|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Redwood City Council punted the decision of whether to adopt a rent control and tenant protection measure to a later date, opting to solicit more analysis from city staff before taking action.
Following a lengthy discussion on the dais and over 31 public comments, council members expressed skepticism and ambiguity about the implications of the rent protection measures but accepted certification of 4,751 verified signatures, bringing the measure one step closer to appearing on the ballot during the Nov. 3 election.
The initiative would limit future rent increases to 60% of the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation, with a 5% cap on annual increases. It would also roll back rents to the level of Oct. 29, 2025. The proposed tenant protections, if passed, would provide stronger safeguards for renters than those in the statewide 2019 Tenant Protection Act, which caps annual rent increases at 10%. It also provides stronger protections than Redwood City’s Tenant Protection Ordinance, which was phased in earlier this year.
The proposed ballot measure, known as the Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance, was organized by Faith in Action Bay Area, a nonprofit coalition of faith and community leaders. In April, the organization submitted well above the required 4,500 signatures from Redwood City residents. With the signatures verified by the city clerk, the measure has two pathways to adoption. Redwood City Council could pass the measure directly or pass a resolution placing it on the November ballot, which would require 50% voter approval.
The latter pathway appeared more likely after several city council members expressed uncertainty about how the initiative would affect housing providers and the city’s budget, which projects a significant deficit in the coming years.
The consulting group Economic & Planning Systems told the city council on Monday that renters would benefit from the reduced rent increases and improved housing stability. Further, the provisions of the rent control initiative would only apply to about 20% of the city’s housing stock because the 1995 Costa Hawkins Act exempts single-family homes, condominiums, and multifamily units built after 1995 from rent stabilization measures.
The consultant also said that Redwood City would incur significant costs to administer the program. They estimated that implementing the new requirements would cost $4 million to $10 million annually, plus an additional one-time start-up cost of $320,000 to $690,000.
In the end, city council members opted not to adopt the measure Monday evening and instead directed city staff to conduct additional analysis on the cumulative impact of the measure’s tenant protections on property owners, the impact on non-profit affordable housing providers and the budgetary effect.
“This is our opportunity to generate information and be able to see the impacts to property owners, to non-profit affordable housing developers and the impact to our budget,” said council member Jeff Gee. “Because I’m not willing to sign a blank check on our General Fund.”
The proposed measure has several components beyond the rent stabilization cap and the rent rollback. It would also require landlords who ended a tenancy for reasons unrelated to the tenant’s behavior, a concept known as a no-fault eviction, to make a relocation payment to all tenants of four times the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rent or $12,000, whichever is greater. Further relocation payments would be required for certain protected tenants, such as people older than 62 or tenants with disabilities. This proposed relocation assistance surpasses the payment amount stipulated in the city’s Tenant Protection Ordinance, which requires 1 month of relocation assistance for most renters and 3 to 4 months of assistance for other qualifying residents.
Additionally, the initiative would require creating a new Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Program to administer the measure’s requirements, which the consultant estimated would require at least seven new staff members to implement. It would also add funding mechanisms to finance the program, as well as a rent stabilization petition and hearing process.
Ahead of the city council meeting, over fifty people gathered outside City Hall to advocate for Redwood City Council to adopt the measure. Many attendees wore matching yellow shirts that said “Yes on rent control,” and held signs bearing slogans in both English and Spanish. “Keep families in our communities,” said one. “Local workers need local landlords,” said another.
Advocates of the measure, many associated with Faith in Action, spoke at the rally before the meeting, and 22 people expressed support for the measure during the meeting’s public comment period. Commenters emphasized the need for dignified housing and an immediate solution to skyrocketing rents over the last decade.
Martha Beetley, a Redwood City community member and Faith in Action volunteer who helped gather signatures for the initiative, spoke in favor of the measure. Beetley said that the rent control measure would help prevent the displacement of the 50% of Redwood City residents who are renters. A high rent burden negatively impacts both families experiencing financial stress and communities experiencing population instability, she said.
“People get a $400 increase in rent in a month, and have to go and take a second job, or they have to move in with someone else,” she said in an interview. “The workers who work here can’t afford to live here, and so they’re driving long distances, and that puts their families in stress.”
Another supporter, Marc Slakey, said his studio apartment in Redwood City has seen an 8% rent increase every year for the last five years, despite living in an “ancient” building that requires constant repairs. After a stint working in tech, Slakey now works in service at Yard Coffee, where he makes minimum wage. He estimates that 90% of his income goes toward his rent.
“If it weren’t for food stamps and other stabilization programs, I would be completely out on the street,” he said. He added, “I’m losing another two friends who are moving over to the far East Bay to try and have a better quality of life.”
Nine commenters expressed opposition to the ballot measure during the meeting. Rhovy Antonio, senior vice president of public affairs for the California Apartment Association, urged the council to slow down the process to better understand the issues.
“Due diligence requires more than a partial report,” she said. “Before taking final ballot action, you need to study the full fiscal housing economic picture.”
Michael Pierce, board president of the St. Francis Center, a shelter and essential services provider, also opposed the measure. Pierce said it could impact the organization’s 90 affordable housing units in Redwood City.
“If we lose our property tax abatements, it grossly affects our ability to continue to operate low-income housing. That risk is very great under this proposed ordinance,” he said. “It’s a grave concern for us about low-income housing providers, and I think this is ill-conceived in the way it’s formed.”
The ballot measure would be stronger than the existing tenant protections in Redwood City Council that went into effect Jan. 1. Those protections gave tenants the “right to return” to a rental unit after a landlord completed substantial remodels. It also provided three months of relocation assistance to low-income renters displaced by no-fault evictions, and four months of relocation assistance to certain households, such as seniors and disabled tenants. Other renters would receive one month of relocation payment in accordance with state law.
California’s rent control policies vary by jurisdiction. Some cities, including Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Mountain View and East Palo Alto, have strong local tenant protections that go beyond state laws. East Palo Alto has among the strongest tenant protections in the state, with eviction protections dating back to 1998. The city’s Rent Stabilization Board caps the annual allowable rent increases; the cap for July 2026 to June 2027 is 2%. In Mountain View, voters approved a 2016 ballot measure that caps allowable rent-control increases for units built before 1995. From Sept. 2025 to Aug. 2026, the cap is 2.7% for qualifying units.
For decades, economists have debated the efficacy of rent control laws. Proponents of rent control generally say that policies provide immediate rent relief to a community’s most vulnerable residents. Opponents say rent control can make the housing problem worse in the long term by creating a higher regulatory burden that can deter housing construction.
Vice Mayor Kaia Eakin expressed discomfort with adopting the proposed measure, noting that the city would be forced to legally defend an ordinance it did not craft.
“This is for the voters to decide. This is not for us to decide,” Eakin said.
