After flirting with a handful of renter protection measures in November, the Half Moon Bay City Council decided to put them on the back burner because it wants to gather more data on renters and landlords in the city and it’s worried that such measures might bring unintended consequences.
“Personally I think we have bigger fish to fry than imposing something that I don’t think any of us fully understand the implications of yet, so I’d like to move this onto a way further time period down the line when we can get answers and continue to work on other pieces of legislation that we have coming up,” Councilman Adam Eisen said.
The council did express interest in pursuing one of the four proposed measures — city-sponsored mediation between landlords and tenants — as well as further research into renters’ insurance, though no timeline for a vote on those measures was provided at the Jan. 15 meeting.
The council’s discussion followed a parade of residents — Realtors and landlords mostly — who denounced the proposed measures during public comment. Many of them described the measures as forms of rent control and insisted that Half Moon Bay is home to a mostly mom-and-pop landlord community that would suffer if the proposed rules were adopted.
Community Development Director Jill Ekas suggested those speakers were at least correct that most of Half Moon Bay’s landlords run small operations.
“We suspect that most of our properties for rent are probably smaller,” she said. “The larger ones that were listed [by speakers earlier in the meeting] are all deed restricted affordable housing developments”
Moving forward, staff will be gathering data to confirm those suspicions and Councilwoman Debbie Ruddock said she would “not prioritize restrictions on mom-and-pops” and that “mom-and-pop” needs to be clearly defined.
Beyond mediation, the other proposed measures included minimum lease terms, enhanced notice provisions and relocation assistance.
Minimum lease terms in this case would’ve required landlords to offer a one-year lease to tenants. The landlord can still set prices and if the tenant doesn’t want a one-year lease then they can negotiate another deal, but the landlord must make the offer.
The enhanced notice provisions entailed a 90-day notice of termination of a month-to-month lease with some exceptions, and relocation assistance in this proposal would have required landlords to pay departing tenants three months worth of rent in certain circumstances — for example if rent was raised significantly, but not if the tenant simply chose to move.
Critics of those proposals claimed existing law offers sufficient protections for renters and that adopting additional protections would shrink the city’s housing stock.
“The vast majority of property owners make a very small margin and when you’re placing tremendous burdens on them you’re going to lose housing supply, it’s going to be gone,” said Gina Zari, government affairs director of the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. “In San Francisco, there are nearly 40,000 vacant units because of rent control and that will happen here too.”
Deputy City Attorney Sara Clark clarified at the beginning of the meeting that the proposals are merely renter protections and not rent control or rent stabilization, though the critics of those proposals did not see it that way.
“State law and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors and most people that are property owners understand that when you put a cap on rents and you say that amount will trigger relocation payments — that is rent control,” Zari said. “State law defines it as rent control, Costa-Hawkins defines it as rent control and we define it as rent control.”
Mayor Deborah Penrose noted the meeting’s strong showing of landlords and Realtors with almost no commentary from the renter community.
“The people who have been evicted or who were told their rent is going up 100 percent — they’re not here tonight so we’re hearing one side of the story. The other side of the story is extremely painful and that’s one part that I’m going to be considering as well as what everyone has said here tonight,” Penrose said. “Staff is working on compiling the information on the number of landlords and the types of units that the landlords own so we can be better informed about what the actual issues are. That will be critical in making any decisions.”
(5) comments
Rent control advocates will just make matters worse if they are allowed to succeed.
History has proven this fact everywhere rent control has been enacted.
Rent control does not work. Period. Punishing housing providers will not bring more housing.
Glad to see that the HMB Council members saw through the rhetoric, litany and personal attacks of the syndicated lawyers and made the right decision.
To Cindy above: if you have data showing how much mom and pop landlords "gleaned" from the community of HMB, please show your data. Hate mongering is indication that people cannot engage in reason.
Half Moon Bay is a small town whose economy is based on agriculture and tourism. They are wise to step back and consider what is appropriate for their unique community.
Proposition 1 was just passed, which will raise $ 4 billion, much of it earmarked toward assistance to farm workers - which is a particular need for Half Moon Bay. HMB has done a good job of working with their vulnerable populations; a full 537 of their precious 720 rental units are already subsidized housing for low income, disabled and seniors.
Several HMB renters spoke about the fact that their rents have not been raised and they are very happy with their mom and pop housing providers. The renters fear - correctly - that mis-guided regulations would mean those units would disappear from the market.
Several HMB residents spoke of the fact that they would like to rent their homes to others, but do not dare do if draconian laws are in place.
Hats of to the HMB city council for taking a reasoned approach right for their community.
I agree with Vice Mayor Eisen, Half Moon Bay should have more pressing business to deal with rather than running small landlords into insolvency with these onerous regulations.
Just how much increase in profits did these "Mom and Pop" landlords glean in the last five years at the expense of the community? Making a killing is much different than making a living.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.