The pressure renters face in an expensive housing market and the thin profit margins mom-and-pop property owners are experiencing as landlords surfaced as concerns for the San Mateo community as officials reviewed a wide range of rental housing policies Monday.
Up for review were a range of measures officials could consider putting in place in San Mateo, including requiring landlords offer renters relocation assistance under specific circumstances and creating a database tracking data on rental units in the city. Officials had previously considered such measures but tabled them in 2016 to allow residents to weigh in on Measure Q — a citizen-initiated ballot measure to institute rent control — which failed after a divisive election.
Though rent control was not on the table Monday, a renewed focus on encouraging participation in the Section 8 housing voucher program and an increase in the number of below-market-rate units developers must include in new housing projects were considered.
Adam Loraine, a resident and member of the city’s Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, said he remembered the discussions of tenant protections preceding the city’s vote on Measure Q in 2016 in which some predicted the rental housing market would plateau. Noting renters continue to face increasing rents some two years later, Loraine urged city officials to find a way to lessen the burden on renters while ensuring the policies work for all residents.
“Just because Measure Q lost doesn’t mean that we can’t talk about anything and everything related to tenant protections,” he said. “We still have an issue, the City Council still needs to do what it can.”
Discussions in 2016 of whether San Mateo should implement tenant protections followed the formation of a housing task force aimed at scoping how the city could play a role in addressing the regional housing crisis. A 2016 report issued by the task force put forward a range of rental protections city officials could consider implementing, including rent control, rental mediation and relocation assistance, among others, according to a staff report.
Though city officials were able to approve a set of linkage fees — which developers pay as a way to offset their impacts on affordable housing needs — their discussions on tenant protections faltered and stalled when a heated battle ensued over Measure Q.
Having lived in San Mateo as a renter for the past 15 years, Reina Gonzalez said she knows from experience the stress of not knowing when one’s next big rent hike is coming. When she received an eviction notice a few years ago, Gonzalez said the children for whom she is a nanny set up a lemonade stand to support her.
“Renters in San Mateo are very, very anxious,” she said. “Many of them have moved over and over again. They give every penny to rent and have nothing left. They are worried they will get an eviction notice or another big rent increase.”
Several forms of relocation assistance were considered Monday in addition to the city’s policy to award tenants three months in rent payments when a residential building is demolished. However, several property owners stepped forward with concerns about how they would be able to afford making relocation payments to tenants.
Recommended for you
San Mateo property owner Frank Ferraris urged councilmembers not to move forward with relocation payments, noting he made 1.5 percent return on his invested capital last year and would have to raise rents to afford relocation assistance.
“What’s going to happen is if I have to develop a reserve for relocation payments all I can do is raise rents, so that’s not a good idea,” he said.
Among the forms of relocation assistance that gained support of councilmembers present and representatives of the California Apartment Association and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors is a requirement for landlords to pay for tenant relocation when the units they manage are deemed unsafe for occupancy by code enforcement. Councilwoman Maureen Freschet was absent from the study session.
Because the city has a policy to award tenants three months in rent payments when a residential building is demolished, officials may consider extending that ordinance to include tenants displaced by extensive renovations requiring them to vacate the building during construction. Though they will continue to study a requirement for landlords to pay for tenant relocation when renters cannot afford large rent increases, the proposal received lukewarm support from councilmembers.
Citing concerns about how the city could keep information collected in a rental registry confidential, several landlords also took issue with an idea to establish a database tracking information on actual rents, rent increases and evictions. Though Mayor Rick Bonilla and Councilman Joe Goethals emphasized a need for more data to be able to scope solutions for renters, Deputy Mayor Diane Papan and Councilman Eric Rodriguez expressed concerns about the challenges officials might face in keeping the data accurate and confidential.
Councilmembers also discussed establishing minimum lease terms, increased noticing requirements for rent increases or evictions and mediation for landlords and renters among the measures that could be considered in the future. Bonilla said he favored keeping as many options on the table as possible when councilmembers pick up the discussion at a later date.
Goethals said he would be focused on ensuring whatever steps officials may choose to take do not harm residents and also address the imbalance of jobs and housing in San Mateo.
“This is a complicated and dynamic situation. It requires us looking at both sides of the equation,” he said. “I think there’s consensus that more can be done and that it shouldn’t all fall to one group of individuals.”
