Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
San Mateo, California, Rent Control, Measure Q (November 2016)
| Measure Q: San Mateo Rent Control |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local rent control |
| Related articles |
| Local rent control on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California San Mateo County, California ballot measures Local charter amendments on the ballot |
| See also |
| San Mateo, California |
A measure addressing rent control was on the ballot for San Mateo voters in San Mateo County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of establishing a rent control commission and policies, including allowing annual rent increases equal to the Consumer Price Index increase and limiting annual rent increases to between 1 percent and 4 percent, which could be compounded in subsequent years with no single increase of more than 8 percent. |
| A no vote was a vote against establishing a rent control commission and policies, including allowing annual rent increases equal to the Consumer Price Index increase and limiting annual rent increases to between 1 percent and 4 percent, which could be compounded in subsequent years with no single increase of more than 8 percent. |
Election results
| Measure Q | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 24,073 | 59.99% | ||
| Yes | 16,053 | 40.01% | ||
- Election results from San Mateo County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall the charter amendment adding Chapter XI to the San Mateo City Charter to enact rent regulations applicable to apartment housing with an initial certificate of occupancy dated before February 1,1995; and just cause for eviction requirements applicable to apartment housing with an initial certificate of occupancy dated before the date the measure becomes effective; and establishing a Rental Housing Commission To administer and implement these regulations and requirements be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Mateo City Attorney:
| “ |
Under existing law, owners of residential property in San Mateo may charge any rent they wish for their property. Under existing law, a landlord may, upon proper notice, remove a tenant without giving any reason. This measure would amend the city's charter to enact new laws to limit the amount of rent a landlord may charge and to prohibit removal of a tenant without just cause, as defined by the measure. The proposed measure would set base rents for each rental unit and would limit subsequent rent increases. For tenancies beginning on or before September 21, 2015, the base rent would be the rent charged on that date. The base rent for tenancies commenced after that date would be the rent charged upon initial occupancy. The measure would authorize the landlord to increase rents once annually by an amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index, except that rents may be increased at least 1% and no more than 4% regardless of the change in the Index. The measure would authorize the landlord to bank annual increases that are not imposed and to impose them in subsequent years, provided no annual increase may exceed 8%. The measure would allow landlords to petition for increases larger than the authorized annual increase when necessary to ensure the landlord receives a fair and resaonable rate of return. The measure would also authorize tenants to petition for rent decreases when the landlord fails to maintain the premises in a habitable condition, decreases the housing services provided, or charges rent in excess of that permitted under the measure. The measure would estalbish a Rental Housing Commission to be appointed by the City Council. The commission would appoint hearing officers to conduct rent adjustment hearings, conduct hearings on rent adjustments, and adopt regulations to implement the measure's rent regulation provisions. The commission would be authorized to establish and impose a fee on landlords to cover the costs of administering the rent regulation program. The proposed measure would require a landlord to have just cause to remove a tenant. Just cause would be limited to: failure to pay rent, breach of lease, nuisance, criminal activity, failure to grant reasonable access, necessary repairs, owner move-in, withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, and demolition. Landlords would be required to pay relocation assistance under certain circumstances. The rent regulations would apply to multi-family rental units with an initial certificate of occupancy issued before February 1, 1995. They would not apply to single family homes, condominiums, owner-occupied duplexes or secondary dwelling units, hotels, hospitals, certain nonprofits, dormitories, or governmental facilities. The just cause for removal provisions would apply to the same type of units subject to the rent regulations with initial certificates of occupancy based on any date up to the effective date of the measure. This measure is placed on the ballot by a petition signed by more than 7,119 or 15% of San Mateo voters as required by law. |
” |
| —San Mateo City Attorney[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- Ben K. Toy, President, San Mateo United Homeowners Association
- Rev. Dr. Penny Nixon, Religious Leader, San Mateo homeowner
- John Ebjeter, San Mateo Planning Commission
- Dr. Jennifer Martinez, Executive Director, Faith in Action
- Richard W. Hedges, Community Activist
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
Skyrocketing rent increases threaten to destroy our community. Hardworking families are losing their homes. Valued teachers, nurses, and public safety workers ar leaving San Mateo as rents become unaffordable. Unfortunately, our City Council and other community leaders have not found a meaningful solution to address the rental crisis. Measure Q is that solution and it will protect San Mateo's future. Vote to protect San Mateo. Vote YES on Measure Q. Measure Q makes housing costs predictable and stable, freeing San Mateo residents from constant fear of losing their homes. Rents have skyrocketed in recent years. Wages have not kept pace, putting profound stress on our community. As we lose our family and community members, we lose San Mateo's quality of life. Measure Q is a fair and common sense solution:
San Mateo's high rents affect everyone. We're losing teachers, nurses, and other important members of our city. Restaurants can't find workers. Property values are directly related to the quality of our schools and availability of essential service personnel. Together, we can sustain a vibrant and liveable San Mateo. Vote YES to protect San Mateo's future. Vote YES on Measure Q. |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Maurren Freschet, San Mateo City Council member
- Diane Papan, San Mateo Council member
- Cheryl Angeles, President & CEO, San Mateo Chamber of Commerce
- Anna Kuhre, President Emeritus, San Mateo United Homeowners' Association
- Claire Mack, Former Mayor
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
We're concenred about the housing problem but Measure Q is NOT the solution. Measure Q is a flawed law that creates a self-regulating commission with no accountability to voters and gives unlimited access to our taxpayers' money. Measure Q is bad for all San Mateo residents. MEASURE Q CREATES UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT It gives blank check authority to an unelected bureaucracy to demand AND receive money from the City. With no obligation to repay the funds, the commission could take money from public safety, parks, libraries, street maintenance, and other essential city services. This commission will have unlimited power to levy fees and penalities, hire staff, and establish regulations - with zero accountability to taxpayers. MEASURE Q PUTS THE CITY AND ALL RESIDENTS AT FINANCIAL RISK Implementing Measure Q requires 10 new full-time employees and is estimated to cost $2.5 million annually. Taxpayers could be liable for other expenses the commission deems necessary. The City could be forced to defend legal challenges at taxpayers' expense, increasing costs of living for everyone and preventing the City from working on true affordable housing solutions. MEASURE Q IS NOT AIMED AT THOSE IN NEED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Measure Q left out critical language to limit subsidies to only those who actually need assistance. Measure Q would mandate privately funded subsidies to residents with high paying jobs who could afford market-rate rents while making housing even more scarce and expensive for struggling families in need of affordable housing. Don't be fooled into believing that Measure Q will solve the housing crisis or that there will be no cost to the City and taxpayers. Measure Q will drive up rents and make housing unaffordable. The unlimited power given to this unaccountable commission is dangerous and will have untended consequences, damaging to our City and all residents. Vote NO on Measure Q. It's bad for San Mateo. |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Mateo Local rent control. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
