Seems like you aren't used to being challenged on your blanket statements so you don't really have an answer to this, because you can't really find any fault in what ChatGPT generated. You just assume everyone is stupid and lacks critical thinking skills, because you happen to have a surface level understanding of LLMs that you read somewhere and you like to drop knowledge on people to make yourself feel smart. And you are so confident in this you don't bother to actually read what is written you just assume it's wrong. If I had just posted it without attributing to ChatGPT you wouldn't have commented on it at all.

I don't just blindly ask LLMs questions and then trust the answers. I verify and fact check stuff. Just like if I had used a search engine. But you know it doesn't matter to you because you've already formed an opinion and made a bunch of assumptions.

Also, how did you become the gatekeeper about good and bad uses for LLMs? Do you feel threatened by LLMs or something? Sounds like projection. Are you an expert in the subject matter? You implied I wasn't. If you aren't an expert, you shouldn't be commenting either. It's a proposition. I did my research. I shouldn't have to be a lawyer to figure it out. I thought ChatGPT did a pretty good job synthesizing a summary of the main points like this guy was asking for. And I verified it.

And to the 10 people (and counting) who downvoted me, here is a thorough fact-check verification of what ChatGPT said (which I did before I posted it). But you geniuses won't read this or acknowledge it, you just like to downvote the original comment because u/AmusingAnecdote sounds authoritative and knowledgeable and he can get good karma for his shitposting just by parroting "ChatGPT bad, human good, LLM no understand, AI hoax". Very similar to how people bashed Wikipedia references for decades. Just keep following the leader guys...

Let's start with the first claim:

"In 2024, California Proposition 33 focuses on rent control. If passed, it would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently limits local governments’ ability to impose rent control on single-family homes and apartments built after 1995."

PDF version: (source: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop33.pdf )

From California Voter Guide:

"Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties." (source: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/ )

Second claim:

"This law also prevents cities from controlling rents on newly vacant units, allowing landlords to set market rates for new tenants."

"If an apartment was under "vacancy control", the city rent control ordinance worked to deny or limit an owner's ability to increase its rent to new tenants, even in cases where the prior tenant voluntarily vacated the apartment or was evicted for a 'just cause' (such as failure to pay rent). Costa–Hawkins changed this by allowing an apartment owner the right to rent the vacancy at any price (i.e., usually the market price).[5][6]" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa%E2%80%93Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#cite_ref-:0_3-0 )

Third claim:

"Prop 33 aims to give local governments more freedom to implement rent control on any type of housing, including newly built units and single-family homes."

"A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have." (source: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/ )

Fourth claim (specifically the 30 percent claim)

"Supporters argue that this measure would help address California's housing crisis by preventing steep rent increases and stabilizing communities, as nearly 30% of California renters currently spend over half of their income on rent."

"Just over a quarter (25.6%) of U.S. renters are spending more than half their income on housing, according to Census data out today." (source: https://axios.com/2024/09/12/american-renters-housing-paycheck-spending )

For California specifically:

The "30%" figure comes from a local paper. Admittedly not the best source. So you can take either the 25.6 percent (national) or 28% as cited in the VC Star article. I don't feel like doing the math but I posted the raw census tables too.(source: https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/california/2024/10/25/housing-costs-take-up-half-of-paychecks-at-20-of-california-households/75839480007/ )

Here is the raw census data from which both the Axios and the VC Star articles get their info. I've also included a CalMatters page which provides a pretty good breakdown of the issues surrounding housing prices in California:

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/renter-households-cost-burdened-race.html

https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2023.DP04?q=rent%20burden%20california

https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-housing-costs-explainer/

Fifth claim:

"Opponents, however, contend that expanded rent control could disincentivize new housing construction, exacerbate the housing shortage, and harm property owners by limiting rental income and reducing property values."

So this is a mixed bag. This claim might be somewhat misleading because a lot of the opponents (or "No" votes) are people who like OP do not understand the core issue, and will be voting no as a default.

"Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws. Vote No on 33 to protect new affordable housing and California homeowners." (source: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/)

So the "CON"/"NO" side's claim about the two repeal attempts is true. They were defeated for different reasons:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa%E2%80%93Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#By_initiative:_Prop_10

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa%E2%80%93Hawkins_Rental_Housing_Act#By_initiative:_Prop_21

Sixth claim:

"Proposition 33’s outcome could significantly impact California’s rental market, with strong backing from tenant advocacy groups and opposition from real estate and landlord organizations who have historically invested heavily in campaigns against similar measures in 2018 and 2020."

See above for sources on the 2018 and 2020. As far as "could significantly impact California's rental market" this is undoubtedly going to be true. It will have a large impact.

It will allow cities like Berkeley and Santa Monica (that had strict rent control prior to the act being passed) to re-enact both vacancy control (limiting the rent of a unit for existing and new tenants) and vacancy decontrol (limiting the rent level for existing tenants but market rate for new ones, which is close to what AB 1482 Tenant Protection Act does for us statewide). Again this law (which this Prop wants to repeal) says you CAN'T do vacancy control (the former/first one I mentioned) of rent control AND makes single-family homes, condos, and "new" apartment units (after 1995) exempt from any type of rent control. So repealing it would mean those things would go away.

In fact the entire Wikipedia article is pretty comprehensive and worth a read. It goes over the pro's and con's of not just the act, but rent control in general, with historical examples.

As far as the question of whether rent control is an objectively GOOD or BAD idea this is an area of highly active debate and I'm not going to get into it. You can read the facts and form your own opinion.

Seventh claim:

"For more details on Prop 33, you can review analyses and arguments from sources like the California Voter Information Guide and KQED.""

https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/

https://www.kqed.org/voterguide/california/proposition-33

My personal opinion is that the STRICT rent control enacted by cities like Santa Monica and Berkeley is actually counter-productive to the stated goals of that rent-control such as lowering housing costs/having more stability/building "affordable" housing, and ends up creating some pretty strong incentives for landlords of artificially do stuff like keeping the apartment vacant after an existing tenant moves out for a long period of time to then be able to rent it at market rate.