Editor,
This month gig workers were paid $250 each to oppose rent control in Concord. Though the flyers they handed out had California Apartment Association information on it, the group who paid the workers said CAA did not hire them. Seems suspicious. Thankfully, Concord’s City Council were not fooled by these ongoing and deceitful practices.
These and other practices were clearly addressed by the Daily Journal columnist Mark Simon May 12, 2022. In this column, Mark exposed the smear campaigns that CAA undertook to incorrectly portray two candidates running for office who were aligned with the plight of renters. CAA used what I would call sexist and false claims to vilify these candidates only to protect their own business interests.
CAA has proven time and again to be a single-minded special interest group bent on avoiding all types of regulations on their business. Their outsized political influence has made our region one of the most expensive places to live.
For decades, CAA’s deceptive and predatory policy demands, coupled with campaign financing have been very successful, eliminating any thought of enacting renter protections. The residents have paid dearly through not only sky-high rents yet even more unjustly exposed to intimidation, harassment and illegal evictions. It is time for a transformation of the dynamics between landlords and tenants in that the parties are both treated with decency and respect. Now is the time for the city of San Mateo to enact renter protection policies that will benefit 50,000 residents and not support the 6,000 rental property owners of which less than 2,000 live in the city.
John Ebneter
San Mateo
The letter writer is a member of the San Mateo Planning Commission. Views are his own.
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Ebneter, but rent control studies have shown the opposite effect of your desired outcomes, including rental units being removed, among other negative outcomes. If I recall correctly, didn’t California just vote down a proposition to impose rent control? The problem continues to be, for housing of any kind, is that cities, such as San Mateo, extort onerous development fees and assessments which restrict building due to high costs. The following link highlights the issue (https://californiaglobe.com/fl/we-need-more-housing-not-more-rent-control/) along with a link to a 2018 study of San Francisco’s rent control regime which supports their assertions. The bottom line is that nobody will build anything if they don’t make a positive return on investment. If they can’t do it here, they’ll build in another locale or state with pro-development policies. BTW, as for your statistic regarding 6,000 rental property owners of which less than 2,000 live in the city, why does it matter?
Hear hear about CAA. A bad actor for years. They hired thugs to circulate fraudulent rent stabilization petitions in Pacifica just a few years ago, intent on confusing voters and physically threatened a bona fide petition signature gatherer. That leopard will never change its spots and council members who take their money should be voted out of office.
All good comments. I read where, in the red states they do have more housing constructed due to the lessening of fees and more streamlined processes. I think it all has to be considered. For sure the underhanded actions of the CAA and other similar groups have highjacked the democratic process and set back the goal of more housing as well as a reasonable balance between renters and landlords.
We do need to support a better balance of interests for any sort of justice for those who may not be organized with war chests and lobbies to out-shout the great majority who simply want and need a place to rent.
A good city council will see this need for balance as best for the city as a whole.
Thanks John
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.