Editor,
The San Mateo City Council recently rejected a proposal from community members to create a rental registry, a method for collecting data on the rental market to guide the formation of evidence-based public policy. A rental registry imposes requirements that landlords submit certain specified information that can help protect renters from unjust evictions.
The council decided instead to create a voluntary system through which landlords could report such information. The staff report admitted that the information gathered through this method would produce partial/incomplete data and that it would therefore be less useful than a rental registry.
If the goal is to achieve a comprehensive view of the rental market, how does it help to get information from a fragment of the landlords? Furthermore, if those who report are the most responsive of the landlords, the picture that will emerge is certain to be skewed, masking the abuses that occur. Landlords who are violating the law and abusing their tenants are not going to voluntarily blow the whistle on themselves.
Apparently, it will take four to six months to set this voluntary system up. Why is the city wasting its time and money on something that by its own admission will fail? Why, when creating a rental registry, as many other jurisdictions have done, could bring about success?
Once again, the call to uphold the interests of our more vulnerable community members has been set aside by a biased city staff and an uncaring legislative body unduly influenced by the real estate industry. Such a waste!
John Ebneter
San Mateo
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.
(4) comments
What a fraud and shameful waste of money. Just do the right thing and gather all the info from all landlords. Are councilmembers so afraid of losing campaign funding from the San Mateo County Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association that they'll waste taxpayers' money?
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Ebneter, but who is paying, and how much, for establishing and maintaining this rental registry? And what information is populated in said registry? Are there privacy issues and is there a potential for government overreach and abuse? Based on a history of California’s disastrous nanny policies, I wouldn’t recommend anyone sign a rental registry. However, I wouldn’t be adverse if information in the registry highlighted the legal status of tenants and if so, regulations to impose penalties should landlords rent to non-citizens.
* A 2021 study by the Furman Center (NYU) found that NYC’s rental registry compliance cost landlords ~$200–$500 per unit annually in fees and labor. Small landlords often absorb or pass on these costs.
* In Los Angeles, post-2019 registry expansion, ~10,000 rental units were removed from the long-term market within two years (LA Housing Department data, 2021).
* A 2020 UCLA study on LA’s registry found rent increases of 2–5% in registered buildings post-implementation, as landlords offset fees and inspection risks.
* In Seattle, after a 2017 registry mandate, city audits found ~20% of rental units unregistered by 2020, with anecdotal rises in off-books leasing (Seattle Office of Housing).
* NYC’s registry program costs ~$40 million annually (DOB/HPD budget, 2023), with only ~60% compliance despite penalties.
* A 2022 National Apartment Association survey found 68% of developers cited "regulatory compliance costs" (including registries) as a barrier to new projects.
Why aren't we also advocating for an eviction database, State law makes it so you have to know the case number in order to find out if someone has been evicted. Also an unpaid/. past due rent database. These might actually lower the cost of housing.
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.