Sacramento’s Measure C will help struggling renters. Here’s why it deserves support
On November 3, Sacramentans will vote on Measure C, which permanently caps local rent increases at 5% per year and creates an elected rent board to enforce the cap. As renters citywide face uncertain economic futures in the face of COVID-19, Measure C is significantly stronger than state law and represents a lifeline that could allow many to stay in their homes.
Publicly, the No on Measure C campaign has maintained a respectable veneer. Elected officials like Mayor Darrel Steinberg signed the official argument against it. They used a calmly technocratic tone, arguing the bill would add unnecessary bureaucracy, didn’t take the proper route to the ballot. They also claimed the current rent cap is good enough.
With such staid arguments, you’d think the city’s biggest landlords would be sitting on the sidelines, yawning. Instead, they’ve already dumped a jaw-dropping three-quarters of a million dollars into the No on C campaign.
Why? Because Measure C really does do far more to help renters than current law, and landlords know it. Some of them are spending big because they want to ensure they can secure maximum profits from the city’s renters.
Recent campaign finance reports listing No on C campaign contributors reads like a who’s-who of corporate local landlords with properties in Sacramento:
▪ United Development Group operates the University River Village apartments, and donated more than $82,000.
▪ The Garibaldi Company manages more than 3,000 apartments in Sacramento, including Laurel Oaks and McClellan Park. They’ve spent more than $42,000.
▪ Demmon Partners, which operates Harbor Oaks in Sacramento and several other properties, donated $25,000.
The list goes on, including hundreds of thousands from additional local landlords, real estate interest groups, and, troublingly, a massive chunk of money from a front group embroiled in controversy over potentially violating the Political Reform Act.
The Californians for Responsible Housing Committee recently threw $140,000 into the No on C campaign. Meanwhile, a recent complaint filed to the state Fair Political Practices Commission by rent control supporters accuses the committee of concealing the true amount their funding sources provided them. The complaint, filed by attorneys for the Yes on Proposition 21 campaign, a statewide rent control measure, alleges that large-scale corporate landlords are the committee’s main funders.
Ultimately, these recent campaign finance reports represent a mask-off moment for the No on C campaign. Behind the calm, paternal public image the campaign attempts to maintain, it’s become clear the No on Measure C campaign isn’t about process or bureaucracy - it’s about money, and lots of it.
It’s clear that some landlords, even in the midst of a global pandemic and unprecedented economic impacts, want to collect every cent they can from renters. And they’re willing to spend unreal amounts of money to make sure they can.
As Sacramento workers are still reeling from the economic impacts of COVID-19, and as area renters are staring down a potential future wave of evictions, one thing is clear: we’ll never get ahead of our housing crisis if we can’t protect the units people are living in now.
Vote Yes on Measure C.
This story was originally published October 14, 2020 at 6:00 AM.