A citizen’s initiative in Redwood City for rent control is not eligible for inclusion on the November ballot, after review of signatures by the County Elections Office determined many were not registered voters within the city’s jurisdiction. The Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance sought to address the rises in rent by capping raises in rent by at most 5% each year and strengthen protections to prevent unjust evictions of tenants.
The citizen-led initiative was the first of its kind in Redwood City, organized by leaders from Faith in Action Bay Area. Martha Beetley, a signee and proponent of the measure who helped present the initiative to the city, said she’s disappointed but proud of the efforts made.
“We built a great community team and learned a lot about the process,” Beetley said. “I think that we got so many people invigorated and into the democratic process.”
Proponents filed the petition with 6,395 signatures to the City Clerk May 21, providing about 2,000 more than required.
Vocal against the ballot measure from the beginning, the California Apartment Association sent a letter to city officials claiming the petition did not properly inform voters of implications should the measure pass. Joshua Howard, executive vice president of Local Government Affairs for the organization, said efforts should be focused elsewhere such as rental assistance programs for low-income families.
“We are glad the registrar of voters did their due diligence,” Howard said. “What we need to focus on now is that rent control is not the solution to address the housing challenges that families face in San Mateo County.”
Current state law mandates certain tenant protections, some of which were passed in 2019, including the prohibition of rent increases over 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.
According to state law, acceptable eviction reasons include taking the property of the rental market entirely, undergoing substantial remodeling, or what’s considered at-fault evictions, such as breaking lease terms, nonpayment or causing nuisance.
(2) comments
There is no free lunch, some one pays less means someone else has to pay more. Lenders will require landlords to be more ruthless and have larger buffers of cash in the form of higher rents due to the uncertainty created.
A tragic missed opportunity.
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.