Redwood City voters to decide rent control measure in November

The citizen-led initiative gathered the necessary signatures to qualify a rent control ordinance for the ballot, a success after years of effort by organizers with Faith in Action Bay Area. 

“The number of signatures we collected speaks for itself — Redwood City wants rent control,” organizer and Redwood City renter Clara Jaeckel said. “We’re excited that now the voters will finally have a direct say on affordability, stability for hard-working families and the chance to stop the displacement of our neighbors.”  

On Tuesday, the City Council had the opportunity to adopt the ordinance as written in its entirety, immediately, or they could let it be at the hands of voters, according to elections code. Councilmembers opted for the latter, but either way, the city has very little say in the legislation but would bear the burden of implementation. 

The ordinance proposes a cap on annual rent increases at 5% for qualified units, rather than the state allowance of up to 10%, and would establish broadened protections for all renters. 

The rent cap would apply to approximately 19% of the city’s housing stock, but all rental units would be subject to the tenant protections included in the proposed ordinance, should it be passed by voters come November. 

While councilmembers noted they’re required by law to place the ordinance on November ballots, many shared their opposition to the legislation. 

“I feel this legislation is very restrictive, very far reaching, a financial burden to more than just the city and it won’t produce the housing that you think it will and it will be a less desirable place to live rather than a more desirable place to live,” Councilmember Diane Howard said. 

A report analyzing the cumulative impact on property owners, potential impacts to affordable housing and impact on the city’s finances was discussed at length Tuesday. 

A key finding in the report found that the ordinance, as written, would have the greatest impacts on rental stock built pre-1995, which largely entails older, smaller properties that already tend to provide lower rents but also more repair and maintenance needs. The inability to raise rents as necessary would leave landlords with less ability to absorb the costs and increase compliance burdens, the report concluded. 

Analysis of the ordinance’s impact on affordable housing units found that these development operators face particularly unique financing challenges that make the units vulnerable.

The anticipated costs to operate the program, which must be recouped through fees imposed on landlords and cannot come from the city’s general fund, is far higher than what was initially estimated in the proposed ordinance. Landlords would likely pay a fee between $300 and $700 per unit to the city, compared to the estimated $84 to $120, according to the report.

According to the ordinance, these fees and other maintenance costs, cannot be passed down to renters, which means renters are less burdened with the expenses, but therefore could place more strain upon landlords, and exacerbate their ability to provide the units at all. 

Elizabeth Madrigal, a policy manager with nonprofit developer MidPen Housing, spoke during public comment to emphasize the impact of these additional fees particularly on deed restricted affordable housing units. In Redwood City, MidPen’s portfolio includes 375 homes housing more than 500 residents, with an additional 180 units in the pipeline.

Costs imposed on affordable housing providers in Berkeley after a similar rent control ordinance was passed increased by “tens of thousands of dollars a year,” Madrigal said. This, paired with increasing operating costs ultimately meant that providers had to significantly cut back on building maintenance or on-site resident services, Madrigal said. 

“While the ordinance is well intentioned, we believe it will add additional complexity to the regulatory statute of which affordable housing is required to comply,” Madrigal said.

Councilmember Isabella Chu described herself as “unequivocally pro renter,” and formally opposed the ordinance, describing it as “seriously flawed” and legislation that would ultimately harm those it seeks to help. 

“I would like to formally oppose this ordinance because I believe it will really hurt the people it is most intended to help,” Chu said. 

A significant portion of the four-hour meeting was spent dissecting the possible unintended consequences of the proposed ordinance, but Councilmember Chris Sturken attempted to redirect the conversation to begin talking about what the city must do should it pass in November. 

With the council’s vote, there is nothing the city can do to amend the ordinance if it is ultimately passed, which means staff may be encumbered with a monumental change in policy that would go in effect quickly. 

To prepare, Sturken hoped council subcommittees and staff could begin preparing or brainstorming solutions to concerns raised — even if the majority of councilmembers were individually opposed to the legislation. 

“I’ve heard a lot of simply just concerns about this measure, and that is valid, and we needed to take the time with a fine-toothed comb through this measure,” Sturken said. “But, the next step we need to take is to prepare, to create a plan, for how we, if this measure passes, are going to slow the bleeding.” 

With the measure to be placed on the Nov. 3 ballot — with unanimous approval by the council — Councilmember Howard said she hopes registered voters will do their research before weighing in on the matter.

“I hope we all do our homework and don’t vote blindly for something we don’t understand,” Howard said.