Rent control campaign begins in Redwood City

If passed, a new rent stabilization program would be created to set the allowable rent increases for applicable properties, not to exceed 5% each year. Landlords would pay a monthly $7 to $10 fee to fund the program, which would also oversee other tenant protection-related issues. 

Assuming at least 10% of the city’s registered voters sign the petition, the Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance would go before voters on the November 2024 ballot if not adopted by the Redwood City Council before then. Previous efforts to bring similar proposals before the council have not seen favorable results on the part of some housing advocates such as Faith in Action, one of the organizations filing the ordinance, which largely explains the motivation to move forward with a voter-reliant approach. 

“Local advocates have been trying to get the council to pass the same policies, so it’s now been years and years of asking for the same policies that exist in so many other Bay Area communities and asking them to adopt them in Redwood City,” ACCE Institute Legal Director Leah Simon-Weisberg said. 

Anti-harassment strategies are an ongoing conversation within the Redwood City Council, with councilmembers occupying varied stances on the urgency and extensiveness of local tenant protection regulations. While most councilmembers approved further investigation into anti-displacement policies during an August City Council meeting, Vice Mayor Lissette Espinoza-Garnica and Councilmember Chris Sturken voted against the measure, claiming the council’s direction did not go far enough in remedying the problem. Espinoza-Garnica said they are glad Faith in Action is organizing on the rights of tenants and taking the matter one step further. 

The state mandates certain tenant protections, some of which were passed in 2019, including the prohibition of rent increases above 10% for most tenants — or 5% plus cost-of-living changes — over a 12-month period, and landlords have to fulfill certain criteria if they want to evict tenants. East Palo Alto is the only city in San Mateo County with a comparable rent control policy to the proposed ordinance, approving a 4.2% maximum increase on applicable properties this fiscal year. 

According to state law, acceptable eviction reasons include taking the property off the rental market entirely, undergoing substantial remodeling, or what’s considered at-fault evictions, such as breaking lease terms, nonpayment or causing nuisance.

But Adriana Guzman, Faith in Action community organizer, said while these reasons are ostensibly legitimate, they are often used deceptively against tenants, citing examples of landlords threatening families if their children are too loud. Espinoza-Garnica said state laws also require proof landlords are engaging in harassment with intention to evict, which can be difficult to prove, and local jurisdictions have the responsibility to shore up protections and fill in gaps where the state hasn’t gone far enough. 

“Locally, the law could require proof that they are going to do big renovations rather than small renovations. They’re being told to leave because of substantial renovations but they end up not being very large at all,” they said. “Or, if you’re taking a property off the market, making sure you’re not soon after putting it on the market.”

The ordinance would enact right-to-return policies that guarantee tenants can move back into the properties after such remodeling has taken place. Landlords would also have to fill out a form detailing renovation plans – as construction on the property is sometimes used as a harassment tactic – to avoid unnecessary delays or unexpected interruptions in residents’ daily lives. Simon-Weisberg said it’s critical to pair rent stabilization with anti-harassment provisions to prevent an increase in deceitful landlord tactics.  

“What we have learned is that most cities wanted to be able to control the annual rent increases, and what we learned very quickly was, if you do that, you also had to prevent arbitrary eviction. That’s why just cause for eviction is always tied into these ordinances” she said. 

But the prospect of rent control is controversial, with Rhovy Lyn Antonio, senior vice president of local public affairs at the California Apartment Association, stating unnecessary regulatory barriers only hinder housing supply and production.

“Voters should not be fooled into signing these petitions. These measures are more of the same failed policies from overzealous actors seeking to undermine our state’s housing laws, especially the landmark California Tenant Protection Act of 2019, which already protects nearly all renters from excessive rent increases and evictions without just cause,” she said in an email.  

“If passed, the measures will only worsen our housing crisis, prompting housing providers to take units off the market. Additionally, they could cost cities millions each year to administer new bureaucracies that lack oversight and accountability. Dozens of new administrators and lawyers could result in millions of dollars in annual expenses. We need to educate housing providers and renters on the Tenant Protection Act and build more homes, not create more regulations and red tape.”

The ordinance was also filed in four other Northern California cities, including Larkspur, Pittsburg, San Pablo, and Delano as part of a coordinated effort to expand such policies in the region. Starting at the end of the month, organizers have 120 days to collect enough signatures to place the ordinance on next year’s ballot. 

alyse@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102