Santa Rosa, California, Rent Control Veto Referendum, Measure C (June 2017)
| Measure C: Santa Rosa Rent Control Veto Referendum |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| June 6, 2017 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local rent control |
| Related articles |
| Local rent control on the ballot June 6, 2017 ballot measures in California Sonoma County, California ballot measures Local housing on the ballot |
| See also |
| Santa Rosa, California |
A rent control veto referendum was on the ballot for Santa Rosa voters in Sonoma County, California, on June 6, 2017. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of approving an ordinance to establish a 3 percent cap on annual rent increases for certain residential rental properties, prevent landlords from evicting tenants of certain properties except for specified reasons, and impose a fee on landlords to cover the cost of administering the program, half of which may be passed on to tenants. |
| A no vote was a vote against approving an ordinance to establish a 3 percent cap on annual rent increases for certain residential rental properties, prevent landlords from evicting tenants of certain properties except for specified reasons, and impose a fee on landlords to cover the cost of administering the program, half of which may be passed on to tenants. |
This measure was put on the ballot by a successful veto referendum petition.
Election results
| Measure C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 17,163 | 51.16% | ||
| Yes | 16,382 | 48.84% | ||
- Election results from Sonoma County Elections
Measure design
Measure C was put on the ballot to approve or reject an ordinance adopted by the city council on August 30, 2016. This ordinance, known as Ordinance 4072, would have added a new chapter to the Santa Rosa Municipal code regarding residential rental unit rent and eviction. Ordinance 4072 was designed to repeal and replace ordinances 4067, 4069, and 4070. The provisions repealing these prior laws were not targeted by Measure C, which means that those ordinances remain repealed regardless of the outcome of Measure C. Ordinance 4067 and 4069 were enacted to place a 90-day moratorium on rent increases, while 4070 was related to just cause evictions.[1]
Applicable unit types
In general, Measure C was designed to apply only to residential rental units, though the ordinance was also designed to exempt specific types of residences. Rental units that are duplexes; triplexes if the owner lives in one of the units; single dwelling homes or condos; and units owned, subsidized or regulated by a governmental agency would not have been subject to the measure's provisions. Units that were issued a certificate of occupancy after February 1995 and that are exempt under the Costa-Hawkins Housing Act would also have been exempt from Measure C. Transient occupancy units, such as hotels; institutional residences, such as care facilities or fraternity houses; rooms rented to boarders; second dwellings; and mobile homes subject to the Mobilehome Residency Law would not have been affected by Measure C.[1]
Rent increase limits
If it had been approved, Measure C would have reset rents to those that were in effect on January 1, 2016. Measure C was designed to allow landlords to increase rents up to three percent each year, but would have provided for an appeal process to allow landlords to request rent larger rent increases and tenants to request reduced rent.[2]
Hearing process to appeal rent
Under the ordinance, landlords would have had the ability to request rental rate increases of greater than three percent, and tenants could have requested a reduction in rent. In both cases, the request would have been submitted to the program administrator, who would have made a decision. In cases where both the landlord and tenant agreed to the decision, both would have signed a document setting forth any new rental rates and the effective date. In cases where one of the parties was not satisfied with the program administrator's decision, they could have filed a request for a hearing to dispute the decision. In these cases, a rent dispute hearing officer would have heard the case and made a decision. This decision would have been final and binding, unless judicial review was sought.[1]
Eviction restrictions
The ordinance was designed to protect renters from being evicted without just cause (just cause would be defined as situations in which a tenant fails to pay rent or violates the lease agreement). Tenants could have also been evicted in certain "no fault" circumstances such as when a landlord decides to move into a rental unit permanently or decides to withdraw the unit from the rental market. In cases of "no fault" evictions, the landlord would be required to pay the tenant relocation fees that are equal to three months of rent in a comparable unit, plus an additional $1,500.[2]
Fee to fund administration
