California Proposition 199, Phase-Out of Rent Control on Mobile Homes (1996)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 199, also known as the Mobile Home Rent Assistance/Control Restrictions Initiative, was on the March 26, 1996 primary election ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.

Proposition 199 would have phases out rent control laws covering mobile homes and would have prohibited local governments in the state from enacted new mobile home rent control laws. Proposition 199 would also have required owners of mobile home parks to provide rent discounts to low-income mobile home owners.

In 1996, about 500,000 California households lived in mobilehomes and about 100 cities and counties throughout the state had laws restricting the amount of rent that mobile home park owners could charge.

Election results

Proposition 199
Defeatedd No3,348,93060.8%
Yes 2,159,316 39.2%

Text of measure



The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

  • Phases out local rent control laws on mobile homes.
  • Prohibits new state and local rent control laws.
  • Limits existing local rent control laws to current spaces.
  • Prohibits controls on rent increases smaller than annual cost-of-living increase; eliminates controls on rent for space when tenancy or unit ownership changes.
  • Requires park owners to provide subsidy of 10% of monthly rent for very low-income tenants if fewer than 10% of existing spaces are subject to rent control and if subsidy will not subject more than 10% of spaces to rent control or subsidy.

Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 199. That estimate was:

"Future savings to local agencies totaling statewide at least several million dollars annually."

Campaign donations

According to the campaign finance reporting system sponsored by the California Secretary of State, $3,183,120 was spent to support Proposition 199 and about $880,000 was spent to oppose it.[1]

See also

External links