“Socialism is not a passing thing but an arriving thing.” Peggy Noonan opened her August column with that warning, noting that a CNN/SSRS poll found 34% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identify as “democratic socialists.”¹ Whether one agrees with the political conclusion or not, California apartment owners should treat the underlying trend as real: it is an increasingly important force in elections, legislation, and local housing policy.

The latest California evidence is striking. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies/Los Angeles Times survey found that 38% of California voters said they were more inclined to support a candidate described as a democratic socialist—exactly equal to the 38% who said they were less inclined. Among registered Democrats, 58% were inclined to support such a candidate, compared with 48% for a “mainstream Democrat.” The divide is generational: older Democrats favor more conventional candidates, while younger voters are much more receptive to candidates on the party’s left.²

For apartment owners, the practical question is not whether California will suddenly abolish private rental housing. It will not. The more immediate issue is that policies once regarded as politically marginal—expanded rent regulation, stricter eviction rules, public acquisition of apartments, tenant right-to-counsel programs, limits on investor ownership, and broader “social housing”—are now moving closer to the mainstream policy conversation.

What Democratic Socialists Believe

“Democratic socialism” is not a single operating manual. Candidates and organizations vary widely. But the Democratic Socialists of America, the country’s most prominent democratic-socialist organization, has a clear housing orientation: housing should be treated as a human right rather than primarily as an investment commodity.

Its housing agenda generally emphasizes:

New publicly owned or permanently affordable “social housing.”

Universal or substantially expanded rent control.

Stronger tenant protections, including anti-eviction rules.

Guaranteed legal counsel for tenants facing eviction.

More restrictions on investment properties and large landlords.

Greater tenant participation in building and housing governance.

A long-run goal of reducing, or in some formulations ending, the market-based landlord-tenant relationship itself.

The DSA’s housing platform has called for publicly owned social housing, tighter regulation of investment property, universal rent control, and a right to counsel for tenants.³ Some DSA-aligned housing materials go further, describing a long-term objective of “the end of rent” and “the end of eviction.”⁴ That language is not necessarily shared by every candidate who adopts the democratic-socialist label. In practice, the nearer-term governing program is more likely to consist of incremental but consequential measures: tougher rent caps, narrower owner-move-in and substantial-remodel exemptions, higher relocation payments, eviction-defense funding, registration requirements, vacancy and speculation taxes, and public or nonprofit purchases of apartment assets.

Why This Is Growing

The appeal of democratic socialism is rooted less in political theory than in lived economic frustration. California’s housing market provides an especially fertile setting.

The affordability crisis is obvious. In March 2026, the estimated rent for a two-bedroom California home was approximately $2,700 per month.⁵ The state’s shortage of housing remains severe; estimates vary, but one recent estimate placed the deficit at about 840,000 homes, while earlier state estimates were considerably higher.⁶ To a renter paying a large share of income for housing, seeing ownership move beyond reach, and facing uncertainty over renewal terms or displacement, “housing as a right” is an emotionally compelling message.

Several larger forces reinforce it:

• Housing scarcity and high monthly costs. When wages trail rents, the political focus naturally shifts from creating supply over time to controlling outcomes now.
• The wealth divide. Owners of appreciated real estate have often built substantial equity, while many tenants—particularly younger tenants—feel locked out of ownership and wealth creation. The property owner becomes an easy symbol of a broader economic system they regard as unfair.
• A generational asset gap. Older households are more likely to own homes or hold financial assets. Younger adults confront high rents, student debt, high interest rates, and delayed family formation. They are therefore more receptive to redistribution and public ownership.
• Job insecurity and artificial intelligence. AI may ultimately increase productivity and create new work, but its immediate political effect is anxiety: workers fear that professional, clerical, creative, and entry-level jobs may become less secure. Economic insecurity often creates demand for stronger government guarantees.
• Male labor-force disengagement. National data indicate a sustained decline in labor-force participation among younger men. One recent analysis found participation among men ages 16 to 24 fell from 69% in 2000 to 57% in 2025.⁷ This is not solely an AI story, nor solely a California story, but it contributes to a broader feeling among young adults that the traditional path—work, save, buy a home, advance—is less attainable.
• Distrust of institutions. Many younger voters do not see traditional market institutions as having delivered affordability, mobility, or security. They may support more aggressive intervention not because they have studied socialism, but because the status quo seems to have failed them.
• Apartment owners should recognize the important distinction: this movement is powered by genuine hardship, even where its proposed remedies may be economically counterproductive.

What It Means for Owners

California already has a statewide baseline of rent and eviction regulation. AB 1482 limits annual rent increases on many covered properties to 5% plus local CPI, capped at 10%, and generally requires just cause for termination after the tenant has occupied the unit for the required period.⁸ Local ordinances can be more restrictive.

The likely direction of travel is toward greater regulation, not less. Owners should plan underwriting and operations accordingly.

