We’re so excited to share great news! The California Secretary of State announced in April that the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 has more than enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot. You did it!
Thank you to everyone who supported this challenging effort, who signed the petition, collected signatures and helped to spread the word. As Howard Jarvis often said, “It takes all of us, and then some.”
The Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 will restore the two-thirds vote requirement for ALL local special taxes and ban taxes on the sale of real estate. Those protections were in Prop. 13, but courts have carved loopholes, costing taxpayers billions of dollars they should not have had to pay.
Our initiative will once again make it HARDER to raise taxes.
It will also REPEAL taxes on the sale of real estate (called transfer taxes) that have been allowed by the courts, as well as parcel taxes that passed with less than the required two-thirds vote.
As difficult as it was to collect 1.3 million signatures, the really hard part starts now.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will lead the campaign to pass the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13. We will need radio commercials, yard signs, mailers, billboards and every other kind of advertising within our means to reach every voter in California. We’re a grassroots organization, member-supported, that runs on small donations from taxpayers who know how important it is to limit the government’s ability to raise taxes. We have to get the word out, starting now.
Many people have asked us about the title and summary given to the measure by the attorney general. We’ll need a lot of advertising to overcome it, but we believe we can explain why voters should vote YES:
HJTA has already demonstrated that we can convince voters to defeat tax increases, even when we are outspent by special interests. Now we have to prove that we can persuade voters to pass the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13. Our message: This will make it harder to raise taxes. Vote YES!
With your help we have come this far already, and with your help we will get across the finish line in November! Thank you!
P.S. Your donation at this time goes even further, because we can reserve advertising before prices go up, as they will, when we get closer to the election. Go to www.hjta.org/saveprop13/ to donate if you possibly can.
Court Strikes Down LA’s Relocation Fee for RSO-Exempt Units
A California appeals court struck down a Los Angeles ordinance that forced landlords exempt from LA’s RSO to pay relocation fees to tenants who moved out following legal rent increases. The court ruled this regulation conflicts with the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which allows owners of certain properties (such as single-family homes, condos, and post-1978 units) to set their own rental rates, finding the fee discouraged that right.
Key Aspects of the Ruling:
- The Law Overturned: The 2023 ordinance required landlords to pay relocation assistance when tenants voluntarily left after a rent increase exceeding a set threshold.
- Conflict with State Law: The Court of Appeal deemed the policy preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Act, concluding that forcing payment for lawful rent hikes is improper.
- Scope of Impact: The decision directly impacts owners of units otherwise exempt from local rent control, such as single-family homes and condominiums.
- Partial Win for Landlords: While the relocation fee was invalidated, the court upheld other portions of the city’s renter protections, including requirements surrounding eviction processes.
The court’s reasoning mirrors its December 2025 analysis in a Pasadena case involving Measure H, a voter-approved charter amendment. The Second District largely upheld the measure’s rent caps on covered multifamily properties, just-cause protections, and rental registry but struck down the relocation assistance provision as applied to exempt units (e.g., single-family homes, condominiums, and newer construction).
Landlords Hope to Recoup $1.5 Billion in Pandemic Rent Losses
The lawsuit, Darby Development Company, Inc. v. United States, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, challenges the legality of the federal government’s COVID-19 eviction moratorium.
After initially losing in the Court of Federal Claims in 2022, a group of landlords won on appeal and are now hoping to recoup as much as $1.5 billion from the Justice Department over losses they suffered as a result of the federal eviction moratorium during the COVID-19 pandemic. They say the amount would be just a fraction of what the industry lost. The federal eviction moratorium lasted from September 2020 through July 2021, and was among the pandemic’s most divisive policies.
A survey by the National Rental Home Council, a trade association, published weeks after the federal moratorium ended, found that half of small landlords nationwide had tenants who missed rent and a third sold or planned to sell properties.
The moratorium and backlog of eviction cases cost owners $57 billion, according to the lawsuit, with more than 10 million delinquent renters in the ban’s first four months alone.
Landlords say the bans devastated their businesses. Unable to collect rent, many were forced to take on debt, lay off staff, delay repairs and, in some cases, sell their property. They say the impact lingers, with longer delays for evictions, tighter screening for riskier tenants and growing numbers of owners getting out of the rental business altogether.
Redwood City Rent Control Returns To The Ballot Box
Despite a similar effort failing in 2024 after proponents did not gather the 4,839 valid signatures required to qualify for the ballot, a coalition is working to qualify a November 2026 ballot measure that would significantly expand rent control, tighten eviction rules, and impose new fees on housing providers to fund a city-run regulatory program.
Key Provisions of the “Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance”:
- Rent rollback and caps: Rents would reset to October 2025 levels, with future increases limited to 60% of CPI, capped at 5%.
- Expanded eviction controls: Just-cause protections would be broadened, with no-fault terminations triggering relocation payments of four times HUD fair market rent or $12,000 – whichever is greater – with additional amounts for certain tenants.
- New regulatory program: A Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Program would be created, funded by annual per-unit fees on housing providers.
- Enforcement mechanisms: The measure would authorize enforcement actions by tenants or the city, including potential damages and attorneys’ fees.
Two California Home Insurers to Raise Rates, Expand Coverage
Travelers Insurance and the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (AAA Southern California) have filed for rate hikes under California’s new catastrophic risk model, with Travelers seeking a 6.9% increase and the Auto Club seeking an 11.2% increase for single-family homeowners. These changes are part of the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, which requires insurers to expand coverage in distressed wildfire areas – such as adding over 2,000 new policies in fire-risk zones for the Auto Club – in exchange for using forward-looking risk factors to justify premium adjustments.
While single-family home rates are rising, both insurers are proposing significant rate reductions for renters and condo owners:
- Travelers plans to lower rates by 17% for renters, 22.8% for condo owners, and 19.6% for condominium landlords.
- The Auto Club plans to lower rates by 27% for renters and 20.5% for condo owners.
The filings aim to help homeowners exit the FAIR Plan (the state’s insurer of last resort), which saw its exposure grow by 42% between September 2024 and June 2025. If approved by the California Department of Insurance, these rate changes and coverage expansions are expected to take effect by late 2026.
Three Ways Landlords Increase Getting Paid (before it’s late)
- Send a reminder.After accounting for factors such as prior payment history, autopay enrollment, and rent amount, tenants who did not receive a rent reminder were 27% less likely to pay during the grace period. Overall, 58% of tenants who receive a reminder before or within the grace period paid the rent due, compared to 38% of tenants who did not receive a reminder.
- Schedule Autopay.Payment data underscores why tenants enrolled in an autopay, pay rent on time 99% of the time, making it one of the strongest predictors of consistent payment. By turning rent into a recurring transaction rather than a monthly task, autopay removes timing risk caused by forgetfulness, travel, or competing priorities.
- Offer ACH or Bank Transfer.In a RentRedi tenant survey, 58% said they prefer paying rent via ACH or bank transfer, while 34% prefer credit or debit cards. Only 8% prefer cash or checks.
- Provide Rent Reporting to Credit Bureaus.Across portfolios of all sizes, credit reporting is the most commonly used incentive to encourage on-time rent payments. RentRedi data demonstrates that reporting on-time rent payments to the major credit bureaus is associated with a 13% increase in on-time payments.
A recent survey provided the basis for the above findings, provided by Jeff Taylor, Mr. Landlord.