City split over rent control: Opposing factions continue debate as Burlingame’s Measure R heads to ballot

Parties on opposing sides of the divisive Measure R initiative committed countless hours and dedicated more than $100,000 in campaign contributions in an attempt to persuade voters.

With roughly one month until Election Day, rent control advocate Cindy Cornell, president of the Burlingame Advocates for Renter Protections, claimed the measure is a response to the City Council’s reluctance to acknowledge the plight of Burlingame renters.

“They didn’t see us coming. They never thought we would collect enough signatures,” said Cornell, of the proponents’ campaign to bring Measure R to the ballot.

Alternatively, critics said the City Council was bound from establishing regulations on the local rental market due to the existence of Measure T, approved by voters in 1987 to prevent officials from governing private property. Under the most recent ballot proposal, Measure T would be repealed and replaced with renter protections proposed in Measure R.

Mayor Ann Keighran, who opposed rent control along with the rest of her fellow councilmembers, disputed Cornell’s claim by pointing to a variety of efforts officials have considered in an attempt to address the cost of living.

“Burlingame has done a lot actually in regards to affordable housing,” said Keighran, referencing the proposed redevelopment of two city-owned parking lots into below-market rate projects, as well as an exploration into opening up new portions of the city for construction of homes.

Rather than trying to fix the affordability crisis through the ballot box, Keighran said officials should be trusted to address the issue through more traditional means.

Rhovy Lyn Antonio, vice president of Public Affairs for the California Apartment Association, agreed and favored allowing officials to develop solutions rather than attempt to rectify the crisis through a voter initiative she considered poorly written and too far reaching.

“The only way we can really address these issues is through the collaborative process,” she said.

The California Apartment Association has worked in tandem with the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, or SAMCAR, to defeat Measure R, as well as a similar initiative in San Mateo, Measure Q.

In Burlingame, critics of rent control have raised $96,800 in campaign contributions, of which $55,500 was donated directly by SAMCAR and $45,000 was generated by the Coalition of Housing Equality, a group sponsored by the local Realtors’ association.

Rent control advocates have raised $13,416, nearly half of which came from affordable housing advocate Diana Reddy who has paid $6,000 toward advancement of Measure R. Cornell donated a total of $538 to the campaign, and attorney Daniel Saver gave $100.

Saver, of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, echoed Cornell’s sentiments regarding a lack of faith in the commitment of Burlingame officials to address the affordability issue.

He noted officials have showed interest in allowing the development of new jobs and offices along the Bayfront while momentum for the proposed affordable housing projects seems to have stalled, which Saver said is indicative of the current council’s priorities.

“What we have seen from the city of Burlingame, as we are living in a housing crisis, is a willingness to exacerbate the crisis by adding new jobs without a commiserate amount of housing,” he said.

Opponents though claim the writing of the ballot language leaves a variety of loopholes potentially open for exploitation, citing that the proposal’s just cause eviction section extends to single-family homes and potentially poses difficulties for homeowners to move back onto their property after renting it out.

Burlingame resident Ian Milne said he believes the measure could do widespread damage to property values if approved, as potential buyers may be less interested in purchasing property subject to the variety of restrictions proposed under Measure R and the ability of homeowners to earn return on their investment would be limited.

“This will cast a pall across Burlingame home values forever,” he said.

Further compounding the concerns of those in opposition is the proposed formation of a rental housing commission, which would be required to keep three of its five members as renters.

Councilmembers, who universally supported an argument against Measure R, noted the commission could be a costly endeavor for the city as it would be charged with setting rents at levels considered to be “fair and equitable,” and 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.

Such authority could invite lawsuits, which Antonio said may ultimately harm the city’s bottom line in a fashion unlike any other city commission or board.

“No other commission has the power of the purse,” she said.

Advocates claim the commission is necessary to assure the rent control initiative is implemented effectively and said concerns regarding the cost of the program are unfounded.

“This is not something that is going to be costing millions of dollars out of the general fund,” said Kristen Parks, a teacher at Cañada College who advocated for Measure R. “That is really effectively a scare tactic.”

The commission is proposed to be financed through an annual fee of between $135 to $182 per unit charged to property owners who have available rental property on the market. Critics have noted though there may be a substantial start-up cost associated with launching the program, and the undetermined expense could ultimately fall to the city.

But rather than rely on the judgment of a commission which critics feel is granted too much authority, Keighran said officials should be empowered to address the housing crisis collaboratively on a more broad scale.

“It is not just a city problem, it’s the whole region,” she said. “To have representatives from the cities come together is the best thing to come out of this, and it is good the proponents came out to raise the problem.”

Instead of waiting for solutions to be identified and implemented regionally, Cornell said she believed rent control was the best and most effective fashion of addressing an issue immediately affecting many Burlingame residents.

“Let’s make a home for everybody,” she said. “That is what an economically diverse city is.”

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105

Measure R quick facts

• A simple majority required to pass

• Repeals Measure T, the city’s existing ordinance preventing price regulations of the local rental market

Rent stabilization

• Base rent would be established at March 2016 rates, and increases are limited on an annual basis between 1 percent and 4 percent

• Rent control applies to multi-family rental units with occupancy spanning back to Feb. 1, 1995

Just cause eviction

• Just cause evictions protections would apply to a majority of the city’s rental housing stock, including single-family homes

• Landlords may evict tenants, but must still provide relocation assistance at an amount equal to three months rent for a similar unit

• Displacement for repairs, owner move-in, removal of the unit from the rental market and demolition would qualify a tenant for receiving relocation assistance

• First right of return to a re-rented unit would be initially reserved for a previously displaced tenant

• Tenants who are displaced, terminally ill or 62 or older who have occupied their unit for more than five years may not be evicted for owners to move back to their property, except under certain circumstances

Housing commission

• Calls for establishment of a rental housing commission, of which three members must be renters

• The commission, operating independently from the city officials, could set rents, along with cost of living adjustments, levy fines for noncompliance and seek lawsuits, among other powers

* Information from the

Burlingame Community Protection

Ordinance, also known as Measure R.