Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Daly City, San Mateo County officials rebuff rent control, other onerous policies

October 4, 2017

During a meeting attended by more than 150 members of the rental housing industry, the Daly City City Council last week rejected the idea of rent control and a number of other onerous housing policies.

On a 3-1 vote on Sept. 25, the council also dismissed policies such as just-cause eviction, relocation assistance, mandatory acceptance of Section 8 vouchers and the creation of a rent registry.

At issue was whether to include these policies as part of Daly City’s Assessment of Fair Housing Report (AFH). The report is a comprehensive study on a jurisdiction’s housing barriers, a routine process required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for jurisdictions that receive federal grants.

Had the fair housing plan been adopted by the City Council as presented by city staff, Daly City would have been required to begin studying these policies as early as September 2018.

The California Apartment Association and coalition partners mobilized members to attend the meeting and speak out against the punitive mandates.

“We understand that the city wants to address the city’s housing needs and we should. However, this is not the right approach,” Rhovy Lyn Antonio, CAA’s vice president of public affairs, told the council. Policies like rent control have been proven to be a failure in every city where it’s been adopted. It does not build one single unit of housing nor guarantees that the rent controlled unit goes to a household with low income.

Submitted by Victor Spano


Anonymous said...

David Canepa is very popular in Daly City, Pacifica and San Mateo County. He was a Tribune paperboy, Pacifica police explorer, and Daly City mayor. It is obvious to me that his star is rising and greater things are in store for him, at the state level. So this article says that Canepa and other supervisors, including our own, Don Horsley, voted against Rent Control unanimously. That is a meaningful fact to me that some people in Pacifica might be interested in hearing. He agrees that Rent control is not a solution to housing problems. Daly City has worked in the direction of building new affordable housing projects in Daly City. David Canepa served as mayor in Daly City when these new affordable housing projects were approved and built. Sober, logical leadership exists elsewhere in the area, it is a sad and sorry fact that it does not exist here in Pacifica.

Sharon said...

The NIMBYS in Pacifica better hurry up and build a wall since thousands of human beings north of here have lost their homes and will be looking for housing and might have to settle on erecting their tents or tuff sheds wherever they can find open space. We've got plenty of it and god forbid any of it should be desecrated with actual real housing for humans. If we managed to do that rents might not be so crazy but then everyone knows Pacifica only provides housing for frogs and snakes.

Anonymous said...

So in this weeks Tribune there is a full page ad No on C.

May I add that Mike O'Neil, Sue V. On city council and Susan Wallace are all licensed realtors.

Watch your wallet, Pacifica.

Larry said...

Hey, 12:47, nice selective reading. perhaps you didn't notice the full page, back page, ad for yes on C. Oh, and evil Realtors run the world. How was the kool aid?

Steve Sinai said...

Also a full page ad in the Trib from the rent control advocates.

I'm sure the Sues and Mike appreciate the commercial publicity. If you need to buy or sell a house, you know who to talk to.

Anonymous said...

Pacifica Realtors have been losing market share for years. This won't help them either.

Defenderizer of Realtors (TM) said...

I am not a Realtor (TM), but I think that 9:06 is an ignorant remark. Real estate is a relationship business. Realtors live in our community, their kids are in our schools, they are in our social and non-profit organizations, they are all around. The scapegoating of realtors in the area of increasing rents is just ridiculous. Realtors just facilitate the trading of real estate and do not control rents, or encourage rents to go up. The market for rentals has resulted in increased rents simply because there is not enough units around to accomodate the demand. Here in Pacifica, recent Quarry initiative to build hundreds of apartments was rejected by voters. Brisbane wants to reject new units in the baylands. The result of this is that your street will become filled with inlaws, and people renting out rooms. The crowds of people looking will find somewhere to go, like it or not, and it might not be pretty, you will find it harder to park on your street, and you might see tent cities all over Vallemar and Rockaway just like you see them on Folsom Street, etc. Real estate is a 80/20 game. 80 percent of the business goes to 20% of the realtors. It does not matter where they live, or whether or not they support rent control or not. That SAMCAR gets involved is purely selfish. Rent control will artificially depress prices, and both owners and realtors will find depressed returns.

No on C Signholder said...

Last night I joined a group of No on C supporters holding signs on Highway One during the commute home @ Reina Del Mar @ Highway One. There were about 20 of us.

