One of the fiercest legislative fights of 2019 was over a bill limiting the amount that many California landlords can hike rent.

Six years later, legislators were back at it again as the Assembly’s housing committee took up a bill Thursday, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra of San Jose, which would: 

• Reduce the cap from 10% to 5% (or 2% plus the current inflation rate, whichever is lower);
• Extend the law to single-family homes (currently exempt);
• Make the law permanent (current law sunsets in 2030).

If crowd size at a mid-morning weekday committee hearing is any indication, Assembly Bill 1157 is among the most contentious bills of the year. Advocates on both sides crowded into the hearing room and blocked the hallway outside in color-coded droves. Tenant advocates with the nonprofit Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment sported yellow; landlords allied with the California Apartment Association made up a sea of red. 

Supporters of the bill argue that the current statutory cap is far too high for low-income renters, especially given the punishing inflation of the last few years, and that the carve-out for single-family homes is unfair.

• Tammy Alvarado, a San Diego County renter and bill proponent: “Most people’s American dream is to buy a house and ours is just to remain in our house. Unless something changes, becoming homeless is a reality for my family.”

The bill passed the committee, but narrowly, 7 to 5.

Many Democrats, particularly in the Assembly, have trained their legislative focus this year on making it easier, cheaper and more enticing to build new housing. Even some of the lawmakers who voted for the bill Thursday did so half-heartedly, lamenting the cooling effect the policy might have on the construction of new homes at a time when the state is desperate for more overall supply.

As with current law, the bill would not apply to homes that are 15 years old or newer. Most economists agree that rent control measures do tend to discourage the construction of new homes and the upkeep of old ones, while providing financial stability to long-time renters. And as with any policy, the details matter.

The tension between supply boosters and skeptics is likely to become a dominant theme in this year’s legislative session. On Monday, a major housing production bill stalled and another only barely skated by in the Senate Housing Committee, when the chairperson called the bills’ lack of hardcoded affordability requirements a “non-starter.” 

Two days later, over in the Assembly, Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, issued his list of priority housing legislation. Notably, AB 1157 did not make the cut.

Last month, voters in San Mateo County overwhelmingly approved a measure to grant its board of supervisors the authority to remove the county sheriff by a four-fifths vote. 

This result, as CalMatters’ Nigel Duara explains, follows a gripping saga that includes a 408-page report, commissioned by the county, which accuses San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus of nepotism and conflicting relationships. 

After being elected to office in 2022, Corpus appointed one of her campaign consultants, Victor Aenlle, to the executive director of administration. But Aenlle’s relationship with Corpus was more than a “mere friendship,” according to the November report by a retired Santa Clara superior court judge, and included a trip to Hawaii and lavish gifts. During this time Corpus made at least four requests to raise Aenlle’s salary. One was granted, raising his pay to $246,979. 

Aenelle told CalMatters the claims are “fabricated,” and that there is a campaign to remove Corpus from office because she threatened the overtime pay that deputies were expecting. 

The San Mateo County Executive is suing the embattled county sheriff, who is refusing to resign, and Corpus is suing the county. If the board is successful at removing her — a process expected to take at least three months — it would be the first time in California’s history a county sheriff is removed from office.

Read more here.

From CalMatters homelessness reporter Marisa Kendall:

State Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez’s effort to stop cities from arresting homeless people for camping in public places fell flat this week in the face of opposition from cities and law enforcement agencies. 

With visible tears, the Democrat from Pasadena opted to cut the most controversial part of her bill.

• Pérez: “I understand that cities still want the ability to be able to provide clean communities for residents. But at the same time, we need to recognize that these are people with humanity, too.”

Pérez agreed to amend Senate Bill 634 to instead prohibit cities from punishing outreach workers for providing aid to unhoused people (Fremont recently criminalized “aiding” and “abetting” homeless camps, but later walked back that language). The bill also would prevent cities from passing ordinances that ban shelters and supportive housing (as Norwalk did last year).

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie was among those who opposed Pérez’s effort to limit how cities crack down on homeless camps. The original bill “threatens the city’s progress” on homelessness and would make it difficult to connect people to services, he said in a letter read aloud by a representative during the hearing.

A federal judge Thursday blocked President Donald Trump’s directive to cut funding for public schools that did not eliminate their diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Find out how much California’s K-12 schools could lose in federal funding from CalMatters’ Carolyn Jones.

California Voices

CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: California is a complex state with many issues — being its next governor will be a daunting task and should not be viewed as a mere “next step” for former Vice President Kamala Harris.