Stricter Sacramento rent control measure is back on the November ballot — for now
A more strict version of Sacramento rent control is back on the November ballot — for now. The California 3rd District Court of Appeal directed the city last week to place the measure on the Nov. 3 ballot.
But there’s a catch.
A judge could still side with the city and decide the measure is unconstitutional, meaning it would not be implemented even if voters approve it. It’s also still possible the measure won’t go on the ballot at all, said city spokesman Tim Swanson.
“That depends on the date of the ruling and when the county prints the ballots,” Swanson said in an email.
Monday was technically the last date the city could have added or removed a measure from the ballot, said county spokeswoman Janna Haynes, although if there were to be a judicial ruling after that date, the county would assess it at the time it came down.
It’s the latest twist in a saga that began in 2018, when tenant advocates collected more than 44,000 signatures required to put a rent control measure on the ballot. The following year, the council passed a less-strict version of rent control, intended as a compromise that would cause the ballot measure’s proponents to pull their version.
But one of the three proponents of the measure, Michelle Pariset, did not sign a letter telling the city to remove the measure from the ballot. The city then sued Pariset in June, asking the judge to allow the city to keep the measure off the ballot and rule it unconstitutional.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steven M. Gevercer on July 31 sided with the city, ruling the measure would require a charter revision, not an amendment, which cannot be accomplished by a citizen ballot initiative. He also allowed the city to keep the measure off the ballot. Pariset appealed.
The 3rd District Court of Appeal has not yet ruled whether the measure is unconstitutional, but did direct the city to put it on the ballot. “ ... the substantial legal questions presented by this case should not and need not be resolved prior to the election,” the court wrote in a document filed last week.
In response, the City Council held a 13-minute special meeting Friday to vote to place the measure on the ballot — mostly a formality in order to follow the court order.
“We, of course, are required to follow the law and that’s exactly what it is we are here to do today,” Mayor Darrell Steinberg said Friday during the meeting.
Opposition claims misuse of initiative system
Steinberg signed ballot arguments in opposition to the stricter rent control measure, along with councilmen Eric Guerra, Allen Warren, Rick Jennings, Jay Schenirer. Cassandra Jennings, President and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Urban League; Patrick Sabelhaus, executive director of the California Council for Affordable Housing; Jesse Humberto Naranjo, member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 340; and Eldra Jackson, member of the Disabled American Veterans Department of California, also signed a ballot argument in opposition.
One of the arguments calls the measure a “clear example of misuse” of the citizen initiative system, claims it’s not needed because the city already passed a rent control ordinance, and that it would slow housing construction.
“Measure C will cost taxpayers millions while making it harder to build housing needed for teachers, veterans, young families, and seniors,” one of the opposition arguments said. “It will not help renters, homeowners, or those most at risk of homelessness.”
Ballot arguments in support of the measure were signed by Pariset; Councilwoman-Elect Katie Valenzuela; César Julián Aguirre, member of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment; Robyn Mutchler, member of SEIU 1021; Terry Schanz, chair of the Democratic Party of Sacramento County; Mai Vang, Sacramento City Unified School Board Member and City Council candidate; Annabel Vera, member of the Democratic Socialists of America - Sacramento; Elliot Stevenson, member of the Sacramento Tenants Union; Stephanie Roberson, government relations director for the California Nurses Association; and April Jean, vice president of the Sacramento chapter of Black Women Organizing for Political Action.
Their letter said the average price of the typical Sacramento apartment rose 45 percent in the last seven years, adjusting for inflation, which a Sacramento Bee analysis found. The letters also mention the coronavirus pandemic, which could cause mass evictions of Sacramentans when the eviction moratorium expires.
“Before the pandemic, more than half of Sacramento renters were already paying more than they could afford because the cost of housing was going up faster than wages,” a ballot argument in support said. “People are losing their jobs and having their hours cut, but rent is still due - we can’t afford to wait to create real protections for renters and landlords.”
What the initiative would do
The ballot initiative would prohibit landlords from raising rents more than 5% annually. That’s compared to a cap of 5% plus a current inflation rate of 1% allowed in the city ordinance and state law. The city cap was originally 6% plus inflation, but was adjusted when the state law went into effect in January. The initiative would also be permanent, while the city’s ordinance will be reevaluated after five years.
The initiative would also create an independent rent board modeled partly after one in San Francisco, comprised mostly of elected members. The board would be able to set the allowable rent annual rent adjustment, hear individual rent adjustment petitions from tenants and landlords seeking exceptions, and go to court to enforce the measure, the ballot language said. The board would also be able to set its own budget, have access to staff, intervene as an interested party in legal actions, and have subpoena power.
In its lawsuit, the city called the rent board idea “so logistically flawed as to be incapable of effective implementation.” Instead of the rent board, the existing city ordinance uses hearing officers who are city employees.
Friday, the city changed the language of the question that would be placed on the ballot to put more focus on the rent board.
The new question will read: “Shall the measure adding an article to the City of Sacramento City Charter to (i) create a new elected body (Rental Housing Board) with powers that include setting rents, establishing regulations, establishing its own budget, charging fees to finance its operations, establishing penalties, conducting investigations, and adjudicating rent adjustments; (ii) set a base rent for all covered rental units within the city and; cap annual rent increases and limit landlords abilities to terminate tenancies be adopted?”
Also on the Nov. 3 ballot, voters will decide whether to overhaul the city government system to make the mayor the most powerful position in the city.
This story was originally published August 19, 2020 at 5:00 AM.
