Commentary: Rental registry could pave the way to rent control

The Costa Mesa City Council recently considered creating a rental registry — a key component of rent control — even though local voters have repeatedly rejected local government expanding rent control.

Proponents tried to frame the registry as a simple data collection tool. But in California, rent registries don’t exist in a vacuum. They are often part of rent control programs.

Costa Mesa does not have rent control, and voters have made it clear that they don’t want it.

That should matter. Even in the face of term limits, elected officials answer to voters — not to economically failed policies voters have already rejected.

Supporters of the proposal argued that the city “just needs data.” But they never clearly explained how collecting this data would create more housing or improve affordability.

The city should start by identifying the problem it’s trying to solve — not by building a new bureaucracy.

There are also real fiscal concerns. In other cities, rent registry programs have struggled to cover their own costs, often requiring subsidies from the general fund. In neighboring Santa Ana, rent registry revenues came in approximately $1.3 million, well below projections in the program’s first year.

Subsidizing rent registries means fewer resources for core services like parks, public safety and infrastructure.

And then there are privacy risks. The proposal would have required landlords to report detailed tenant information to the city, raising serious concerns about how that data would be stored, protected and shared.

California law already recognizes the sensitivity of eviction filings by automatically sealing cases after 60 days if there is no final judgment, in order to prevent unfair stigma and discrimination.

An unresolved unlawful detainer filing does not reflect how a case was
ultimately resolved, yet it can still be misinterpreted by screening tools. Expanding local data collection risks preserving and exposing incomplete information that state law is specifically designed to limit.

It also raises broader concerns about how such data could be accessed or used. Information collected by the city could be obtained by third parties through public records requests.

Federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have been documented to use large data sets to identify and track individuals. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice recently sued the Orange County Registrar of Voters to obtain sensitive, unredacted voter data — highlighting that even locally held records can become the subject of federal demands.

Without clear safeguards, collecting and storing tenant information creates risks that extend well beyond the program’s stated purpose.

These are not minor details. They are fundamental issues.

Thankfully, a majority of the City Council recognized these concerns and voted not to move forward. That decision reflects a respect for voter intent, fiscal responsibility and the need to carefully evaluate new regulatory programs before adopting them.

Costa Mesa can and should pursue housing solutions — but they should be
practical, effective and aligned with what residents have clearly said they want.

Jeffrey Butcher is a Costa Mesa resident of 30 years and a small housing provider.