Tenant advocates just can't take no for an answer. The people of San Mateo have spoken over and over that we do not want government intrusions and regulations on private property. I would advise the San Mateo City Council to remember these efforts in the past and how they have been rejected by your constituents. To keep bringing this issue up tells me that you are ignorant to the answer your electorate has been giving you for years.
New Urbanist Andres Duany from the 'Strong Towns' podcast back in 2016.
That conversation infuriated many listeners because of Duany’s suggestion that millennials need to stop complaining about gentrified cities being so expensive and move to—in his words, “pioneer”—someplace that isn’t so expensive, and then do the work to make it great.
Here’s a quote from that interview: Who’s really complaining about gentrifying are the new, young people who want to come in. But my feeling is: Hey, somebody else did the job, somebody else pioneered. Why don’t you go to Buffalo? Why don’t you go to Detroit? Instead of inheriting the work of others, do the work yourself.
I think if Brooklyn is over-gentrified, those people should go to Detroit and to Buffalo and to Troy and should go to the great small towns of America and get to work on them. People should, like Americans did historically, move on.
Learned that Springfield, Massachusetts, that Memphis, Detroit and Buffalo were exciting places, that if those students wanted to make the world a better place while improving their place in it, those three cities were not only affordable but dripping with opportunity.
Wait, let me see if I have this right, Vincent: we should stop building more housing, we shouldn't enact tenant protections, and instead, young people should just move somewhere else? Seriously?
No...another straw man argument JordanG...never said to stop building..never said to stop tenant protections, never said anyone 'should" do anything....
These are called options JordanG, and they are options that have been used for generations...people move and it's not always a bad thing, right?...a number of friends have moved out of the Bay Area (Atlanta, Florida etc.), and they, to the person, have told me that they are glad that they moved...they have some money in their pocket at the end of the month...they say that they enjoy life more than when they were living in our costly Bay Area....
So just saying...or Andres Duany is actually ....that it's another option....is that okay with you?
That's not 'another staw-man,' Vincent. In fact, it's not a straw-man at all: it's literally the core arguement of the quote you posted.
I’m glad that your friends are happy outside the Bay Area. Did they choose to move, or were they displaced by skyrocketing rents? The vast majority of people aren’t leaving the area because they want to; it's not an option for them, it's a requirement.
In that vein, there are a few actions we can take as a community here, which include building more housing and enacting certain tenant protections that ensure those most vulnerable aren't forced from their homes. I believe we should embrace both.
You know what was great? When they asked for who would support raising height limits and building more housing to stand. Both sides both the "mom & pops" and the YIMBY's all stood. The whole room stood in support of building more housing. It was unreal! Made my heart warm.
Doubt that happened. No one wants more housing, nor high rises. Isn't parking, traffic and congestion bad enough around here? Why add to the already escalating problem?
I can't understand why anyone would want to move here from other states. Too crowded, congested, expensive....we have a whole country out there folks, move there please!
We moved here because my job is a regional NorCal job but my partner works in Biotech. There is no Big pharma in Sacramento, we had to come for career.
If you didn't want us, shouldn't have approved the office space.
Uh, there aren't other Pharma and/or Biotech careers throughout the country? And I didn't approve any office space, nor additional housing! I, and plenty others, attend plenty of council meetings to try and stop additional housing and building of office space. They don't care to hear what a negative impact it has on us; all they care about is the extra tax revenue. Very sad.
Jen, both of us work. I can live anywhere in Northern California. But if she wants to keep her pharma career we have to live here. I think people are not sensitive to the fact that the standard for Millennials is a 2 income household and that creates less economic Mobility.
We really need to stop over regulating small investors. Doing so will not solve the housing affordability problem in this area.
Having attended similar meetings in other cities it is painfully obvious that the rent control advocates despise anyone who owns residential rental property. A sad example of the class warfare dominating our society; if you have more than me then I will try and use the government to diminish what you have.
What are these regulations a mom and pop renter has to comply with? Why are they so scared of a rental and rent database? Information is always good, transparency is always good. Yet to be scared to just give the city data... something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
A rental data base? These are private party transactions and should not be under the purview of any government agency other than the taxing authorities where government has a legitimate interest. Property owners disclose this private information when they pay their Federal and State income taxes. This is clearly an overreach and should be stopped in its tracks.
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(19) comments
Tenant advocates just can't take no for an answer. The people of San Mateo have spoken over and over that we do not want government intrusions and regulations on private property. I would advise the San Mateo City Council to remember these efforts in the past and how they have been rejected by your constituents. To keep bringing this issue up tells me that you are ignorant to the answer your electorate has been giving you for years.
