Despite Divided Public, Richmond City Council Approves Rent Control

Confronted with tales of hardship from residents who had to leave the city or became homeless after facing exorbitant rent increases, the Richmond City Council voted Tuesday night to approve rent control in the city. The measure passed 4-1 with Mayor Tom Butt and Councilmember Vinay Pimple absent after they abruptly left the meeting following a vote to suspend debate on the policy despite the fact that several councilors hadn’t yet had a chance to comment on the plan.

The turbulent, roughly 5-hour meeting, which was attended by several hundred people who flanked the sides of the council chambers and spilled out into the hallways, was dominated by comments from the 137 people who signed up to speak, though many who were closer to the bottom of the list left before being called.

Ultimately the vote came down to Councilmember Jael Myrick, who acknowledged that some people had been speculating on how he would vote since April, when he said the city needed to enact a strong policy to prevent displacement while also ensuring it didn’t place additional demands on the city’s coffers.

“(This policy) provides a guarantee that about 9,900-plus people are going to stay in their homes and are not going to be forced out,” Myrick said. “I can’t look at an opportunity to do that and just let it go by.”

The proposal includes establishing a rent control board and limiting the reasons landlords can evict tenants through a “just cause for eviction” ordinance. Richmond City Manager Bill Lindsay estimated it would cost anywhere from $1.6 million to $2.2 million to implement the policy, a cost that would be largely borne by landlords, although he acknowledged the city has only a rough estimate of the actual costs.

Under the plan, landlords are allowed to raise rents by 100 percent of the Consumer Price Index each year, an elected board of five people will serve on a rent control board, and rents would be frozen in place effective Tuesday. The program will operate with an interim rent control board made of appointed officials before the first rent control board election in November 2016.

Landlords came out in droves to voice their opposition to the proposal, which some called “thievery” and “extortion.” Many described their long-standing relationships with tenants who they have had for decades or more.

“I’m a landlady, but that doesn’t make me heartless or greedy or anything else,” said property owner Elizabeth Thorsnes. “If rent control comes, I’ll be penalized for keeping my rents reasonable.”

Thorsnes said the policy, which only applies to housing that was built before 1995, per state law, makes it difficult for property owners to make necessary repairs on aging infrastructure that is often very costly to replace. Beyond major repairs, rent control would create incentives for landlords to shirk on minor repairs, fostering the kinds of conditions that spawned the term “slumlord,” 20-year Richmond property owner Mary Catherine McGinley said.

“(Landlords) would not need to put on new coats of paint, change light bulbs in the hallway or keep elevators in good working order,” McGinley said. “If a tenant falls behind on rent, there would be less incentive to cut her or him any slack.”

Other opponents of rent control pointed to the lack of evidence showing that similar policies in surrounding cities were able to limit dramatic increases in average rents.

“I did ask the rent control groups to give me any evidence they had that rents in rent controlled cities was cheaper and they didn’t come up with anything,” Pimple said. “I really think we shouldn’t make a call on this before the staff comes back with fully developed evidence.”

But the voices of rent control advocates won out, with one former Richmond renter telling councilors they had to pick a side.

“If you’re a homeowner, a property owner, if all your friends are in stable, secure situations, then you probably don’t see the problem,” Jeff Shoji said. “For the rest of us who see our friends and our family living in constant insecurity about their housing, we need rent control.” One mother described seeing her rent rise from $550 to $1350 one month and after scraping together enough money to pay the rent, she said she was forced to leave her apartment after the landlord raised the rent again. She’s been homeless for a year and a half, she said.

Emeryville’s poet laureate, Sarah Kobrinsky, described how a rent hike from her landlord, who is also an Emeryville public official, forced her to move out of the city and into Richmond, a plight with enough irony to land several feature articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, Bay Area News Group and on the National Public Radio station, KQED. The 40 percent increase was more than she and her husband, who own a small business employing 10 people, could bear.

“We were such a poetic case study of the ridiculous rent increases going on in the Bay Area,” Kobrinsky said. “Overnight our stability was taken out from under us and indirectly the stability of the ten people who work for us and their families.”

Councilmember Jovanka Beckles said the rent control policy was meant to address the issue of stability.

“Low income folks, yes they move a lot, and the reason they move a lot is because their rents go up so they have to move around a lot,” Beckles said. “All this instability that’s happening in our city, that’s why I support this. I support keeping our rents stable.”

By Bay City News

Photo via Shutterstock