Episode Overview

In this episode of New Books Network, host Dr. Miranda Melcher interviews Dr. Lauren Everett about her new book, Fortunate People in a Fortunate Land: At Home in Santa Monica's Rent-Controlled Housing (Temple University Press, 2025). The book investigates the lived experience of tenants in Santa Monica, California—a city famed for its stringent rent control policies—offering a human-centered perspective on a topic typically dominated by economic analysis. Dr. Everett explores the intersecting histories of property law, societal ideology around homeownership, the political movement for rent control in Santa Monica, and how local and state policies shape tenants’ feelings of security and belonging.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Personal and Academic Motivation

• Dr. Everett’s Connection
  Everett grew up between Venice and Santa Monica, with personal and family ties to rent-controlled housing. Her experience as a tenant and organizer shaped her conviction that, despite “blanket arguments” in economics suggesting otherwise, “rent control does work.”
  “I really wanted to present a counterpoint... from a perspective of academia, because that is, of course, what carries a lot of currency in our culture.” — Dr. Everett [03:17]

Property Law Origins and Ideologies

• 1600s England as Starting Point
  Everett begins by tracing U.S. property ideology back to the Enclosure Acts, which centralized land ownership and displaced peasants—many of whom later came to the U.S. This historical shift created the “homeownership as citizenship” ideology now pervasive in America.
  “The premise of having land and land as freedom is so embedded in our ideology here in the United States. It’s really synonymous with, like, full citizenship.” — Dr. Everett [07:00]

• American Homeownership Ideology
  Homeownership is “a cornerstone of the American Dream,” supported by disproportionate policies (e.g., mortgage interest deduction), while renters are stigmatized and lack commensurate support.
  “Renting, then, is positioned as this sort of undesirable, maybe almost even deviant type of tenure...” — Dr. Everett [09:16]

Santa Monica’s Rent Control Revolution

• The Context in 1979
  Santa Monica saw rising rents amid slow housing construction and inflation, sparking organizing among seniors and activists.

  • A 1978 ballot narrowly failed.
  • The 1979 vote succeeded, catalyzed by the Santa Monicans for Renters Rights and national allies, making Santa Monica a nationwide rent control touchstone.
  • Notably, this was “voter-driven,” whereas other cities relied on city council action. “They really, like, flipped the script in Santa Monica—and they also won two city council seats. And Santa Monica's basically never been the same since.” — Dr. Everett [15:30]

• Part of a Wider Movement
  Everett situates Santa Monica within a California and U.S.-wide tenant movement of the ‘70s and ‘80s, with cities like LA, Beverly Hills, DC, and Cambridge also pursuing rent control—until pushback from landlord lobbies prompted statewide preemption laws.
  “Yeah, I would call it the second kind of second wave of American urban tenant movement.” — Dr. Everett [19:44]

Methods and Innovating Tenant-Focused Research

• Qualitative, Tenant-Centered Approach
  Dr. Everett’s methodology centers tenants’ lived experiences using semi-structured interviews, deviating from economics’ data-driven or structure-focused analyses. Inspired by the LA Tenants Union and sociological calls for a “sociology of residence,” she foregrounds how people actually feel and live in rent-controlled environments.
  “Almost everything we know about rent control from an academic perspective is from economics... It’s never just asked people who live in rent controlled housing about their experiences.” — Dr. Everett [21:07]

The Landlord/Real Estate Industry Perspective

• Landlord Opposition and Trade Publications
  In reviewing Apartment Age, Dr. Everett notes the industry’s uniformly negative, even inflammatory rhetoric on rent control, invoking imagery like “The People’s Republic of Santa Monica” and Soviet symbols decades later. The prevailing view is that housing is a commodity, and rent control is “persecution.”
  “It’s just—it’s completely unfair. It’s a battle against landlords. Why are we persecuted? Why does everyone hate us?... They’re still grinding that axe over 45 years later, which is amazing.” — Dr. Everett [25:08]

Lived Experience of Tenants

• Feeling at Home: Security and Community
  Most interviewees, all low- to moderate-income, strongly identified Santa Monica as home—rooted in both their ability to personalize their spaces and the social fabric of their buildings (neighbor familiarity, mutual support).
  “The social fabric one is kind of a really important point because this really illustrates how rent control helps create and sustain communities.” — Dr. Everett [28:38]