Area

Likely Policy Pressure

Owner Implication

Rent Increase

Lower Caps, Broader Coverage, Fewer Exemptions

More Constrained Revenue Growth and Increased Importance of In-Place Rent Analysis

Evictions

Strong Just-Cause Rules, Procedural Requirements, Right to Counsel

Longer Timelines, Higher Legal Expense, Great Value in Impeccable Documentation

Owner Move-In/Remodel

Narrow Grounds, Higher Proof Standards, Larger Relocation Obligations

Reduced Operation Flexibility and More Transaction Risk

Building Operations

Habitability Enforcement, Registration, Inspections, Tenant organizing

Compliance Systems Become as Important as Leasing Systems

Ownership

Public/Nonprofit Acquisition, Restrictions on Institutional Investors, Transfer Taxes

Potentially Lower Buyer Pools in Some Segments But Also New Mission-Driven Purchasers

Development

Affordability Mandates, Labor Standards, Inclusionary Requirements

Higher Development Cost, Potentially Less New Supply, And Continued Pressure on Existing Stock

The central business risk is not simply a lower allowable rent increase. It is the combination of revenue regulation, rising insurance and utility costs, deferred-maintenance exposure, legal delays, and declining flexibility in managing problem tenancies or repositioning a building.

In that environment, an apartment building must be operated more like a regulated utility than a lightly regulated investment. Owners who rely on informal practices, incomplete files, delayed repairs, vague lease language, or casual handling of notices will be more exposed than owners with professional management systems.

A Practical Response

The appropriate response is not panic, and it is not ideological denial. It is preparation.

Maintain excellent tenant relations. A well-managed property with responsive maintenance, clear communication, and predictable policies is less vulnerable to conflict and organizing.

Treat compliance as an asset-protection function. Keep complete lease files, notices, repair records, inspection reports, correspondence, and rent-increase documentation.

Underwrite conservatively. Assume slower rent growth, more regulatory friction, higher operating costs, and longer timelines for vacancy recovery and evictions.

Study local law, not merely statewide law. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Pasadena, and other jurisdictions may impose rules that exceed the state floor.

Build a public narrative. Apartment owners should explain that rental housing requires capital for maintenance, seismic work, insurance, taxes, utilities, debt service, and improvements. “Landlord” cannot be allowed to become a one-dimensional political villain.

Support supply-oriented housing policy. The strongest long-term answer to rent pressure is more housing: faster approvals, realistic density, adaptive reuse, reduced parking mandates, and predictable development rules.

Engage early. Municipal elections, rent-board appointments, and state legislative committees can shape apartment operations more directly than national politics.

Democratic socialism is becoming a durable part of California’s political landscape because it speaks to real anxiety about rent, wealth, work, and economic mobility. Apartment owners should neither dismiss that anxiety nor accept the premise that private ownership is inherently incompatible with housing security.

The industry’s task is to make the contrary case: professionally owned, well-maintained, responsibly financed rental housing is not the enemy of affordability. It is an indispensable part of the solution.

Footnotes: Peggy Noonan, “Socialism Is Here—and It’s Serious,” The Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2026. Noonan reported that a CNN/SSRS survey found that 34% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning adults identified as democratic socialists. 2. “California Voters Favor Progressive Candidates, Split Over Democratic Socialism, Poll Finds,” Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2026, reporting results of a University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll. The survey found 38% of California voters more inclined and 38% less inclined to support a democratic-socialist candidate; it also reported substantially greater support among younger Democrats. 3. Democratic Socialists of America housing-policy positions as summarized in “DSA Housing Policies: More Government, Less Housing,” Americans for Prosperity, July 31, 2026. The summary describes DSA support for publicly owned social housing, tenant protections, rent control, and reduced reliance on private-market housing. 4. Chris Edwards, “Ten Democratic Socialists of America Arguments for Socialism—and Why They’re Wrong,” Cato Institute, August 4, 2026. The article quotes DSA-related rhetoric that frames housing as a human right and challenges the traditional landlord-tenant model. 5. California Legislative Analyst’s Office, “California Housing Affordability Tracker (Second Quarter 2026).” The tracker reported an estimated March 2026 rent of approximately $2,700 per month for a two-bedroom California home. 6. CalMatters, “How Big Is California’s Housing Shortage?” September 26, 2025. The article discusses varying estimates of California’s housing shortfall, including an approximately 840,000-unit estimate published by Up for Growth. 7.“A Surprising Group Is Disappearing From the Job Market,” The Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com, August 17, 2026, citing an American Institute for Boys and Men analysis. The analysis reported that labor-force participation among men ages 16 to 24 fell from 69% in 2000 to 57% in 2025. 8. City of Campbell, “Rent Caps and Rent Increase Dispute,” updated August 1, 2026. The city’s description of California’s Tenant Protection Act, AB 1482, explains that the statute provides statewide rent-increase and eviction protections and generally limits annual rent increases for covered units to 5% plus inflation, subject to a 10% maximum.