As property values decline due to the reduced profitability of rent-controlled properties, so too does the property tax revenue that local governments rely on to fund essential services like public safety, education, and infrastructure. In cities where rent control is widely implemented, these reductions in revenue can lead to budget shortfalls, forcing cuts to critical services that impact the entire community.

Additionally, as the rental housing market contracts, the housing shortage could worsen, leading to increased homelessness and placing further strain on government resources. Local governments may find themselves in the difficult position of having to address the unintended social consequences of rent control, from increased demand for social services to the need for more affordable housing construction, which itself may be hampered by the disincentives created by Proposition 33.

Conclusion

Proposition 33 and the expansion of rent control might seem like a solution to California’s housing crisis, but they are more likely to exacerbate existing problems. Rent control distorts the housing market by reducing supply and increasing demand, often failing to benefit the low-income renters it is supposed to help, and encourages landlords to be more selective, shutting out those most in need of affordable housing. Additionally, the policy threatens to reduce property tax revenues, which could lead to cuts in essential public services and worsen the state’s housing shortage.

Furthermore, by allowing rent control on single-family homes, Proposition 33 risks harming retirees, service members, and other homeowners who may wish to return to or sell their properties. It also limits opportunities for first-time homebuyers, favoring wealthy investors who can navigate the complexities of rent-controlled properties. The opposition from leaders like Senator Toni Atkins and Mayor Todd Gloria underscores the potential damage this proposition could do to housing development and affordability.

Moreover, rent control does not require means testing, which can lead to situations where wealthier individuals benefit from below-market rents at the expense of property owners and those who truly need affordable housing. This lack of targeting makes rent control not only ineffective but also unfair, as it can allow wealthier tenants to remain in rent-controlled units indefinitely, further reducing opportunities for low-income renters.

For these reasons, it is crucial to oppose Proposition 33. Instead of expanding rent control, California needs policies that encourage the development of more housing, improve the quality of existing rental units, and truly address the needs of low-income renters. Only by addressing the root causes of the housing crisis can we create a more stable and equitable housing market for all Californians.

A recent forum at the PSAR East County Events Center addressed California’s homeowner's insurance crisis. Experts shared insights and discussed ongoing efforts to improve the situation. Key takeaways include:

• Legislative Efforts: Legislators and state officials are actively working to solve insurance problems.
• Appeal Process: Consumers can appeal insurance cancellations through the California Department of Insurance.
• Regulatory Changes: The California Department of Insurance is considering regulations for forward-looking risk modeling to facilitate policy writing.
• Rate Hikes: State regulators may approve double-digit rate hikes as part of the Sustainable Insurance Strategy.
• HOA Challenges: Homeowners associations face significant increases in master policy prices.
• Early Shopping: Members’ clients should start shopping early for homeowners insurance due to rising costs.
• Cal Fire Resources: Cal Fire offers maps, home inspection resources, and suggestions for creating defensible space.
• Economic Realities: Factors like home age, and age of electrical, plumbing, and roofing systems contribute to higher rates. Inflation and increased home values also drive premium surges.
• Catastrophe Modeling: Allowing insurers to use future risk assessments with historical data might reduce reliance on the FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort.
• FAIR Plan Safety Net: The FAIR Plan is crucial for many Californians amid climate-related threats.
• Legislative Insights: Insights into legislative efforts to control insurance costs were provided by Chris Jonsmyr from Assemblymember David Alvarez’s office.

The panelists included: Cal Fire Battalion Chief Alex Elward, Sharon Smith - California Department of Insurance, 
Maureen Moran - PSAR Member & Insurance Agent, Bob Hillard - PSAR Member & Insurance Agent, and Chris Jonsmyr - Office of Assemblymember David Alvarez

Thank you to Kay LeMenager - PSAR Broker, Organizer of the Forum, and Chair of PSAR’s Government Affairs Committee who worked with the East San Diego County Government Affairs Sub-Committee to host this informative event.  

Please see this link for an FAQ from the California Commissioner of Insurance.

In the wake of emergencies, the real estate industry in California faces unique challenges. Understanding the state's anti-price gouging laws is crucial whether you're a sales agent, broker, or property manager. These laws not only protect consumers during crises but also guide professionals in maintaining ethical standards.

Here's what you need to know: 

The Essence of Price Gouging in Real Estate
Price gouging occurs when prices for housing, rentals, or other essential services are significantly increased to exploit an emergency. For real estate professionals, this typically relates to the pricing of rentals, homes for sale, and emergency lodging. The goal is to prevent undue strain on those affected by disasters, ensuring access to housing remains fair and equitable.

