In a recent guest commentary in the Arizona Capitol Times, lobbyist Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus of the Arizona Multihousing Association argued that rent control has failed everywhere and warned Arizona against allowing any form of rent stabilization.

That argument relies on oversimplification and selective examples to protect a status quo that is failing far too many Arizona families. Primarily, it fails to distinguish between rigid, outdated rent control policies and modern, temporary rent stabilization designed to address today’s housing affordability crisis.

Not all rent policies are the same.

Classic rent control policies froze rents indefinitely, applied broadly, and ignored inflation, new construction, and market conditions. Many failed because they were rigid and permanent.

The legislation I am proposing is fundamentally different from outdated rent control models often cited by critics. It allows annual rent increases of 3% plus inflation, capped at 7%, includes exemptions such as for new construction, and sunsets after seven years. It is a temporary guardrail, not a rent freeze.

The St. Paul, Minnesota, example cited by opponents actually proves why policy design matters. That ordinance failed initially because it lacked exemptions for new construction and sufficient flexibility. City leaders later corrected those shortcomings. My proposal avoids those mistakes by incorporating exemptions from the beginning, protecting renters while ensuring that housing development can continue.

There is broad agreement that Arizona must build more housing at all income levels. On that point, we agree. But building housing takes time. Families facing rent increases of 20% or 30% cannot wait years for zoning reform, financing, and construction to catch up. 

Temporary rent stabilization exists to bridge that gap. It buys time while the supply is built. It does not replace housing production, it complements it.

What the multihousing commentary fails to acknowledge is that Arizona law preempts cities like Tucson from adopting rent stabilization or basic rent safeguards, even during periods of extreme market disruption. Local governments hear daily from residents being priced out of their homes but lack the authority to act. When the Legislature blocks local action, the responsibility rests with the state.

Housing affordability is no longer a localized challenge, it is a statewide crisis affecting families in every legislative district. While Tucson may have brought this issue to the forefront, renters across Arizona, in rural communities, suburban neighborhoods, and fast-growing metro areas alike, are facing rising costs, limited options, and little protection against sudden increases. This legislation is not about one city. It is about responding to affordability pressures that now exist statewide.

Displacement is already happening. In my district, longtime residents, seniors on fixed incomes, and working families are being forced out of their homes because rents are rising faster than wages. That displacement destabilizes neighborhoods, disrupts schools, and increases homelessness and public costs.

At the same time, Arizona’s landlord-tenant laws are outdated and unbalanced. Written decades ago, they provide limited notice for rent increases and weak protections against retaliation, leaving renters afraid to report unsafe conditions or challenge unlawful practices.

Modernizing tenant protections alongside temporary rent stabilization is not radical. It is responsible governance.

Arizona does not face a choice between building housing and protecting renters. We must do both. Temporary rent stabilization is not permanent. It is a bridge, designed to preserve affordability and stability during a crisis while Arizona does what we all agree is necessary – build more housing for all income levels.

Refusing to act while displacement accelerates is not neutrality. It is a policy choice.

Rep. Betty Villegas, a Democrat, represents Legislative District 20 in Tucson.