South San Francisco officials eyeing policies designed to protect renters from predatory landlords faced pushback from those who claimed the initiatives would violate their private property rights.
The South San Francisco City Council explored establishing a variety of potential renter protections such as requiring relocation assistance, one-year lease minimums and delayed rent increases during a study session Wednesday, Jan. 9.
Citing the recent rise in tenant displacement frequently stemming from sudden, large rent hikes, Councilman Mark Addiego pushed for approving some of the policies in an effort to establish safeguards for residents.
“We want to prevent that,” said Addiego, referencing a couple of instances in which a company purchased a large residential building and suddenly pushed rents to unreasonable rates, effectively evicting dozens of tenants.
Vice Mayor Rich Garbarino agreed officials should work to prevent such behavior.
“Just gouging like that is unacceptable,” he said.
No decision was made at the meeting and the issue will return for further discussion, but officials suggested they were interested in more information regarding mandated one-year minimum leases, limited forms of relocation assistance and required delays before large rent increases go into effect.
Also, to prevent the mass evictions caused by sudden, large rent spikes, Community Development Director Alex Greenwood suggested officials consider requiring relocation assistance in instances when four units or more are simultaneously vacated.
The exact policies which could be effective in stopping landlords from abusing their renters are yet to be determined, as officials maintain diverging opinions on the issue.
Local landlords were unanimous in their opposition of the initiative though, as a variety of property owners spoke against councilmembers approving renter protections.
“Property is a private asset, it is not a public utility and the local government is not entitled to dictate how I control that property,” said Jeremy Rushton, a Realtor and South San Francisco resident.
Moreover, Rushton, who rents a room in his South San Francisco house, said he is tired of the vilification of good-intentioned landlords.
“The negative stereotype about landlords is quite hyperbolic,” he said.
Recommended for you
A variety of other local landlords joined a similar chorus, claiming they are being misrepresented since a majority of property owners set fair rates and treat their tenants with respect.
For his part, landlord Lee Ginsburg suggested officials should focus more on facilitating additional housing construction in an effort to combat the local affordability crisis, rather than consider private property restrictions.
“I worked very hard for my properties and I should not be forced to handle a regional problem on my own shoulders,” he said.
For the part of officials, most agreed the landlords who act responsibly and legally should not fear the policies designed to confront bad actors.
“I want to look out for the moms and pops, because I understand this is a majority of their income,” said Councilman Mark Nagales.
And councilmembers were unanimous in their unwillingness to establish rent control.
“I don’t believe in rent control because one of the biggest issues we have is affordable housing and I don’t think that will help,” said Councilwoman Flor Nicolas. “So what we have to find is a sensible solution to this.”
City Manager Mike Futrell said he expected the renter protection discussion to return for one more study session before any recommendation for approval arrives before officials.
Seemingly dismayed by the limited progress made on the matter, Addiego suggested he felt his colleagues may be moving too cautiously on an issue which he considered urgent.
“This is a case of taking baby steps, I take it,” he said.
I watched that first council meeting some time ago I was amazed at how sympathetic seeming the council was and then voted no on helping those in need of support with evictions and gouging. It's simple. the right thing to do is help those more unfortunate than you..It amazes me how all the realtors spoke in the negative..It was simply the right thing to do. They don't get it out of greed and having their own way.
Being just a homeowner and not a renter or landlord, I WONDERED what that conversation was about between the Councilmembers last night on our Public Channel on Comcast. There was no sound for some reason. I could tell there was disagreement between them. Did anyone else have the same problem?
Am a long time landlord and make a good living off of that income
Have NOT raised rents to 'keep up with others', but do raise them to keep up with my expenses...would LOVE to make more money, but not at that kind of cost to those who support my business
My vacancy is normally zero and occasionally up when someone moves out.
Hate rent control, but do support it in this monopolistic time here on the Peninsula/SF BayArea. Most rent control ordinances to date have become monsters, even to renters.
Only support it if there is a hard sunset date and any renewal thereof requiring a super majority vote.
SSF council is doing what they are supposed to do...take care of their citizens. Both landlords and individual citizens
We are or have become a renters society again. WWII made the suburb's and R1 ownership, but the economy & the way of life for the young has changed all that.
For those who think otherwise....they are soon going to see a huge change...when the renters start to vote as a unified block. Already, in most areas, renters are the majority...but to date do NOT vote in as high of numbers as homeowners do...that will change quicker with the monopolistic metrics of landlords continue...
