In an effort to ease burdens on renters amidst the ongoing housing crisis, the Redwood City Council unanimously passed two renter protection ordinances requiring landlords to offer minimum lease terms, and in certain circumstances, help pay for the relocation of displaced low-income tenants.
Emotions ran high at the contentious Monday meeting at which nearly 40 speakers weighed in on the ordinances. Supporters celebrated them as small steps toward stability in an unstable housing market, while detractors saw the measures as forms of property control.
The two ordinances have been in the works since a 2016 “Managing Growth” study session when the council identified tenant protections as a priority, according to a staff report.
Modeled after policies adopted by the cities of Menlo Park and Mountain View, the minimum lease term ordinance forces landlords to offer a minimum one-year lease, though tenants have the ability to negotiate shorter terms if they so choose. Landlords have no obligation to tenants after the initial contract expires, but if a tenant and landlord agree to continue their relationship, the landlord must offer another one-year lease. Landlords are also free to raise rents after the initial lease expires.
The ordinance applies to residences with three or more units, but does not apply to single-family dwellings, duplexes and secondary dwelling units, among other housing arrangements.
The draft ordinance originally mandated that a one-year lease not exceed the rate of a month-to-month one, but the council rejected that particular rule at the Monday meeting.
“I feel strongly that we’re not in the market to set prices,” Councilman Jeff Gee said.
Also adopted at Monday’s meeting was the relocation assistance ordinance that requires landlords to pay eligible tenants facing eviction three, and in some cases four, months worth of rent, a security deposit refund, administrative fee and six-month subscription to a rental agency service, according to the report. These payments are reserved for lower income tenants earning 80 percent or less of the area median income who are being vacated from properties containing at least five units. According to the report, relocation payments are triggered when a landlord decides to reclaim a rental unit for demolition or renovation or withdraw all rental units from the market, among other circumstances.
Relocation assistance does not, however, apply to tenants who have violated or reached the end of their lease, and it does not apply to tenants temporarily displaced with access to alternative housing or tenants displaced by natural disasters, fires or other misfortune outside the landlord’s control, according to the report.
Households containing at least one person who is 62 years or older, handicapped or a legally dependent minor as well as households that have occupied a unit for five consecutive years are eligible for additional relocation assistance.
During the meeting, nearly every councilmember requested the ordinances return to council after one year to evaluate any unintended consequences, which were frequently referenced throughout the meeting.
“There are three unintended consequences that are pretty easily foreseen in these measures,” said Gina Azari, Government Affairs director for the San Mateo County Association of Realtors. “Increased costs, which means rents will go up, reduced flexibility, which means special accommodations will be withheld or eliminated, and limited service, which means lower income tenants will suffer.”
Those concerns were echoed by numerous “mom-and-pop” landlords, many of whom felt unfairly punished and vilified.
“The ordinances are so one sided because they deal only with tenants and nothing dealing with a property owner’s obligations, risks, liabilities and responsibility,” said Steve Stluka, who spoke during the public comment period. “Most mom-and-pops don’t charge exorbitant rents yet we’re all lumped in with the egregious few that happen to do some pretty horrible things.”
The council sympathized, but stressed the ordinances weren’t intended for the well-meaning landlords who showed up to share their experiences.
“You’re not the problem, but you’re not in the room when we hear from people about the problem,” Councilwoman Janet Borgens said. “Because you’re not doing it, doesn’t mean it’s not happening. We see it, we hear it, and it’s not your fault, but we’d be remiss not to do something to help.”
Some landlords felt the ordinances were vaguely worded and would serve as the first step on a slippery slide toward rent control.
“I don’t buy the slippery slope argument,” Councilwoman Shelly Masur said. “This council has been very clear we don’t support rent control. There are things we can do that are smaller steps without falling into something we said we wouldn’t do.”
Joshua Howard, executive director of the California Apartment Association’s Tri-County Division, said the measures were not ideal but recognized the area’s housing crisis.
“Tonight’s ordinances do three things,” said Howard. “They provide reliability, predictability and stability for both renters and housing providers.”
Many speaking in support of the ordinances felt they didn’t go far enough, but welcomed the “move in the right direction.” Supporters recounted in detail stories of evictions, homelessness, unsafe living conditions and tenants afraid to speak up for loss of their homes.
Other speakers felt the council’s vote was too sudden, some called it “undemocratic” and others urged the council to instead bring the ordinances to voters on a future ballot.
“We’re not a democracy, we’re a democratic republic and you elect people to make decisions,” said Councilman John Seybert. “These two items have been in the works for over two years so if this came as a surprise to any of you, I’d seriously encourage you to pay attention.”
There will be extensive outreach and education efforts before the ordinances take effect in January, according to a staff report.