Measure P goes on Nov Ballot

Politicians often think that pushing any and all rent control laws is the golden goose. Anything labeled “pro-tenant” is a winner at the ballot box. But real leaders don’t mortgage the City’s future for short term political gains. Pushing damaging policy time and time again just because it seems popular is reckless and irresponsible. If you care about the future of housing in Richmond, we urge you to vote NO on Measure P

 Measure P is a ballot initiative that was sponsored by Council Member Gayle McLaughlin and ultimately passed with a 5-2 vote by the City Council. Mayor Tom Butt and Councilman Bates voted no with Eduardo Martinez, Claudia Jimenez, Melvin Willis, Gayle McLaughlin, and Demnlus Johnson all voting yes.

Measure P would amend the existing Richmond rent control ordinance in one very simple yet dramatic way: it would cap annual allowable rent raises at 60% of the inflation rate or 3%, whichever is lower.

In the ten years prior to this year’s anomalous inflationary year (5.2%), the average inflation rate was 2.83%. Therefore, in most normal years, the average allowable annual increase a housing provider would implement under Richmond’s current ordinance would be below 3%.

Should Measure P pass, this 10 year 2.83% average would be reduced to just 1.698% per year. Under these circumstances, a housing provider with a rental unit at $950 would be allowed to increase the rent by just $16.

There are likely plenty of people who may think that a $16 raise is $16 too much. But for those who understand that there are consequences to such drastic regulations, the writing is on the wall for the future of Richmond’s housing industry.

Richmond housing providers are already burdened with the strictest rent control ordinance in the State. This has resulted in the following:

-Housing providers pay the highest rent control fee in the State, which cannot be passed through to tenants.

-Richmond’s rental housing property values are the lowest amongst any comparably rent controlled city. The price per square foot is just a fraction of what a non rental property’s value is.

-Richmond’s median rent (~$1500/month) is the lowest of any comparably rent controlled city.

-Richmond’s rental property tax rate is highest amongst any comparably rent controlled city.

-Thousands of owners have been intentionally trapped with severely below market rents due to the regulations of the rent control ordinance.

Meanwhile Richmond’s demographic of rental property owners is overwhelming comprised of small mom and pop owners. Many of which are of immigrant and/or blue-collar backgrounds. Just dealing with such a daunting set of regulations is hard enough on its own.

Richmond is also failing to meet its housing production goals. As of today, the city has achieved less than 50% of it’s quota. With just cause for eviction regulations placed on all properties, the desire for builders to develop is minimal. Even affordable housing developers are forced to pay hundreds of dollars in fees per unit and abide by stringent laws. Bad housing policy affects all housing.

The City Council did not need to pursue measure P. They had the ability to pass an urgency ordinance and use the Council’s police powers to temporarily cap rents should they truly deem it necessary. Although the annual adjustment was voted on in May by the Rent Board, this issue of capping rents never came before them. This measure was forced at the last minute by Gayle McLaughlin so that no public input or protest was possible.

Share

January 10th General Meeting Recap

Hi Everyone,


Thank you all who attended our general meeting on Thursday. Our agenda was a bit shorter due to the Richmond ferry service grand opening event (very exciting for the city!) 


Our political committee gave the group a brief update on campaign strategy logistics, and our regulations committee went over the talking points of the new ordinance, followed by a general discussion.


I think the most important topic that came up during discussion is how crucial public perception will be if we want to run a successful campaign for a new ordinance. The negative effects rent control and just cause for eviction have on affordability, housing supply, and diversity might be obvious to experts and those of us with hands on experience, but to the average person, this reality might not be so clear. Our steering committee feels confident that the core terms of our evolving new ordinance will better serve Richmond, but just listing those terms on paper isn't going to be enough to convince the average conscientious voter.


Our immediate goal is to develop the website to provide a clear, educational, and informational experience to the public. We plan to cover the following topics on the site:


   -The macroeconomic forces that contribute to housing affordability.   

   -How regressive regulatory policy, such as measure L, will actually harm the demographic is claims to serve.


   -Our goal to create balanced housing policy; regulations that provide tenants with reasonable tenant protections while still allowing the housing markets to function. Incentivizing current housing availability and future housing growth is the only way to combat our housing crisis.


   -Why we believe the terms of the new ordinance can effectively achieve our goal.



We'll continue to update the group and hope to have the website revamped in the near future. We welcome anyone who wishes to contribute to the process, whether that be direct input or simple perspective.


Our next meeting will be Valentine's Day , February 14th from 12-2pm at the San Pablo Public Library. Hope to see you then!


