In recent years, city after city across San Diego County has rushed to pass its own version of a Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO) – and now Oceanside is considering a proposal. Chula Vista, San Diego, and Imperial Beach have all followed this trend, layering new requirements on top of state law. But while these local ordinances may sound like progress, they’re actually causing serious housing problems – and doing more harm than good.
Let’s be clear: housing providers are already following strict rules under California’s existing state law, AB 1482. That law sets statewide standards for rent increases, eviction protections, and more. So why are cities now adding another layer of local red tape?
The result is a confusing patchwork of inconsistent rules, deadlines, notices, and legal terms that vary from city to city. For big companies with legal teams and compliance departments, that might be manageable. However, that’s less than 30% of the market. For the typical housing provider – someone who owns one or two houses, condos or apartments – it’s a nightmare.
One Northern California homeowner moved back into her San Diego house, thinking she had followed state law by providing the standard exemption notice – only to learn she had missed a separate city requirement. She’s now facing a lawsuit for more than $300,000.
Here’s another example. Under San Diego’s TPO, if a tenant moves out under certain conditions, housing providers could be required to track them down and offer the unit back – even five years later. That’s not just unrealistic, it’s unworkable.
At SCRHA, we’ve had to create 16 new forms just to help our members stay compliant with the three local TPOs. Sixteen! That includes different rental agreements, exemption notices, termination forms, and disclosure addendums. On top of all that, many have required wording that must be printed in a specific font size or delivered in hard copy.
Even experienced housing providers are struggling to keep up. If you have renters in San Diego, the rules are different than in Chula Vista. And different still in Imperial Beach. The cities claim these ordinances are about fairness and stability – but where’s the fairness in expecting landlords to operate under three different rulebooks plus state law?
The irony is that these burdens discourage the very thing our region desperately needs: more housing. When providers feel like the deck is stacked against them, they’re less likely to invest in their properties and more likely to sell. The people who get hurt the most are renters.
We were encouraged by the City of San Diego’s recent announcement that 2024 was a banner year for housing Downtown, with nearly 1,900 new homes completed and almost 1,700 more on the way. That progress matters. More housing helps stabilize rents and expands options for renters – exactly what we need.
But we can’t afford to stop there. We need more housing across the entire region, not just Downtown. And we need policies that support – not punish – the landlords who help provide it. When the rules become so burdensome that people stop offering rental housing, the whole community loses.
Let’s focus on real solutions, like expanding rental assistance programs and reducing barriers to building new homes. A good start would be expanding the areas where multifamily rentals are allowed. These are policies that help renters without driving providers away. Local governments should be working with housing providers, not against them.
It may be politically popular to pass laws that sound like tenant protections, but when those policies make it harder to provide housing, we all lose in the long run.
Alan Pentico is Executive Director, Southern California Rental Housing Association.
