Rent control on the ballot? Advocates push for new Bay Area tenant protections
It's the latest effort to expand renter protections across the region.
Tenant advocates are pushing to put rent control measures on the ballot in at least four Bay Area cities this November, the latest effort to expand such protections across the region as tens of thousands continue struggling with sky-high housing costs.
Advocacy groups this month plan to file proposed rent control ordinances with Redwood City, San Pablo, Pittsburg and Larkspur, allowing supporters to start gathering the thousands of signatures needed to bring the measures before voters.
“We need to make it easier for regular folks like essential workers, teachers, nurses and families to stay in the city they love,” Trinidad Villagomez, a Redwood City community leader pushing for the local rent control measure, said in a statement.
Campaign organizers, including the influential Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, contend there are few other options after cities resisted years-long efforts to adopt adequate tenant safeguards.
“They’ve been trying and trying and trying at the local level to go before their local officials,” said Leah Simon-Weisberg, legal director for the alliance. “These are all cities that have an affordability crisis in their communities.”
The effort follows successful ballot measure campaigns last year to boost tenant protections in Oakland and Richmond, which both already had rent control. In Antioch and Petaluma, officials recently approved limits on rent hikes for some tenants. And the Concord City Council is now considering a rent control law.
The wave of new policies comes on the heels of unprecedented eviction moratoriums and rental assistance programs that sought to keep low-income tenants from losing their homes during a once-in-a-generation pandemic. Advocates now want to seize the momentum to protect vulnerable renters and build upon the now-expired emergency protections.
“We know people support these policies,” Simon-Weisberg said.
For Nicole Arrington, a Pittsburg renter and community activist with the alliance, affording the $900-a-month rent for her two-bedroom, cost-restricted apartment, which she shares with her two adult daughters and two grandchildren, is a heavy burden. Her landlord recently reduced her lease payments to better match her $1,700 monthly income. But Arrington, 53, said she is still figuring out how to repay the $16,000 in back rent she’s accumulated while living off disability payments after surviving breast cancer.
Arrington said knowing that her landlord could only raise the rent a small amount each year would give her needed peace of mind in managing her family’s expenses.
“It’s extremely stressful, and it’s extremely hard,” Arrington said. “Of course, it makes my daughters worry even more because they know of all my health issues.”
The push for rent control has been met with strong resistance from many landlords, who say adding regulations after some property owners lost tens of thousands of dollars in rental income during the moratoriums would force more struggling owners out of business.
“For a small owner-operator, that can be devastating,” said Derek Barnes, chief executive of the East Bay Rental Housing Association.
The latest proposed ordinances would cap yearly rent increases to 60% of the inflation rate and no more than 3% or 5% in total, depending on the city. They would boost enforcement of some existing renter protections and include rules against tenant harassment. And they would require landlords who carry out evictions for reasons other than failure to pay rent or violations of lease terms to cover more of renters’ relocation expenses. In Oakland, which has a similar ordinance, landlords sometimes have to pay tenants more than $12,000 for such evictions.
The proposed rent caps would not apply to single-family homes and condos. Apartments built after 1995 would also be exempt. Landlords would still be able to charge market-rate rent to new tenants. In some cases, property owners could petition for increases beyond the local limits.
A state law enacted in 2020 already caps rent increases for older apartments at 5% plus inflation or 10%, whichever is lower. More than 20 cities across California also have local rent control laws on the books. In addition to Oakland and Richmond, that includes San Jose, Mountain View, Berkeley and San Francisco.
Opponents of the ballot initiatives argue rent control disproportionately hurts small landlords and creates a disincentive for developers to build more desperately needed housing. They also cite research showing that rent caps can reduce available apartments and potentially increase prices as tenants stay in rent-controlled units longer and some landlords stop leasing properties.
“If passed, the measures will only worsen our housing crisis, prompting housing providers to take units off the market,” Joshua Howard, executive vice president of the California Apartment Association, said in a statement. “Additionally, they could cost cities millions each year to administer new bureaucracies that lack oversight and accountability.”
But restricting rent increases would undoubtedly benefit many low-income tenants barely affording the Bay Area, where the typical apartment rent tops $2,800 a month, compared to around $1,800 nationwide, according to Zillow. Researchers with the Bay Area Equity Atlas found nearly half of renters in the region spend at least 30% of their earnings on housing costs, classifying them as “rent burdened” by federal standards. Many pay much more than that.
Arrington, the Pittsburg renter, said passage of the initiatives would give working families more financial stability at a time when food, gas and other necessities are only getting more expensive.
“It will just help people be able to pool together and figure out what they need to do to pay the increase,” she said. “The only way you can even make it is by having everybody pull together.”