-Mike


Association of United Richmond Housing Providers



Share

December 13th General meeting recap

Hi All,

We had a good general meeting yesterday, with several new people in attendance. Our agenda covered the history of our group, our experiences dealing with the current rent control program, and our subsequent understanding that the only solution to our current situation is the drafting of a new measure; one that upholds the needs for reasonable tenant protections, but preserves the incentives for small property owners to continue to provide and adequately maintain much needed rental housing in Richmond.

As many of you know we've begun to draft a new measure, the terms of which we roughly laid out at the meeting. We also gave an overview of the framework for the path to getting a new measure on the ballot. While a new measure might sound like a daunting goal, we're confident that with the right strategy, hard work, and a quality policy, we'll be able to achieve success by getting our new measure on the 2020 ballot.

It goes without saying that we'll need as much help as possible as we gear up for this goal. We'll not only need substantial community input on the policy itself, but also marketing, promoting, and overall campaigning for the new measure once complete..

We'll continue to provide the group with updates on our plans for this coming year. We encourage those interested in contributing to this effort to attend our general meetings and/or reach out to me or Ilona directly.

-Mike

Share

AURHP joins with EBHRA at the state capitol for Legislative Day

Today our group joined forces with EBHRA and BPOA at the state capitol for a legislative day in which we met with state politicians to express our concerns over several bills that have been proposed by legislators.

There were three proposed bills discussed, in summary the bills included:

Bill AB-2343 Real Property: possession: unlawful detainer
This bill would increase the required unlawful detainer notice for non-payment of rent from the standard 3 day notice, to 10 days. Meaning that by law, a tenant would be granted a "grace period" of between 12-15 days to pay rent instead of the current 2-8 day period. Seeing as a property owner's mortgage payments are considered late after the 15th of the month, extending this legal grace period clearly jeopardizes a housing providers ability to stay current in their financial obligations.

This bill would also increase the time period for a tenant's unlawful detainer response at the court level to be increased from the current 5 day period, to 14 days. A tenant's response to a unlawful detainer is a very simple process, and increasing this time period only arbitrarily lengthens what is already a very time consuming and expensive experience for a property owner.

The bill also contains a clause that would grant a tenant the ability to legally stop paying rent for 180 days if that tenant is able to prove that they have recently joined any type of tenant protection group, even after having received a 3 day notice for non-payment. This means that a tenant can be delinquent in rent, join a tenants group, then get 6 months of rent free based on the idea that a landlords actions for unlawful detainer are retaliatory based on that tenant's joining of a tenants group. Clearly this is the most ludicrous/backwards part of the bill, as it's clearly hard to find any type of justification for this type of entitlement.

Bill AB-2925 Tenancy: eviction: good cause

This is a statewide initiative that would essentially grant broad yet undefined just cause for eviction policy for all cities,regardless of local policy decisions. Cities that have not decided to vote in rent control nor just cause for eviction protections would be subject to these state laws. There is no definition of what just cause is in this bill, and every 30 or 60 day notice that is served to a tenant in jurisdictions without local just cause protections would essentially wind up in the court system, essentially creating a cluster in a state court system that is already backed up. Clearly local municipalities should be able to follow what has been voted on to be acceptable for their own specific communities, and not be subject to the bureaucracy set forth by the state.

Bill AB-2364 Rental Control: withdraw from accommodation.

This bill would increase the time period for reintroduction of a property to the rental market after an Ellis act withdrawal from the current 5 years, to 10 years. This means that a property owner who removes their property from the rental market, pays exorbitant relocation costs to their tenants, would have to wait a decade before they could legally re-rent their property at market rents (assuming Costa Hawkins is not repealed). This is a blatant attempt by law makers to try and prevent property owners from removing their properties from a rental environment that is exceptionally risky and increasingly unfavorable to property owners. This also prevents/delays units from be reintroduced to the market, further diminishing supply to an already scarce situation.

All in all this is another set of regressive reforms presented by lawmakers as a means to squeeze owners out of their property rights, as they continue to try to close the only avenues we might have to escape the draconian laws that far surpass the intention of basic tenants protections. These bills, as well as the looming repeal of Costa Hawkins protections, can only be viewed as a movement to redefine the concept of private ownership of property. One that is so heavily regulated, that private ownership ceases to exist, and that tenants are granted more rights to a property than the actual owner.

AURHP, EBHRA,BPOA and other local associations will continue to represent the cause of housing providers as best we can in this tumultuous political environment.

Share