Many drivers did not respond to us in any way, as they were in a rush, or holding their cell phones texting their friends and lovers. Perhaps many were indifferent, driving to visit their friend in Moss Beach, or their friends further south. As they are not Pacifica voters, they could care less. Vigilant drivers focusing on driving were unswayed by our presence.

However, many cars did honk in approval, wave, give us a thumbs up, or shout things like "Right on". 19 out of 20 cars that responded to us gave positive messages, however, there were about 1 out of 20 who either gave us the bird, or thumbs down. So based on my observation alone, of Highway one commuters, including renters and homeowners, less than 5% were so inspired to proclaim their opposition to No on C and/ or allegiance to Yes on C. Does this mean Yes on C will be smashed on election day? To me, the answer is maybe and I thank the Yes on C supporters travelling highway 1 for not trying to run us over or throw things.

Anonymous said...

Defenderizer of Realtors (TM)

Only a realtor defends realtors!

Dadbod Apocalypse said...

Here's my prediction on the finally tally for Measure C:

YES: 45%
NO: 55%

(margin of error: +/- 1)

This thing is a dead duck.

Math Question said...

I think this will kill apartment complex sales. Tell me if this makes sense.

Prop C passes
4-unit building
$1,000,000 for a down payment
5% interest rate

In 2018 I buy my building for $2,000,000
I owe $1,000,000 on my mortage
Add up mortgage/prop tax/insurance and divide that by four units, each unit would pay $2,354 rent for me to break even

Fast-forward 5 years. If I raise rents the max each year (3%), in 2023, the rent is $2,728 each month, a 16% increase over the five year period.

In 2023 I try to sell the apartment complex, now valued at $2,500,000, a 25% increase in equity.

Any buyer coming in with the same $1,000,000 down would now have to price the rents at $3,234 in order to break even. But they're not allowed to raise the rent that high because of Measure C. So they take a loss each month (no way), or figure out a way to come up with a larger down payment, right?

How or why would people sell/buy apartment complexes if their value increases at a greater rate than 3% (the rate at which rents are capped)?

Basically, the rate of return for any potential purchaser decreases over time. So won't this kill the market?

MathDoesntMakeSense said...

My niece grew up in the area and now has a young family. 2 years ago they rented here in pacifica a small 2 bedroom on the bottom floor for $2500. When their lease came up a year later they were informed that their rent was being increased to $3000. 25% in 1 year seemed pretty outrageous to me and I couldnt believe that the apartment complex could do that. Theres no way people are budgeting for a 25% increase in expenses per year and we all know salaries dont increase 25% every year. They of course had to move but cant imagine what that same 2 bedroom is at now and how much they are increasing rents every year. The math these apartment complex owners are doing doesnt make sense

The Rents to Damned High! said...

$2,500 a month buys you a nice house in the Central Valley. I personally, can’t afford Woodside, Atherton, or Portola Valley, do I bellyache? No, I live in the area I can afford, within my means. It’s unfortunate that people who grew up in Pacifica can’t afford to live here. Most homeowners who have owned for a while can’t afford to buy their houses at current bubblenania prices.

Anonymous said...

Please read this accurate commentary and perspective on Race Baiting Doesn't Work in San Mateo County:

Anonymous said...

Accurate? Hardly. SAMCAR is a corrupt organization that is running a lying campaign against Measure C.

David said...

11:40, I hear the yessee's constantly accusing No on C of lying. I, just once, would love to hear point by point what the lies are. Put up or shut up. The lie thing seems to be the only argument you guys can come up with. why don't you bring up some points in the ordinance and argue for them. Probably because you've never bothered to read it, like the priest that signed the ballot statement. Before you call me a liar, he admitted he had not read it until that morning before a meeting at the LBC.

Anonymous said...

Wow, The status quo never had so many real estate defenders. Glad for your smug existence. It may be blasted out of existence by reality, which has an ugly habit of arising. A society that cares not about its poor is doomed.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know every communist government has failed or is in the process of failing.

Anonymous said...

The U.S. government is in the process of failing.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. We have allowed cancer of corruption to take root.
Democracy is very messy but I'll take it any day over the alternatives.

Anonymous said...

The U.S. government is in the process of failing.

October 30, 2017 at 10:29 AM

The US Government can continue to print more money till the end of time.

Pacifica will fail!

Anonymous said...

A study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities concluded that the U.S. government is an oligarchy, not a democracy.