Burlingame divided over rent control: While opposing political factions collide, future of residents hangs in the balance

While tenants right advocates clash with opponents of the initiative, a landlord evicted tenants from an apartment building on Anita Road due to concerns over the proposed measure he considers too far reaching.

Gordon Robertson, owner of a 10-unit apartment building at 117 Anita Road, said last month he issued to most of his tenants 60-day notices to vacate due to fear of being subjected to the restrictions proposed under Measure R.

The initiative aims to remove Measure T, an ordinance approved by Burlingame voters almost 30 years ago restricting the City Council from regulating the rental housing market and replace it with rent control, just cause eviction protections and relocation assistance for those displaced and more.

Also if approved, the initiative would scale back rents in occupied rooms across Burlingame to March 2016 rates and gradually allow them to rise only at an amount comparable to the cost of inflation.

Robertson claimed such a move would cut his profit margins so severely that he would be unable to reinvest in his property, so he said he elected to vacate the building and plans to keep it empty until after the election to avoid the threat of operating under a new ordinance he detests.

“I feel awful,” said Robertson. “But I can’t take this risk.”

Robertson purchased the property near downtown last year and hiked the rent shortly afterwards to bring the amount paid by most tenants closer to market rate of roughly $2,500 per month for a one-bedroom apartment, according to data from online real estate database Apartmentlist.com.

He said he understands many of the building’s tenants cannot afford the cost of living in Burlingame, which is why he offered them rooms for approximately 80 percent of the market rate, but he could not justify a mandated rollback to amounts less than that.

The building requires substantial improvements such as roof renovations, said Robertson, and though he regrets telling the tenants they must find another room by early October, he said he must do what he believes is in the best interest of his investment.

Nowhere to turn

As a result, Patricia Vega, who has lived in the Anita Road apartment building for six years with her two young sons, said she is left with nowhere to turn.

Vega, a single mother working as a teacher at a local preschool, said she was already struggling to pay her rent after it was increased earlier this year and cannot afford to find another room in the ultra-competitive rental housing market on the Peninsula.

“We feel sad to leave because even if it is not yours, it is your home,” she said.

Vega said she and other tenants have asked to stay longer at the apartment to grant more time to find another place to live, but Robertson said he is unwilling to consider the proposal as his attorney claims such a maneuver would subject him to the regulations proposed under Measure R, if it is approved in November. He said he would consider paying tenants’ relocation assistance though to help ease their transition.

Vega said the pending eviction has thrown into question whether she will be able to keep her sons, ages 6 and 8, enrolled in local elementary schools.

“My sadness is not for me, it is for my children,” she said.

Stephanie Vega, who also was served an eviction notice from her apartment in the Anita Road building, said she too is left with no other available option for housing.

“I might end up sleeping in my car,” said Stephanie Vega, who is not related to Patricia Vega.

Stephanie Vega works in customer service at San Francisco International Airport and said she does not earn enough money or have the free time needed to search for another place to live locally.

“I might just go to the shelter,” she said. “It is going to be cheaper.”

Stephanie Vega said she supports Measure R, as she believes landlords and property owners are taking advantage of vulnerable renters in Burlingame, and across the Bay Area.

“We are fighting to find a job that can be affordable for our living situation and it is just hard to find a decent place because they want to rent a small space for a ton of money that is just something that really should be controlled,” she said.

Unintended consequences

Jennifer Gilbert, of Gilberts Bayview Apartments, disagreed with that perspective.

“It’s bad for everyone,” said Gilbert, of Measure R.

Gilbert is a property manager for a company with units in Burlingame and San Mateo, where a similar rent control initiative will also go before voters in the November election.

She said she would prefer advocates for rent control consider putting pressure on local politicians to loosen development regulations in an effort to build more homes, which she believes would go further toward addressing affordability concerns.

The unintended consequences associated with the proposed rental protections, such as making it difficult for landlords to evict problematic tenants, will ultimately harm the quality of life in Burlingame, she said.

“It will have such a bad effect and people aren’t looking at the long run,” she said.

Gilbert said she has not considered taking a similar action to Robertson in evicting tenants due to fears of Measure R passing, but she understands his concerns.

“I think that it is so scary to some property owners that they don’t know what to do,” she said. “It is not something that we have done, but I certainly sympathize with them because it is such a crazy measure.”

But Cindy Cornell, of the Burlingame Advocates for Renter Protections, who has spearheaded advocating for Measure R, said she believes the initiative is the only way to offer tenants some respite against the constantly rising cost of living.

“We need the just cause eviction protections and we need the rent stabilization,” she said.

So many residents in Burlingame employed in vital service positions such as nurses, teachers, restaurant workers and more have been pushed out by the affordability crisis, said Cornell.

Members of the tenant advocacy group have no confidence Burlingame officials would take action to address the concerns of renters, said Cornell, which is why they proposed the variety of actions offered under Measure R.

The group did anticipate some landlords might take brazen action similar to Robertson’s eviction, which only supports the advocates’ position that renter protections are necessary, said Cornell.

She admitted though she is not happy to know some residents lost their apartment as a result of her group’s proposal.

“How it feels is devastating,” she said, of the eviction at Anita Road.

She said ultimately she hopes Measure R will be approved to safeguard other renters from suffering a similar fate.

“We have no other course of action but to push forward and get the protections,” Cornell said.

‘A massive overreach’

Alternatively, former mayor Rosalie O’Mahony, who was one of the those who signed the rebuttal to the argument in favor of the measure, said concerns regarding unaffordability in Burlingame are not a new issue. A similar debate nearly 30 years ago led to the establishment of Measure T.

The voter approved initiative preventing the council from regulating the local rental market was a response to a competing rent control effort spearheaded by tenants advocates, said O’Mahony, who has long been a staunch defender of private property rights and opposes Measure R.

“I’m not for any process that would counter the rights of the property owner,” she said. “I think America was built on this system of pride in ownership and we should do everything possible to protect that pride of ownership.”

The biggest cause for concern regarding Measure R, said O’Mahony, is the proposal to establish a rent control board — an unelected panel comprised of three renters and two landlords charged with setting rents at levels considered to be “fair and equitable,” which could have the power to authorize rate adjustments, establish penalties for noncompliance with its regulations, pursue lawsuits when commissioners see fit and a variety of other administrative duties.

“The commission is the biggest bugaboo of all,” she said.

Councilwoman Emily Beach said she too had serious reservations regarding the commission, as the ballot proposal allows for no system of checks and balances to the decisions it makes.

“There is no accountability to voters. To me that is just not how we govern responsibly in a representative democracy,” she said. “This would give a rental housing commission basically free rein to govern without any oversight.”

Though she is compassionate to the affordability difficulties many renters face in the local housing market, Beach said she felt Measure R is not the ideal solution.

“It’s a massive overreach,” said Beach, who along with the rest of her fellow councilmembers issued the initial ballot argument against Measure R.

A more palatable approach by the tenant advocates may have been an effort to repeal Measure T, said Beach, freeing officials to address concerns regarding the rental market in a more holistic fashion.

“A much more conservative approach would have been to overturn Measure T, but that’s not what they chose to do because they wanted very widespread action,” she said.

As advocates and the opposition become further ensconced in their position on Measure R in the days and weeks leading toward Election Day, Patricia Vega will be searching for solutions to her family’s need for a new place to live.

“I am looking for something but it is so hard,” she said. “I’m thinking what are we going to do? Where are we going to go?”

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105