Rent control heads to council: Burlingame, San Mateo officials to vote on placing initiatives on fall ballot

The initiative is a part of a larger effort to install policies protecting residents in some Peninsula cities from rent hikes which advocates claim are unjust and too costly. The San Mateo City Council is also scheduled Monday to decide whether a ballot measure establishing rent control and just cause eviction provisions meant to protect law-abiding tenants will go before voters on Election Day, Nov. 8. Both were the result of a signature-gathering effort by advocates and the councils must vote to place the measures on the ballot.

Though a legal challenge by opponents of the Burlingame effort has been placed in front of the initiative, a report authored by City Attorney Kathleen Kane indicates the process leading toward bringing the rent control proposal to voters was likely sound.

“A voter reading the petition submitted to the City Clerk here would understand the nature of the law being proposed and that its intent is to wipe out all previous laws that may be inconsistent with it, including Measure T,” responded Kane to a letter from Ashlee Titus, an attorney hired by the California Apartment Association, claiming the petition with signatures supporting the rent control movement should be disregarded as it allegedly violated state election laws.

The Burlingame Advocates for Renters Protections submitted the more than the 2,332 signatures necessary to put their proposal onto the presidential election ballot, and received confirmation from county elections officials last week those were enough to quality.

But Titus said in her letter city officials are obligated to throw out the rent control effort, because the advocates’ petition was incomplete as it did not include the complete Measure T text, making it impossible for those signing to know all the necessary details of the ordinance up for repeal.

Kane’s letter to the council suggests though the petition did not include all of language of the ordinance passed by voters in 1988 to prevent rent control, a reasonable signer could understand the aim of the initiative.

“Having the text of Measure T itself may … be something a conscientious voter would desire, but it is unlikely a court would find it necessary for understanding the nature of the initiative being proposed,” according to the letter.

An attorney hired by the renters’ advocates claims a sufficient sample of the Measure T text was offered during the signature collection campaign to adequately inform those interested in signing.

“The initiative petition meets the requirements of California election law and its validity would be upheld by a court,” according to the letter from attorney Daniel Saver, of Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, which represents the rent control advocates.

Should the council disagree and prevent the initiative from moving ahead, Saver said his group could pursue a lawsuit seeking legal injunction.

The council ultimately will be charged with first deciding on whether the petition should survive the legal challenge, and then can order a special election to be held on Election Day, in which voters can determine the fate of the measure.

The council could also postpone a decision in favor of collecting more information, which would likely cause the initiative to miss the fall election ballot, as the deadline to float measures looms in the next couple weeks. Under such a decision, the council would need to call another, later election, which would cost the city roughly $100,000 more than allowing it to go on the fall ballot.

Should the initiative reach the ballot and be approved, landlords in Burlingame could not hike rents at a rate higher than the rate of inflation, which is typically around 2 percent annually, and they would also be required to offer displaced tenants three months worth of rent payments that could be spent toward finding another place to live. Tenants facing being forced out by a landlord would be granted greater power under the implementation of just cause eviction policies as well.

Cindy Cornell, president of the Burlingame Advocates for Renters Protections, said in an email she looked forward to officials formally vetting the initiative and hopefully allowing it to go before voters.

“We have absolute confidence in the validity of our ballot initiative, and feel CAA’s attempt to block a truly grassroots democratic effort is meritless and not in the interests of Burlingame’s residents,” she said. “It’s all about respecting the will of the people, and to let the democratic process sort this out at the ballot box.”

Josh Howard, spokesman for the apartment association though, disagreed.

“We hope that the city clerk upholds the elections code and rejects this non-compliant measure so that we do not need to consider litigation but can focus on truly addressing our region’s housing crisis with real solutions not failed policies that do not produce affordable housing,” he said in an email.

The Burlingame City Council meets 7 p.m., Monday, Aug. 1, in the council chambers, 501 Primrose Road. San Mateo City Council meets the same day and time at City Hall, 330 W. 20th Ave.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105