The Hidden Risks of Prop 33 and 34: California’s Housing and Healthcare Battle

Both Props 33 and 34 are wrapped in good intentions, but they come with serious consequences.

What’s the Deal with Prop 33?

Prop 33 might sound like a good deal—rent control, right? But when you dig into the details, it starts to feel more like a band-aid for a bullet wound. This proposition would expand rent control across California, letting cities regulate rents for all housing types, including single-family homes. But here’s the kicker: this isn’t the first time this rent control push has hit the ballot. It was rejected by voters in both 2018 and 2020. Why is it back?

The driving force behind Prop 33 is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). Yes, a healthcare organization. They’ve poured millions into this initiative over the years, despite housing not being their main focus. That’s weird, right? An organization that’s supposed to be helping patients is now deeply embedded in real estate politics. Their argument is that housing is health care, but critics argue they’re just overstepping into areas where they don’t belong​.

How Prop 33 Could Backfire on Renters

Here’s where Prop 33 gets tricky. Rent control often leads to a reduction in available rental properties because landlords get spooked. If they can’t charge competitive rents, some landlords sell, others stop building new housing, and those with properties on the market start pulling back. This could lead to fewer rental units overall, meaning less housing for everyone—exactly the opposite of what California needs. The state is already in the midst of a housing crisis, and Prop 33 could make that problem worse by discouraging development and new construction​.

The Hidden Power Play Behind Prop 34

Prop 34, on the other hand, takes aim at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. This measure is framed as a way to keep healthcare providers in check, forcing them to spend at least 98% of their discounted drug revenue on direct patient care. Sounds fair enough, right? Except Prop 34 is really more of a targeted attack. AHF is one of the only groups that would be affected by this measure, because they’ve been spending a significant chunk of their revenue on housing projects and political campaigns instead of strictly focusing on healthcare.AHF’s opponents, namely the California Apartment Association (CAA), are behind Prop 34. The CAA represents landlords and property managers, and they’re not happy with AHF’s push for rent control. Essentially, this proposition is their way of telling AHF to stick to healthcare and stop meddling in real estate. If that doesn’t sound like a feud you want to be part of, you’re not alone​.

How Prop 34 Could Complicate Healthcare

Now, while Prop 34 is mostly about reining in AHF, it’s not without its downsides. Some argue that if organizations like AHF are forced to funnel almost all their revenue into patient care, they’ll lose the ability to engage in broader health initiatives, like addressing homelessness. After all, housing and healthcare are connected, especially when you’re dealing with vulnerable populations. But Prop 34 doesn’t offer much nuance—it’s an all-or-nothing approach that could leave healthcare providers with their hands tied.

So before you hit the polls, take a step back. These propositions might sound good on paper, but they’re packed with messy politics and unintended consequences that could do more harm than good. Let’s keep California’s housing and healthcare focused on real solutions—not power plays and political feuds.