Thank you Chris!
New Urbanist Andres Duany from the 'Strong Towns' podcast back in 2016.
That conversation infuriated many listeners because of Duany’s suggestion that millennials need to stop complaining about gentrified cities being so expensive and move to—in his words, “pioneer”—someplace that isn’t so expensive, and then do the work to make it great.
Here’s a quote from that interview:
Who’s really complaining about gentrifying are the new, young people who want to come in. But my feeling is: Hey, somebody else did the job, somebody else pioneered. Why don’t you go to Buffalo? Why don’t you go to Detroit? Instead of inheriting the work of others, do the work yourself.
I think if Brooklyn is over-gentrified, those people should go to Detroit and to Buffalo and to Troy and should go to the great small towns of America and get to work on them. People should, like Americans did historically, move on.
Learned that Springfield, Massachusetts, that Memphis, Detroit and Buffalo were exciting places, that if those students wanted to make the world a better place while improving their place in it, those three cities were not only affordable but dripping with opportunity.
Wait, let me see if I have this right, Vincent: we should stop building more housing, we shouldn't enact tenant protections, and instead, young people should just move somewhere else? Seriously?
No...another straw man argument JordanG...never said to stop building..never said to stop tenant protections, never said anyone 'should" do anything....
These are called options JordanG, and they are options that have been used for generations...people move and it's not always a bad thing, right?...a number of friends have moved out of the Bay Area (Atlanta, Florida etc.), and they, to the person, have told me that they are glad that they moved...they have some money in their pocket at the end of the month...they say that they enjoy life more than when they were living in our costly Bay Area....
So just saying...or Andres Duany is actually ....that it's another option....is that okay with you?
That's not 'another staw-man,' Vincent. In fact, it's not a straw-man at all: it's literally the core arguement of the quote you posted.
I’m glad that your friends are happy outside the Bay Area. Did they choose to move, or were they displaced by skyrocketing rents? The vast majority of people aren’t leaving the area because they want to; it's not an option for them, it's a requirement.
In that vein, there are a few actions we can take as a community here, which include building more housing and enacting certain tenant protections that ensure those most vulnerable aren't forced from their homes. I believe we should embrace both.
You know what was great? When they asked for who would support raising height limits and building more housing to stand. Both sides both the "mom & pops" and the YIMBY's all stood. The whole room stood in support of building more housing. It was unreal! Made my heart warm.
Doubt that happened. No one wants more housing, nor high rises. Isn't parking, traffic and congestion bad enough around here? Why add to the already escalating problem?
Watch the video! It really did happen. It was amazing.
I can't understand why anyone would want to move here from other states. Too crowded, congested, expensive....we have a whole country out there folks, move there please!
We moved here because my job is a regional NorCal job but my partner works in Biotech. There is no Big pharma in Sacramento, we had to come for career.
If you didn't want us, shouldn't have approved the office space.
Uh, there aren't other Pharma and/or Biotech careers throughout the country? And I didn't approve any office space, nor additional housing! I, and plenty others, attend plenty of council meetings to try and stop additional housing and building of office space. They don't care to hear what a negative impact it has on us; all they care about is the extra tax revenue. Very sad.
Jen, both of us work. I can live anywhere in Northern California. But if she wants to keep her pharma career we have to live here. I think people are not sensitive to the fact that the standard for Millennials is a 2 income household and that creates less economic Mobility.
Goethals said, First Do No Harm. Eell, they've done nothing and caused a great deal of harm. So the owners have thin profit margins? Prove it.
Why should anyone have to prove anything to you Cindy? Who elected you again? and how have you been harmed?
We really need to stop over regulating small investors. Doing so will not solve the housing affordability problem in this area.
Having attended similar meetings in other cities it is painfully obvious that the rent control advocates despise anyone who owns residential rental property. A sad example of the class warfare dominating our society; if you have more than me then I will try and use the government to diminish what you have.
What are these regulations a mom and pop renter has to comply with? Why are they so scared of a rental and rent database? Information is always good, transparency is always good. Yet to be scared to just give the city data... something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
They could put a 0.00001% local gross revenue tax on rentals and get that info.
A rental data base? These are private party transactions and should not be under the purview of any government agency other than the taxing authorities where government has a legitimate interest. Property owners disclose this private information when they pay their Federal and State income taxes. This is clearly an overreach and should be stopped in its tracks.
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.