A costly new rent control bureaucracy? Here’s why Sacramento should reject Measure C
The most important thing to know about Sacramento Measure C is that it’s not supposed to be on the 2020 ballot. Measure C, which would establish a costly new city bureaucracy called a rent board, represents broken faith and a betrayal of public trust.
Local political groups pushing for rent control had threatened to put a measure on the ballot unless the Sacramento City Council agreed to pass a rent control ordinance. The City Council agreed, approving a rent control ordinance in Aug. 2019. The city’s ordinance, adjusted after the California State Legislature also passed a rent control measure, now caps rent increases at 5% per year plus inflation. It also provides stronger eviction protections for renters.
Rent control activists won a big victory, but some of them remained unsatisfied. Two of the three official proponents of the ballot measure honored the agreement with the City Council and signed a letter to pull the measure from the ballot. One activist — Michelle Pariset — went back on her word.
Backed by the Sacramento chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and a handful of activist groups, Pariset pressed ahead with this ballot measure despite an explicit agreement not to do so. Despite publicly praising Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the Sacramento City Council for passing a rent control ordinance, Pariset reneged. She also denied making any agreement with city officials despite a trail of text messages and public statements proving otherwise.
After the city sued to block the measure, a judge barred it from appearing on the ballot. In August, however, the 3rd District Court of Appeal forced the city to place Measure C on the ballot pending further rulings. This means that Measure C could eventually be invalidated even if voters approve it — potentially making it a colossal waste of time, money and effort.
The broken deal is one big reason why Sacramento voters should reject Measure C, but it’s not the only reason. Measure C is a smorgasbord of bad, bloated and bureaucratic ideas that could make Sacramento a more expensive place for renters.
Here are some other reasons why Sacramento should vote no on Measure C:
▪ The measure would establish a new rent board bureaucracy that would be a new panel of elected officials independent of our existing city government. This would require a special election. In addition to the elected members, the rent board would include one member appointed by the mayor.
▪ To fund the rent board’s operation and staff, Measure C would impose a new fee on landlords.
▪ Sacramento already has rent control, thanks to the deal with the City Council and a new state law. The leaders we elected to guide our city made good on their word to enact rent control even though some activists failed to uphold their end of the agreement.
▪ Research shows that rent control policies may actually increase rent prices and reduce the number of affordable units available for renters. “Rent control incentivizes property owners to convert rental units to other uses, such as for-sale housing units or non-residential buildings,” wrote UC Berkeley economist and real estate expert Kenneth Rosen in 2018. “Rent control limits the creation of new rental supply by discouraging development activity, especially without guaranteed exemptions for new properties.”
Sacramento, along with the state of California, has already adopted rent control and eviction protections. Why fund a new measure before we’ve even had a chance to see the effects of last year’s efforts?
[Editorial continues below background information box.]
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREWhy do we endorse?
An important role of The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board is making endorsements during elections.
Whereas reporters must take a detached stance on political races and ballot initiatives, and show no favor for any side, we share our opinion of what outcome is best for the community. We base this on interviews with candidates and a careful analysis of facts.
Endorsements, like editorials, represent the collective opinion of the board. They do not reflect the individual opinions of board members, or the views of Bee reporters in the news section.
Bee reporters do not participate in editorial board deliberations or weigh in on board decisions. They may observe candidate interviews.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
Who decides the endorsements?
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board includes California Opinion Editor Gil Duran, President and Executive Editor Lauren Gustus, Bee Opinion Columnist Marcos Breton, Deputy California Opinion Editor and Editorial Cartoonist Jack Ohman.
Tell us what you think
You may or may not agree with our perspective. We believe disagreement is healthy and necessary for a functioning democracy. If you would like to share your own perspective on events important to the Sacramento region, you may write a letter to the editor (150 words or less) using this form, or email an op-ed (650-750 words) to opinion@sacbee.com. Due to a high volume of submissions, we are not able to publish everything we receive and may require time to respond.
Support The Sacramento Bee
These conversations are important for our community. Keep the conversation going by supporting The Sacramento Bee. Subscribe here.
Measure C’s supporters include City Councilperson-elect Katie Valenzuela; Annabel Vera of the Democratic Socialists of America - Sacramento; Robin Mutchler of SEIU 1021; and César Julián Aguirre of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. Measure C’s opponents include Mayor Darrell Steinberg; the entire Sacramento City Council; Cassandra Jennings, President and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Urban League; and Patrick Sabelhaus of the California Council for Affordable Housing.
Measure C is a poorly conceived idea that was placed on the ballot through crooked and corrupt means. This is a bad time to experiment with new bureaucracies or extreme policies that could prove disastrous over the long term.
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a vote of no on Measure C.
This story was originally published October 4, 2020 at 5:00 AM.