Mayor Tom Butt’s Thoughts on the RPA’s Rent Control Initiative


By:

Blogfoto-Tom.jpg

 

An editorial from Richmond Mayor Tom Butt.

The Richmond Progressive Alliance kicked off the petition drive for their new Rent Control initiative this week with the goal of placing it on the November ballot.

I suspect that few people who sign these petitions make any effort to really understand them, but in case someone does, I am providing some useful information. Whether or not you like the concept of rent control, you should know that the initiative, known as the Richmond Fair Rent, Just Cause for Eviction and Homeowner Protection Ordinance. 

The initiative, like its predecessor passed and then rejected by the City Council in 2015, is poorly drafted, replete with internal inconsistencies and may be illegal.

  1. 11.100.060 defines the powers of the Rent Control Board.  It consists of 5 members, to be appointed by the City Council.  They must be residents of Richmond, but do not have to be citizens or voters.  The Rent Board is entirely separate and independent of any other government body.  Section 11.100.060(m).  It has the full and exclusive authority to set its own budget, and “The City Council and the City Manager shall have no authority to oversee, supervise, or approve the budget”.  Section 11.100.060(n).  The Board also has full authority to a) hire anyone they want, including more staff or consultants; b) enter into any contract they want to procure goods or services; c) hire and pay attorneys, whether to advise or litigate – and all with no oversight or control by the Council.  Moreover, the Board can require – without limitation or oversight – that the costs for funding their budget be taken directly from the General Fund: “The Board is empowered…to receive funding…from any available source”.  Section 11.100.060(l).
  2. Three appointed Board members (a majority), none of whom have to be citizens of Richmond, will have full authority of the City’s purse strings, with absolutely no oversight or control from the Council, the City Manager, or any other City department.  They may spend from the General Fund as they see fit, hire any employees they want, including staff attorneys, counselors, and hearing examiners, and enter into any contracts they want.
  3. The Board may also pay themselves compensation as they see fit, and are not limited to the nominal amounts that most commissions are statutorily limited to.  They may establish a physical office of whatever size and cost they desire
  4. Any violation of the Ordinance by a Landlord is a misdemeanor, punishable by “imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months”.  Section 11.100(d), referring to RMC 1.04.100 and California Penal Code Section 19.
  5. Rent is capped at the amount charged on July 21, 2015 – which, if this passes, will be approximately two years prior to its enactment.
  6. Landlords may not prevent a subtenant from moving into their property, and may not terminate a lease based on an unapproved subtenant moving in.  Section 11.100.050(2)(i).  Once a subtenant moves in, they become a Tenant, with all the rights and privileges granted under this ordinance.  Section 11.100.030(r).  A Landlord may end up with a tenant they don’t even know, but who is protected under this ordinance.
  7. Any repair or improvements work done to a rental unit must be pre-approved by the Board, and “unless due to a documented emergency affecting a Tenant’s health and/or safety”, a landlord may not demand entry with 24 hour notice (as required by state law) to repair their property without prior approval from the Board.  Section 11.100.050(a)(4).  There could be many repairs that may be an emergency for the landlord (like water damage and wood rot) that could not be fixed without pre-approval from the Board.
  8. If Landlord owns a 1 bedroom house and a 5 bedroom house that is then vacant, and wants to repair the 1 bedroom unit in a manner that temporarily displaces the tenant, they must offer the 5 bedroom unit to the tenant (at the tenant’s option) at the same cost as the 1 bedroom unit.  Section 11.100.050(5)(C).  This very likely violates Costa-Hawkins.
  9. For an owner-move in eviction, the owner must move in within 90 days.  If they fail to do so, they must a) give the unit back to the tenant; and b) pay the tenant substantial damages.  Section 11.100.050(a)(6).  This will mean an owner will not be able to make any major repairs, even if necessary, before moving in.
  10. The Rent Board may both raise and lower the amount a landlord may charge for rent, and at their discretion.  Section 11.100.060(e).  They will be the sole determiner of what a landlord may charge in rent, and whether the current rent is too high or not.  If they belief the current rent being paid is too high (even if it is legally consistent with the Base Rent definition), they may order the Landlord to lower it to whatever amount they feel it is worth.  If the Landlord refuses to comply, it is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail.  Section 11.100.100(d).

