Rent control is on Sacramento’s November ballot. Here’s what you need to know
Do you have questions about Measure C, a ballot measure on Sacramento’s November ballot calling for rent control? Leave your questions in the comment section below and we’ll update this story with answers.
The rent for the average Sacramento apartment increased 45% in the seven years following the Great Recession.
That’s why the City Council adopted a rent control and eviction protection ordinance last year, which was later updated when the state passed its own version.
But there’s a stricter version that activists have been working on since 2018, which despite a legal battle, will be on the city ballot Nov. 3.
Here are the highlights of what Measure C would change:
How would the measure cap rent?
The measure would prohibit landlords from raising annual rents more than the inflation rate for that year. The measure would use the Consumer Price Index inflation figure for March of each year. For March 2020, the inflation rate is 2.5%.
The current city ordinance and state law prohibit landlords from raising annual rents more than 5% plus the inflation rate. They use the April inflation figure. For April 2020, the inflation rate was 1%. That means landlords cannot currently raise rents more than 6% from last year.
What happens when inflation rates rise?
Inflation rates are currently low, due to the coronavirus pandemic. Last year, before the virus hit, the applicable inflation figure ranged from 2.4% to 2.9%. In 2018, it ranged from 3.1% to 3.6%.
The city ordinance and state law prohibit landlords from ever raising annual rent more than 10%, even if inflation rates rise. The measure says landlords can never raise annual rent more than 5%.
What eviction protections would it provide?
Regarding eviction protections, the existing ordinance and the proposed measure are similar.
They both prohibit landlords from evicting tenants, unless tenants stop paying rent, violate a lease, are engaging in criminal or nuisance activity or fail to give landlords access to the unit.
They both also allow tenants to be displaced in certain situations where repairs are needed, when the owner wishes to move in, or if the unit is being removed from the rental market. If a tenant loses their unit for one of those instances, the measure would require the landlord to provide at least $5,500 in relocation assistance.
How long would it last?
The measure would be permanent. The city’s ordinance will be effective through Dec. 31, 2024 unless the City Council votes to continue it.
What else would the ballot measure change?
The initiative would create an independent rent board modeled partly after ones in Berkeley, San Francisco and Santa Monica, 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 board would also be able to have access to city staff, intervene as an interested party in legal actions and have subpoena power. Its budget would come from increased fees on landlords.
Currently, when a tenant calls the city to report a landlord violating the ordinance, the city sends a letter from the city attorney’s office to the landlord, said Kelli Trapani, a city spokeswoman. All landlords who have received those letters have rescinded their eviction notices, Trapani said. If needed, the city has hearing officers who are available to hear cases on the topic. The measure would also include hearing officers.
Who’s behind the rent control measure?
In 2018, tenant advocates collected the more than 44,000 signatures required to put a rent control measure on the ballot. The following year, the City 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, community activist Michelle Pariset, did not sign a letter telling the city to remove the measure from the ballot.
In June, the city sued Pariset, asking a judge to allow the council to leave the measure off the ballot, claiming it was unconstitutional. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Steven M. Gevercer granted that request. Then, the Third District Court of Appeal ordered the city to put it on the ballot, due to the timing. A judge still has to issue a final ruling on the measure’s constitutionality, however. If a judge rules it’s unconstitutional, then it will not be implemented, even if voters approve it Nov. 3, city spokesman Tim Swanson has said.
Endorsements
In support
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.
In opposition
Ballot arguments in opposition to the measure were signed by Mayor Darrell Steinberg along with Councilmen Eric Guerra, Allen Warren, Rick Jennings and 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.
All City Council members are in opposition to the measure, according to a mailer voters received this month, funded by the opposition campaign.
Money raised
The campaign supporting the measure is sponsored by the Alliance for Californians for Community Empowerment, SEIU 1021, and the Democratic Socialists of America. Major donors include:
▪ $145,000 from SEIU 1021
▪ $5,000 from Sacramento Voter Project, a campaign set up to support Measure C and oppose the strong mayor proposal (Measure A)
▪ $20,000 from the Sacramento County Democratic Central Committee
The opposition campaign is sponsored by the California Apartment Association. Major donors include:
▪ Sacramento Association of Realtors: $251,489
▪ No on Prop 21: Californians for Responsible Housing: $140,000
▪ San Diego-based United Development Group: $122,328
▪ Stockton-based MGD, Inc. dba The Garibaldi Company, ATF and affiliated entities: $93,455
▪ Sacramento-based Region Business: $47,500
This story was originally published September 24, 2020 at 5:00 AM.