Ben: I share some your thoughts, especially how we are becoming a society of renters. If rent control is more widely imposed look for more of what is happening in Mountain View to spread. Several hundred units have been lost since that city implemented rent control and are being replaced by owner-occupied town homes. The suburbs present more of an opportunity for this to occur because many rental properties sit on large lots unlike in San Francisco. Sadly, everyone loses: owners exit the rental business and lose an income stream while renters, many who are low income, lose a place to live.
I believe there are better solutions than rent control. For starters cities need to limit the expansion of office buildings in this area. Reduce the drivers behind the demand for housing and housing will become more affordable.
Our previous society was based on a blend of socialistic and capitalistic metrics…currently we have been pushed way over to a capitalistic government…
Blend, as we were both a capitalistic based society with socialistic regulatory agencies (for the good of society).
Pure capitalistic based begot the likes of Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch (just two examples, there are way too many more). Capitalistic metrics is to make as much as you can and $#@!% anyone in the way.
Socialistic will have the government weight the people over those making money
Example of our ‘blend’ is that our regulatory agencies took down both Martin and Heather…for the good of our society.
Regulatory agencies like: FDA, SEC, DOJ, FTC, FCC, and many, many more…looking out for the good of our society and citizens thereof…The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 is the basis for our regulatory agencies today
Historically, purity in any one of these polar opposite metrics has lead to revolt…once the populous had enough of the abuse from EITHER mythologies
So on this topic…landlords vs renters…a competitive environment will have a self-regulating environment. Those who rape and pillage will have renters go to landlords who do not. Choice and we currently do NOT have that choice available to renters…it is near monopolistic for the whole SF BayArea
As for you thought of regulating offices…that is the other side of this pendulum…
For the root causes of this issue is that
#1 Over Population, although a new friend has a good argument FOR larger populations and am noodling a change on this thought
#2 Disassociation in location between jobs and bedrooms. The volumes of affordable bedrooms is on the East Bay side and the majority of jobs are here on the Peninsula
#3 is that our public transportation is not good enough. For it was…folks could have bedrooms in Tahoe and commute down here via HSR
Menlo Park has changed their planning to allow bedrooms on the east side of 101 by Facebook. Facebook has a 2nd and 3rd series of bedrooms in the works.
Menlo Park has a very similar traffic congestion issue as San Mateo, as they too are the bulls-eye for the commuters from the East side crossing a bridge that dumps commuters onto 101.
The solution, IMHO, is to move into the 21st Century and allow more TOD/High Density developments to remove commuters who drive and onto local transit systems
That is change from LOS (Level of Service…for CARs) to VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) to reduce those miles by architecting amenities closer so that folks can walk/bicycle/take a bus…or drive from Suburbia R1 to that one place to drop off their kids, go to work, eat lunch, pickup their kid and drive home
In order to accomplish that, our planning needs to change…but it took over 100 years to get were we are now and all of those ordinances would take decades and decades to change/update
Form Based Codes planning is the fastest growing metric in the country, state and SF BayArea. Not so in San Mateo
It is joint Public Works and Planning effort or metrics. PW’s already has a Vision Zero plan, which is our Sustainable Streets Plan. We need Planning to adopt a Form Based Code methodology
As for Councilman Nagales' comment, please note that "mom and pop" landlords who have owned property for the last ten years and have raised rents at the rates we've seen have been making a killing off the backs of renters. They have low prop 13 tax rates and pass them on to their families. Most renters have not experienced any improvements to their units or buildings in exchange for this gouging.
Very disappointing how a local politician is so quick to jump on the bandwagon of depriving a whole swath of people of their property rights due the actions of a few. I know of few other situations where this is considered good public policy. I have yet to see the data to indicate how widespread this purported problem really is; no one knows what the annual rental increases tenants are being charged because this information is not retained in a central repository.
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!
(9) comments
I watched that first council meeting some time ago I was amazed at how sympathetic seeming the council was and then voted no on helping those in need of support with evictions and gouging. It's simple. the right thing to do is help those more unfortunate than you..It amazes me how all the realtors spoke in the negative..It was simply the right thing to do. They don't get it out of greed and having their own way.
Being just a homeowner and not a renter or landlord, I WONDERED what that conversation was about between the Councilmembers last night on our Public Channel on Comcast. There was no sound for some reason.
I could tell there was disagreement between them.
Did anyone else have the same problem?
Am a long time landlord and make a good living off of that income
Have NOT raised rents to 'keep up with others', but do raise them to keep up with my expenses...would LOVE to make more money, but not at that kind of cost to those who support my business
My vacancy is normally zero and occasionally up when someone moves out.
Hate rent control, but do support it in this monopolistic time here on the Peninsula/SF BayArea. Most rent control ordinances to date have become monsters, even to renters.