Contradictions and Conflicts:

  1. If an owner needs to substantially repair or demolish a house, they must first obtain a permit, then, after doing so, they must provide up to one year notice to the tenant. Section 11.100.050(a)(7).  Under current City code, a permit expires after six months, and will have expired well before the tenant vacates.
  2. Before proceeding to evict a tenant for 1) breach of the lease; 2) nuisance; or 3) failure to allow the landlord access, the Landlord must serve a written notice stating that “a failure to cure may result in the initiation of eviction proceedings”.  Section 11.100.050(d).  However, it a misdemeanor (11.100.100(d)) for a landlord to “threaten to terminate a tenancy, verbally or in writing” unless the failure to cure has already occurred.  Section 11.100.050(a).  Thus, a landlord may not evict on this basis without first committing a misdemeanor (punishable by six months in jail).
  3. A Landlord may not evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, if prior to non-payment, the tenant communicates their right to withhold rent for repairs -- even if the withholding is not justified.  Section 11.100.050(e).  All a tenant has to do if they can’t pay rent is say they are withholding it. Even if the reason is unjustified or baseless, it would be a misdemeanor for the Landlord to issue a notice to pay or quit, or evict on that basis.
  4. A hearing examiner (employee of the Rent Board) will decide individual cases, and the decision will be immediate, and not stayed on appeal.  Section 11.100.070(d)(11); however, no decision will be final until 30 days after the decision.  Section 11.100.090.

Regardless of the technical flaws in the proposed ordinance, there is no evidence that it will actually work to prohibit rent increases. In the article below, Joe Mathews make an an interesting comparison between rent control and Proposition 13, both with originally good intentions but in the end massively exacerbating inequities.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article69060742.html

 

Showing 5 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2016-04-12 03:27:10 -0700
    I have read the entire measure and recommend that everyone reads it. I don’t always agree with the Mayor, but on this he is pretty accurate. No sane homeowner/property owner should want this measure on a ballot.

    This is the same mess that McLaughlin and the RPA council members tried to force down the throat of Richmond in July 2015, but far worse. The same mess, they passed (July 2015) through an unscheduled council meeting. And the same mess that we (the people) rejected through petition (repealed in August 2015). Well said Rob Welch, and I totally agree.

    Wake-up Richmond residents, don’t be fooled by Gayle McLaughlin and her RPA pac!!!! They have created nothing but chaos and problems for this city since being in office. Progressive, they are not!
  • commented 2016-04-07 18:50:38 -0700
    “…less than honorable tactics…”
    You mean like calling this ordinance that strips homeowners of their rights a "Homeowners Protection Ordinance? "
    That’s real funny. Reminds me of when the Republicans called their law that allowed more air pollution the “Clear Skies Act”.
    I’m all for doing something to help people with affordable housing. Too bad this ordinance won’t accomplish that. It will accomplish more bloated ineffectual government and some nice easy money cushy jobs for RPA friends though. One only needs to look down the road at Berkeley for proof of that.
    I’m with Mayor Butt on this, I don’t think this is a good idea for Richmond. Mayor Butt had some ideas on this subject himself, but we never even got the chance to hear them due to the extremists reckless mad zeal to ram their version of rent control down Richmonds throat.
    We all have a vested interest in this ordinance, property owner or not. Think long and hard people, if what Richmond really needs is more bloated government to institute a policy that most economists say does not work, and that you can see for yourself in our neighboring cities that have it, it does not work. Not only that, but studies show it makes things WORSE for renters, as we can see of late in Oakland.
    The experts all agree the problem is we are not building enough housing for the number of people who wish to live in the area. If we wish to accommodate everyone then we must build the
    housing. This is nothing new for us, we went through that during and after the war. Richmond is primed to do just that. We have a downtown that’s been waiting 50 years to be rebuilt for example. We would do better to encourage projects like the ones recently proposed at the BART station, and the apartments going in on Nevin street, that to be fighting over failed policies of the past.
  • commented 2016-04-06 11:37:20 -0700
    This is copied as it appeared on Butt’s email, 11.100.060 defines the powers of the Rent Control Board. It consists of 5 members, to be appointed by the City Council.

    Tom Butt version: Three appointed Board members (a majority), none of whom have to be citizens of Richmond…

    To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a citizen of anything other than the United States, should you live in this country. All the Board members must live in Richmond.
    This is just one of many examples of misrepresenting the proposed ballot initiative.
    I don’t plan on debating the initiative or how Mayor Butt interprets it. I do strongly suggest voters read the initiative rather than relying on a property owning politician who has a vested interest in the outcome of the vote.
  • commented 2016-04-06 11:05:10 -0700
    Mr. Smith: the above analysis directly quotes and cites the proposed ordinance. What specifically was misinterpreted?
  • commented 2016-04-04 22:08:09 -0700
    Unfortunately, Mayor T. King Butt has misinterpreted this ballot measure.

    At this time, I have no opinion on the measure. However, I do have an opinion on the less than honorable tactics employed by Butt to persuade voters to see things his way.

    Please read the ordinance as it was submitted to the City and as it appears on the petitions. Make up your own mind about this proposed ordinance. Don’t be swayed by a politician who has a vested interest in it failing.

    Here is the link to the ballot measure as filed with the City of Richmond:
    http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/37786
Fight your California speeding ticket and win here. Fight your red light camera ticket here. Fight your cell phone ticket here.