|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by J.D. Anagnostou
For over 50 years, our family has operated as “mom-and-pop” housing providers in Redwood City. We prioritize taking care of our tenants—especially the most vulnerable—building relationships rooted in mutual trust. Some of our current tenants have crossed the 25-year milestone. We care deeply about our community, so we must warn our neighbors that Measure E will cause severe, unintended harm to the very people it claims to protect.
While proponents frame Measure E as a simple solution for affordability, they aren’t giving voters the full facts. A review of CoStar property data shows that approximately 79% of Redwood City’s apartment buildings have 10 units or fewer. The city’s rental housing stock is also predominantly older: 89% of the buildings in the dataset were built before 1980, including 48% built before 1960.
For smaller buildings, about 95% with known construction dates were built before 1980. Measure E’s reach will place the burden on many of the city’s rental properties.
Proponents falsely claim this policy targets units owned by massive corporations. In reality, independent “mom-and-pop” providers own most of these older units, utilizing standard family trusts or LLCs for basic liability and probate protections.
Capping annual rent increases at 60% of inflation (or a 5% maximum, whichever is lower), Measure E ignores economic reality. Over the past decade, local multi-family rentals have averaged about 3.2% annual rent inflation. Meanwhile, housing providers face utility cost increases exceeding 10% annually for water, sewer, garbage, and PG&E. Insurance has surged over 50% in the last three years, alongside rising material and labor fees and ad valorem property tax fees. Under Measure E, if inflation is 3.2%, we can raise rents by only 1.9%—a fraction of skyrocketing operating costs.
Furthermore, Measure E creates a forced, massive new bureaucratic “Housing Authority” department costing up to $11 million annually. Because the City cannot use its general fund, these expenses will be funded by hitting us with fees that could exceed $750 per unit annually.
As a result, we can no longer afford to carry below-market rents out of goodwill. To protect against these high operating costs, we will naturally raise rental criteria, requiring higher income thresholds and pristine credit scores. This will effectively lock vulnerable families and future long-term tenants out of the local market.
Finally, Measure E severely weakens lease enforcement. Removing a tenant who violates lease terms or, worse, directly harms neighbors becomes an uphill, cost-prohibitive battle. This compromises neighborhood safety by limiting our ability to swiftly address dangerous behavior.
There are many other components this Measure fails to disclose. Why do you think City leadership is so adamantly against it? For the safety of our neighborhoods and the future of affordable housing, and just plain common sense, please look past the campaign falsehoods, look at the real data, and vote No on Measure E.
J.D. Anagnostou, CRS, is a Redwood City housing provider and residential real estate professional who has been a licensed Realtor since 1985. A Redwood City resident since 1967, his areas of focus include new construction, land acquisition, and investment properties.