Only support it if there is a hard sunset date and any renewal thereof requiring a super majority vote.
SSF council is doing what they are supposed to do...take care of their citizens. Both landlords and individual citizens
We are or have become a renters society again. WWII made the suburb's and R1 ownership, but the economy & the way of life for the young has changed all that.
For those who think otherwise....they are soon going to see a huge change...when the renters start to vote as a unified block. Already, in most areas, renters are the majority...but to date do NOT vote in as high of numbers as homeowners do...that will change quicker with the monopolistic metrics of landlords continue...
Ben: I share some your thoughts, especially how we are becoming a society of renters. If rent control is more widely imposed look for more of what is happening in Mountain View to spread. Several hundred units have been lost since that city implemented rent control and are being replaced by owner-occupied town homes. The suburbs present more of an opportunity for this to occur because many rental properties sit on large lots unlike in San Francisco. Sadly, everyone loses: owners exit the rental business and lose an income stream while renters, many who are low income, lose a place to live.
I believe there are better solutions than rent control. For starters cities need to limit the expansion of office buildings in this area. Reduce the drivers behind the demand for housing and housing will become more affordable.
Agree and disagree…
Our previous society was based on a blend of socialistic and capitalistic metrics…currently we have been pushed way over to a capitalistic government…
Blend, as we were both a capitalistic based society with socialistic regulatory agencies (for the good of society).
Pure capitalistic based begot the likes of Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch (just two examples, there are way too many more). Capitalistic metrics is to make as much as you can and $#@!% anyone in the way.
Socialistic will have the government weight the people over those making money
Example of our ‘blend’ is that our regulatory agencies took down both Martin and Heather…for the good of our society.
Regulatory agencies like: FDA, SEC, DOJ, FTC, FCC, and many, many more…looking out for the good of our society and citizens thereof…The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 is the basis for our regulatory agencies today
Historically, purity in any one of these polar opposite metrics has lead to revolt…once the populous had enough of the abuse from EITHER mythologies
So on this topic…landlords vs renters…a competitive environment will have a self-regulating environment. Those who rape and pillage will have renters go to landlords who do not. Choice and we currently do NOT have that choice available to renters…it is near monopolistic for the whole SF BayArea
As for you thought of regulating offices…that is the other side of this pendulum…
For the root causes of this issue is that
#1 Over Population, although a new friend has a good argument FOR larger populations and am noodling a change on this thought
#2 Disassociation in location between jobs and bedrooms. The volumes of affordable bedrooms is on the East Bay side and the majority of jobs are here on the Peninsula
#3 is that our public transportation is not good enough. For it was…folks could have bedrooms in Tahoe and commute down here via HSR
Menlo Park has changed their planning to allow bedrooms on the east side of 101 by Facebook. Facebook has a 2nd and 3rd series of bedrooms in the works.
Menlo Park has a very similar traffic congestion issue as San Mateo, as they too are the bulls-eye for the commuters from the East side crossing a bridge that dumps commuters onto 101.
The solution, IMHO, is to move into the 21st Century and allow more TOD/High Density developments to remove commuters who drive and onto local transit systems
That is change from LOS (Level of Service…for CARs) to VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) to reduce those miles by architecting amenities closer so that folks can walk/bicycle/take a bus…or drive from Suburbia R1 to that one place to drop off their kids, go to work, eat lunch, pickup their kid and drive home
In order to accomplish that, our planning needs to change…but it took over 100 years to get were we are now and all of those ordinances would take decades and decades to change/update
Form Based Codes planning is the fastest growing metric in the country, state and SF BayArea. Not so in San Mateo
It is joint Public Works and Planning effort or metrics. PW’s already has a Vision Zero plan, which is our Sustainable Streets Plan. We need Planning to adopt a Form Based Code methodology
As for Councilman Nagales' comment, please note that "mom and pop" landlords who have owned property for the last ten years and have raised rents at the rates we've seen have been making a killing off the backs of renters. They have low prop 13 tax rates and pass them on to their families. Most renters have not experienced any improvements to their units or buildings in exchange for this gouging.
Very disappointing how a local politician is so quick to jump on the bandwagon of depriving a whole swath of people of their property rights due the actions of a few. I know of few other situations where this is considered good public policy. I have yet to see the data to indicate how widespread this purported problem really is; no one knows what the annual rental increases tenants are being charged because this information is not retained in a central repository.
And that would be because no city council has had the courage to start keeping a database.
One day politicians and social housing advocates will realize they do not own the property they are trying to seize through government action.
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.