• Changing City Identity and “Place Alienation”
  Some residents expressed alienation as Santa Monica became known as an affluent, exclusive city—raising the cost of living and shifting its character.
  “It’s really painful when you’ve lived somewhere for a long time and you see things changing to serve other people, people that you don’t know, people that you maybe don’t understand their lifestyle. And you can’t afford things anymore.” [29:24]

• Impact of Well-Resourced Bureaucracy
  Beyond stabilized rent, Santa Monica’s rent control office and city bureaus offer prompt, tenant-friendly support for issues—unusually accessible compared to most U.S. cities, with protections like just cause eviction and anti-harassment laws.
  “So there’s a really, like, comprehensive tenant support program that they’re always adding to. And so it’s always evolving.” — Dr. Everett [35:13]

Coping with Precarity

• Threats to Stability
  State-level laws like the Ellis Act (allows landlords to evict tenants to “get out of the rental business”) and Costa Hawkins Act (allows market-rate resets on new tenancies) undercut local protections, causing persistent anxiety.
  “Knowing that you can charge more inflates the value of the building...” — Dr. Everett [38:16]

• Everyday Coping
  Tenants avoid landlord conflict, invest their own labor into units, organize informally with neighbors, and devise contingency plans in case of eviction.
  “You get one [landlord] who’s difficult or who’s trying to pull things on you... and that’s incredibly stressful.” [41:27]

• Ontological Insecurity
  The threat of losing one’s home creates chronic anxiety—a “feeling that the floor is going to drop out at you at any time.”
  “Home is so foundational that... you’re physically in a state of panic all the time.” — Dr. Everett [41:50]

Policy and Research Implications

• Countering Economic Orthodoxy
  Dr. Everett’s study demonstrates rent control “absolutely does work for tenants who are the intended beneficiaries,” challenging claims about negative impacts.
• Broadened Impact
  Stable rents enable “self-actualization”—career changes, further education, greater civic engagement—contradicting stereotypes of renters as disengaged or transient.
• Role of State Policy
  State-level loopholes (e.g., Ellis, Costa Hawkins) undermine the efficacy of local protections.
• A Broader Vision Needed
  Everett advocates investment in social housing, community land trusts, and other decommodified solutions—citing examples like Paris—arguing that “the market is not going to fix this problem. It is not designed to fix this problem.” “We can make renting not bad. Basically. We can make it not terrible and make it a kind of a real option for people.” — Dr. Everett [47:58]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The premise of having land and land as freedom is so embedded in our ideology here in the United States.” — Dr. Everett [07:00]
• “It’s just—it’s completely unfair. It’s a battle against landlords. Why are we persecuted? Why does everyone hate us?” — Dr. Everett [25:08]
• “The social fabric one is kind of a really important point because this really illustrates how rent control helps create and sustain communities.” — Dr. Everett [28:38]
• “Home is so foundational that… you’re physically in a state of panic all the time.” — Dr. Everett [41:50]
• “We can make renting not bad. Basically. We can make it not terrible and make it a kind of a real option for people.” — Dr. Everett [47:58]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:17] – Dr. Everett’s personal motivation and tenant advocacy background
• [05:36] – Why begin with 1600s England? The origins of American property ideology
• [08:24] – How homeownership ideology shapes policy and renters’ status
• [11:53] – The 1979 rent control revolution in Santa Monica
• [18:32] – Santa Monica’s place in the broader American rent control movement
• [20:30] – Methodology: why and how to center tenant experience
• [24:05] – Insights from landlord trade publications: “People’s Republic of Santa Monica”
• [27:32] – Tenants’ feelings of home, security, and community under rent control
• [34:19] – Santa Monica’s unique, tenant-friendly bureaucracy and legal frameworks
• [37:14] – How tenants cope with housing precarity
• [43:53] – Policy and academic takeaways; what rent control achieves and what undermines it
• [49:51] – Dr. Everett’s upcoming work: a screenplay blending politics and genre

Conclusion

This episode provides a rich, multidimensional account of Santa Monica’s rent control system—grounding decades-old policy debates in real human experience. Dr. Everett’s work complicates the narrative around rent control, demonstrating its profound impact on stability, community, and opportunity for tenants, while exposing the limits imposed by state-level preemption and the persistent ideological battle over who has the right to call Santa Monica home.