Editor,
The City of San Mateo has presented to the voters Measure Q, a rent control measure that creates controversy on both sides of the aisle. Some might have seen posters and signs advocating for the rejection of the measure or acclaim for the measure throughout the city. The issue addressed by the measure is hard for many residents of the community to accept: there is a housing inequality crisis in the county. People who are unable to pay rent due to their rent being too high in proportion to their income will find themselves out of a home.
The new measure, is an attempt to solve this problem by introducing a ‘base rent’ for each rental unit, limiting the percent that landlords can increase the base rent. It would also limit the reasons for eviction, giving a set list of criteria for why a landlord would evict a tenant.
Under our current system, a landlord may charge any rent they wish, no matter how exorbitant or outrageous the price may be. This may explain the reason why the markup price is so high and out of proportion for rent; landlords can charge whatever they please for the rent. To be fair to landlords, who wouldn’t exploit this laissez-faire system?
Under the current law, a landlord also may evict any of their tenants after the original term of the lease has expired. Thus, a law-abiding renter in San Mateo can be evicted for no good reason at all, and the landlords can do this with impunity. These ‘no-fault’ evictions can occur for any reason — for example, a couple complaining about a defective hot-water heater. Perhaps, some families may be forced to pay for renovations that a landlord contracted; if they are unable to pay for these out-of-contract expenses, they may also be evicted. In a scenario akin to the feudal lords of old, there is simply no oversight on landlords, and they are given free rein to evict and overcharge their tenants as they please.
These are problems which Measure Q proposes to solve. The language of Measure Q is fairly straightforward. The first thing that the measure concerns itself with is the matter of rent stabilization.
It is a well known fact that San Mateo is one of the more expensive cities to live in the Bay Area. In the city of San Mateo, the average apartment rent is $3,000; this makes it the runner up for the most expensive rent in the state after San Francisco. A one bedroom apartment in San Mateo County has an average monthly rent of $2,000.
Even worse, the housing crisis has a disproportionate effect on the Latino, Pacific Islander and African-American tenants, who form 70 percent of renters in San Mateo county. According to the findings of Measure Q, the median yearly household income is over $100,000 across the entire population, but $71,000 for Latinos and $65,000 for African-Americans. This makes those sections of the populations especially vulnerable to excessive rent increases.
Measure Q would stabilize the rent by proposing a ‘base rent’ that is determined by the rent of the apartment on Sept. 21, 2015. It also centers around a stipulation that a landlord cannot increase the rent every year by more than eight percent of what they charged the previous year; meaning the base rent is a starting point from which renters can raise or lower their rates. For example, if the rent for a particular housing unit is priced at $10,000 the first year, then the rent cannot increase higher than $10,800 the next year or $11,600 the year after that. Rent increases are also not permitted if the owner is not providing adequate care to the property or apartment, or if the owner leaves the property in such a state that it is unsuitable for living according to civil law. This is meant to control the amount that landlords are able to raise the rents of the property, making the rise of the rents, making it proportional to the average increase in income. The average asking rent has risen by over 50 percent over the last six years, while the median household income has only risen by 3.8 percent in the same time. Hopefully, this measure will fix things and make San Mateo more sustainable for low-income families.
The second matter which Measure Q concerns itself with is the matter of ‘no-fault’ evictions. Measure Q gives nine reasons for evictions. These reasons are entirely reasonable and legitimate, and there is nothing in the language that one would deem illogical. For example, a tenant may be evicted if they become a persistent nuisance, engage in criminal activity or fail to pay the agreed upon rent. In addition to this, the landlord is obligated to make relocation assistance payments to a negotiable sum for the tenant if the owner wishes to use his rented property for personal use, remove it from the rental market or demolish the property. Tenants will also be guaranteed first right of return should the owner wish to return the property to the market. Tenants are also guaranteed protection from eviction should they complain about a violation of Measure Q. By implementing this set of rules, Measure Q would eliminate any confusion about why and to what extent a landlord can evict a tenant. It would also ensure that legitimate oversight would be put on the reasons for eviction. Without oversight, there’s no end to the perfectly legal eviction that landlords can impose on tenants for any reason: race, sexual orientation, disabilities, or even marital status. Certain protected classes are already threatened by low income and cultural marginalization; the last thing they need is an ignorant landlord wishing to gentrify his building. Measure Q would enable people to hold onto their homes and keep what’s theirs.
Granger Brenneman
Class of 2018
