Los Angeles is nearing final approval of a major update to the city’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The proposal adjusts how annual rent increases are calculated, limits rent banking practices that allow sudden price jumps, and adds enforcement provisions so tenants have a meaningful way to challenge illegal increases. Housing researchers and tenant advocates consider it one of the most important renter protection reforms in decades.

On November 12, the Council voted on the core policy behind the reform. This included adopting a new rent cap formula that would replace the pandemic rent freeze when it expires on February 1. Park voted yes on that foundational action to move the updated protections forward. Because she has consistently aligned with landlord interests on renter protection policy, Park’s yes vote was notable. Some observers interpreted it as a shift driven by growing renter pressure in her district and across Los Angeles. Whatever the reason, Park’s support signaled that the Council might be united on a long sought modernization of Los Angeles rent law.

That unity turned out to be short lived. Park supported the reforms when they were still theoretical, but when it came time to finalize them and make the protections enforceable, she reversed course. Last week, she voted against the final step needed to put the new rent cap into effect. The Council was not reconsidering the value of the reform itself. Instead, members were taking the procedural votes required to adopt the amendments and schedule enforcement for timely approval before February 1. Tenant groups made clear that timing mattered. Any delay would translate into surprise rent hikes that many families could not absorb. Immigrant families, seniors, and lower wage workers would be at greatest risk. Public commenters repeatedly urged the Council to finish the process immediately in order to prevent displacement. As one tenant explained, “We are already receiving threats from landlords that rent will go up as soon as they are allowed.”

During the December 5 debate, Park was entirely focused on harm to landlords. She pressed the City Attorney and Housing Department about whether landlords had already been told a different set of expected rent increase figures last year and whether changing direction now would disrupt those expectations. She asked how much time landlords would need to communicate updated rules to tenants and raised the possibility that adjusting the formula at this stage could violate commitments made to housing providers. City staff explained that landlords had been aware that the Council was considering changes and that January would be the notice period for updated rules regardless.

Nothing in Park’s comments reflected the urgent warnings from constituents about the need for protections to be in place before the February deadline. When the time came to vote, she opposed the reforms, voting against moving the strengthened tenant protections forward, against continuing work on the alternative version in committee, and against advancing the enforcement package to second reading. No substantial changes had been made to the reforms since November 12, yet Park reversed course and voted no.

For observers familiar with Traci Park’s legislative history, this reversal was consistent with her record. Since taking office in 2022, she has opposed measures designed to protect renters from displacement or sudden rent increases. In January and February 2023, she voted repeatedly against adopting pandemic replacement protections, including universal just cause eviction standards, minimum thresholds for nonpayment eviction, and relocation assistance for tenants forced to move through no fault of their own. She also opposed emergency adoption of renter protections as eviction filings surged with the expiration of COVID rules. The pattern continued into late 2023 when Park voted three times against extending the temporary rent freeze on rent stabilized apartments before new rent cap reforms could take effect. In September 2024, she voted against strengthening the Tenant Anti Harassment Ordinance.

Then, in February 2025, Park drew a clear line. After rushing to protect homeowners in the Palisades, she refused even minimal safeguards for the workers who sustain that same community and who lost income when homes and businesses were damaged. When renter protections came up, she voted no at every stage. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez underscored the stakes: “After weeks of delays and deliberation we are still waffling over whether to protect some of the most vulnerable people,” she said, calling the measure “just a small band aid so that more people do not fall into the pipeline that we then have to argue how we are going to fund and fix.” Park still voted no multiple times, prolonging the vulnerability of workers who had already lost income and stability in the disaster. Later that month, she also voted against supporting a state bill introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan that would prevent rent gouging during declared emergencies, a stance that put even Palisades residents at risk if they were displaced from their homes and forced to rent elsewhere in the city.

When viewed together, these votes show a consistent resistance to policies intended to stabilize households and limit sudden rent increases. Park has repeatedly aligned with a minority bloc of councilmembers that prioritize landlord discretion over renter protections. The December 5 vote removed any ambiguity.

Legislative Voting Record: Traci Park Votes Opposing Renter Protections