California’s Stance on Price Gouging
California law, specifically Penal Code Section 396, restricts increasing the price of housing and other essential services by more than 10% following an emergency declaration. This applies to sales, rentals, and services across the board, ensuring that real estate professionals are aligned with legal and ethical pricing standards during critical times.

Timing and Application of the Law
These protections activate immediately upon an emergency declaration by federal, state, or local authorities and are initially set for 30 days. For real estate-related services, like reconstruction and cleanup, the period extends to 180 days. Importantly, officials can extend these timeframes to meet ongoing needs, affecting how properties are marketed and managed.

Staying Informed on Declarations
Real estate professionals should closely monitor emergency declarations to comply with legal requirements. This includes staying updated through the Governor's website and local government channels. Awareness of state and local declarations is key to ensuring your practices align with current regulations. The following locations are under price gouging protections.

Who and What Is Covered?
The statute broadly applies to all entities within the real estate sector, including individuals and companies involved in selling, renting, or managing properties. It covers a wide range of necessities, notably including rental housing, hotels, and motels, ensuring that the industry's response to emergencies is comprehensive and compliant.

Addressing Cost Increases and Violations
If your costs increase due to supplier price hikes, the law allows the cost to be factored into pricing, provided it can be justified. However, compliance with the statute is closely monitored, and violations can lead to severe penalties, including fines and criminal charges. Ensuring transparency and fairness in pricing is crucial to avoid legal repercussions.

Role of Real Estate Professionals in Compliance
As gatekeepers of housing and essential services, real estate professionals have a pivotal role in upholding these laws. This involves adhering to pricing regulations and advising clients and the community on their rights and protections. Your guidance can help navigate the complexities of emergencies, ensuring access to housing remains fair and stable.

Conclusion
For real estate professionals in California, understanding and complying with anti-price gouging laws is essential. These regulations ensure that during emergencies, the industry acts with integrity, maintaining fair pricing and access to housing. By staying informed and adhering to these laws, you play a vital role in supporting communities during their most vulnerable times, reinforcing the ethical standards that define the real estate profession.

This link provides useful guidance for identifying if a state of emergency affecting price gouging in rental housing is in effect. Simply locate your rental property's county on the list and note the code (a letter in parentheses) next to it. Then, refer to the explanations at the bottom of the page to understand which price gouging laws apply to your situation

Important Disclosure
Please note that the information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Real estate laws and regulations can be complex and subject to change. While we strive to present accurate and up-to-date information, we cannot guarantee the completeness, reliability, or applicability of the content to your specific situation.

As a real estate professional, it's essential to understand your actions' legal implications, especially in emergencies and price-gouging laws. Therefore, we strongly recommend consulting with a qualified attorney or legal expert to obtain advice tailored to your specific circumstances. Doing so will ensure you navigate these challenges with the utmost compliance and integrity, safeguarding your professional practice and the communities you serve.

C.A.R. strongly opposes ACA 13, a proposed state constitutional amendment. This proposal aims to make it harder for California voters to bring about changes through initiatives by increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass state and local measures. C.A.R. is against ACA 13 because it would weaken Proposition 13, potentially leading to higher taxes on homeowners and restricting their ability to prevent tax increases.

C.A.R. has issued a Red Alert, urging all California REALTORS® to contact their Assemblymembers and ask them to vote against ACA 13.

Look for the email sent to you from realtorparty@car.org with the subject line "RED ALERT: Protect Prop 13 and Voter Rights."  If you don't see it, please check your spam.

Currently, voter initiatives and constitutional amendments (except for certain taxes) require a simple majority to pass. ACA 13 seeks to change this by requiring any measure attempting to increase the vote percentage for passing local or state ballot measures to meet the same increased percentage requirement. This would impact citizen-led initiatives and not measures referred by the Legislature, creating an uneven playing field.

C.A.R. opposes ACA 13 because:

1. It could raise the cost of buying and owning homes by weakening Proposition 13 protections. ACA 13 wants to undo safeguards set by Proposition 13, which set a 2/3 vote requirement for local governments to raise various homeowner taxes. Passing ACA 13 would make it tougher for homeowners to defend against unjust taxes.

2. It would diminish the power of California's voters. Changing rules solely to avoid certain outcomes goes against the principles of fairness.

