Last month, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction for Planned Parenthood that stops the Trump administration’s effort to essentially defund that organization. The political and legal issues involved in the Planned Parenthood case are nearly identical to those of Proposition 34, the highly controversial ballot measure in California that aimed to silence AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s housing work. Voters narrowly approved the initiative in November 2024.
From the start, Prop 34, sponsored by the California Apartment Association and funded by corporate landlords, was an extremely shady effort to kill AHF’s pro-rent control, pro-tenant advocacy. Even the state’s major newspapers were outraged over the initiative.
First, to fund the measure, CAA carried out a shell game by having corporate landlords, such as Essex Property Trust, AvalonBay Communities, and Equity Residential, and other landlords contribute $135.8 million to the California Apartment Association Issues Committee. The CAA Issues Committee then quietly moved an eye-popping $44.2 million to the California Apartment Association’s “Yes on Prop 34” committee.
Other contributors sent $316,114 to the Yes on Prop 34 committee, including $250,000 from the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization Political Action Committee. In total, Yes on Prop 34 raised $44.5 million, allowing the California Apartment Association and corporate landlords to carry out a massive misinformation campaign to pass the initiative.
Most disturbingly, AHF, the parent organization of Housing Is A Human Right, rightly maintained that the California Apartment Association and corporate landlords were specifically targeting the HIV/AIDS nonprofit with Prop 34.
Since 2018, AHF has sponsored three ballot measures that sought to end statewide rent control restrictions in California. The initiatives were a direct threat to corporate landlords’ ability to charge excessive rents year after year and to rake in billions in revenue annually. AHF also pushed back against harmful state legislation that the CAA endorsed.
So the California Apartment Association and corporate landlords came up with Prop 34 to silence AHF’s housing advocacy.
Many of the state’s most prominent newspapers slammed the California Apartment Association’s initiative. The San Francisco Chronicle called Prop 34 “cheap political gamesmanship that doesn’t belong on the ballot.” The San Diego Tribune called it a “vengeful attempt funded by landlords” that “sets a terrible precedent.” The Mercury News calls it “Revenge of the Landlords.” And the LA Times describes Prop 34 as a “…murky, self-serving ballot measure,” adding “ [T]he misuse of the ballot … recently reached a … new low.”
AHF made legal arguments that Prop 34 violated AHF’s free-speech rights in retaliation for advocating for rent control, that it constituted a bill of attainder, and that it violated AHF’s guarantees of equal protection under the law. Enter Planned Parenthood.
In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration’s effort to stop patients from using Medicaid as their insurance at Planned Parenthood health centers.
Very similar to AHF’s legal arguments for Prop 34, Planned Parenthood stated in its lawsuit that Trump’s move to essentially defund the organization violated the United States Constitution by subjecting it to a bill of attainder, by retaliating against it in violation of the First Amendment, and by denying it equal protection of the law.
In the end, AHF and Planned Parenthood were targeted in nearly identical ways by corporate landlords and Trump, who made his fortune as a developer and landlord. As we point out each month in our “The Real Dirt” column, the real estate industry will stoop to nothing to harm its enemies.
Follow Housing Is A Human Right on Facebook, X, Instagram, and Bluesky.