3. ACA 13 would exacerbate difficulties for working families to afford homes. A recent report showed that California's housing affordability hit a 16-year low. Higher property taxes could intensify challenges for first-time buyers, hindering their transition from renting to owning. This is crucial for narrowing the state's wealth gap and aiding the diverse population in achieving homeownership and building savings.

PLEASE HELP DEFEAT ACA 13 – CONTACT YOUR ASSEMBLYMEMBER TODAY

Look for C.A.R.’s Red Alert email from realtorparty@car.org

With a subject line that says:
“RED ALERT: Protect Prop 13 and Voter Rights”

San Diego County staff recommends home energy audits during the home sales process.

This strategy is part of a  "Draft Playbook"  released by County staff.  The Playbook is described as a "menu of actions" that is intended as a resource for local governments who seek to take action on decarbonization.

PSAR opposes point-of-sale mandates.  Point of Sale mandates hurt buyers and sellers. They make homes more expensive to buy and since they target such a small number of homes, they do very little to address carbon reduction.

The County is accepting feedback on the Draft Playbook until Thursday, February 2.  Please leave a comment now explaining why point-of-sale or "time-of-sale" mandates are a bad idea.  It is most important to demonstrate how these mandates will impact your clients. 

To add a comment, click on the box below to open the County document, scroll to the section of the document you would like to comment on, and click the section.  A popup window will appear to allow you to leave a comment. 

You will find that point-o-sale mandates are described in the "Requirement" section of items 4.4.1 and item 5.5.1. Time-of-sale is also referred to in section 5.5.4.2.  Click on each of those sections and leave a comment.

For a list of reasons why point-of-sale mandates are a bad idea, you are welcome to refer to the letter from PSAR President Jason Lopez to the County, CLICK HERE to see the letter. You are encouraged to share those ideas in your comments. 

For questions or concerns, please email gad@psar.org. 

Cal Fire is looking for public input on proposed changes.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, typically called CAL Fire, is updating its wildfire risk maps for rural, unincorporated areas throughout the state. It’s been 15 years since the maps were updated.

The updates have the potential for increasing the cost of homeowners insurance in those rural communities reclassified by CAL Fire as more susceptible to wildfires. Metropolitan cities and urban areas are not included in the current updates process.

The public is invited to comment and ask questions about updates to CAL Fire’s Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones (WHSZ) maps. The deadline for public comment is Feb. 3, 2023.

PSAR members are invited to visit a website and enter a property’s address on a map showing CAL Fire’s updates to WHSZ maps. Visit https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/, then scroll to the bottom to find “FHSZ Viewer” and enter an address in the search bar.

You can also visit https://bit.ly/calfiremaps to compare proposed 2022 updates to WHSZ maps, compared to WHSZ maps used in 2007, the year when WHSZ maps were last updated. At this website, you can use a swipe tool to toggle between the maps from 2007 and 2022, and see how ratings for areas have been changed to moderate, high and very high risks.

A CAL Fire statement said fire scientists and wildfire mitigation experts have used science-based and field-tested models to assign a hazard score based on factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Factors include fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetations), predicted flame length, blowing embers, terrain and typical fire weather for an area.

CAL Fire also said insurance companies, including insurance agents and brokers, have been involved throughout the process to ensure cooperation between all sectors to better support Californians.

These changes to wildfire ratings are expected to impact insurance rates, as well as eligibility. While California has a FAIR property insurance plan that provides basic insurance to individuals unable to get coverage, this coverage is considered a “temporary safety net” until the homeowner can obtain a traditional homeowners policy. Even then, homeowners may need to obtain additional insurance from another carrier to increase their coverage to an adequate level.

Written comments can be mailed to FHSZ Comments, California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, P.O. Box 944246, Sacramento, CA 94244-2460.

Comments also can be emailed to Josh Black, San Diego’s contact for the WHSZ map updates program. Black can be reached at josh.black@fire.ca.gov or (619) 609-3413.

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

The Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® (PSAR), a 4,000-member real estate trade group for San Diego-area REALTORS®, recently noted the 10-year anniversary of its merger between two San Diego regional REALTOR® associations, including the El Cajon-based East San Diego County Association of REALTORS® (ESDCAR) and the Chula Vista-based PSAR.

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.

Candidates for the 2022 General Election who are Pro Real Estate

 

PSAR's Mission is to empower Real Estate Professionals.

Since 1928, the Pacific Southwest Association of REALTORS® has played a significant role in shaping the history, growth and development of the Real Estate industry in San Diego County.