Measure C was designed to provide for the administration of the program by the city through a program fee. The fee would be paid to the city annually by landlords, though the ordinance allows half of the fee to be passed on to the tenants. Prior to the election the city estimated the annual cost of administering the program to be about $1,250,000, or about $113 per unit.[1][2]
Enforcement, penalties, and review
The ordinance was designed to allow the city to issue citations to landlords for violations. Under the initiative, violators could have been subject to fines of $250 for first offenses, $500 for a second offense within a one year period, and $1,000 for three or more subsequent offenses within a one year period. In addition, if a landlord violated the ordinance three or more times, it would have been considered a misdemeanor. The city council would have reviewed the ordinance on a yearly basis and at any other time when the vacancy rate rose above five percent for 12 months.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall those provisions of the City of Santa Rosa Residential Rent Stabilization and Other Tenant Protections Ordinance that establish rent control for certain residential rental properties, prohibit landlords from evicting tenants of certain properties except for specified reasons, and provide other protections to tenants, be approved?[3] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Santa Rosa City Attorney:
| “ |
Generally, landlords may set the amount of rent charged to tenants, and may evict a tenant for any reason except for an unlawful reason, such as unlawful discrimination. Under some circumstances, a city may adopt an ordinance to limit rents for certain residential rental units and may restrict the reasons why landlords may evict tenants. The Santa Rosa City Council adopted such an ordinance (“the Ordinance”). Certain residents of the City challenged the Ordinance through a referendum petition. The City Council has placed a measure on the ballot asking voters whether to approve the Ordinance. The Ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of those voting on the measure vote “yes.” If approved, the Ordinance will reset rents to the rents that were in effect on January 1, 2016, but tenants will not be reimbursed for any increase in rents that were in place between January 1, 2016 and the effective date of the Ordinance. The Ordinance allows a landlord to increase rents up to 3% annually and, in certain circumstances, provides for a hearing process for landlords to request rent increases above 3% as well as for tenants to request reduced rent. The Ordinance also prohibits landlords from evicting tenants unless there is “just cause” (such as when a tenant fails to pay rent or breaches the lease), or unless there are certain specific “no fault” circumstances (such as when a landlord will move into the rental unit or permanently withdraw the unit from the rental market). Where a landlord evicts a tenant for a “no fault” reason, the Ordinance requires the landlord to pay the tenant relocation fees equal to three months’ rent for a comparable rental unit, plus $1,500. Not all residential rental units in the City are subject to the Ordinance. The Ordinance does not apply to single family residences (including condominiums), duplexes, triplexes where the owner resides in one of the three units and multi-family units for which the initial certificate of occupancy was issued after February 1, 1995. Other types of accommodation are also not subject to the Ordinance, such as where the landlord has agreed with a governmental agency to limit the amount of the rent, roommate situations, rooms in hotels and institutional facilities, “granny” units and mobile homes. Each year the City Council will set a fee imposed on landlords to cover the City’s costs of administering the program and one-half of that fee may be passed on to tenants. The City previously estimated its annual cost of administering the program to be approximately $1,250,000, or about $113 per unit. The Ordinance makes it unlawful for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for exercising rights under the Ordinance and imposes fines and penalties for violating the Ordinance. The City Council is to review the Ordinance annually and any other time when the residential vacancy rate is above 5% for 12 months.[3] |
” |
| —Santa Rosa City Attorney[2] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
The group Fair and Affordable Santa Rosa - Yes on C ran the campaign in support of Measure C.[4]
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[5]
- Chris Coursey, mayor, city of Santa Rosa
- Dorothy Battenfeld, SRJC Trustee, Housing Advocacy Group
- David Mongeau, MBA, Chess Financial Planning LLC
- Sibyl Day, landlord, realtor, NBOP officer
- Ola King-Claye, president, Santa Rosa Teachers Association
Organizations
- Sonoma County Democratic Party[6]
Arguments in favor
At a Sonoma County Alliance meeting, Julie Combs, a Santa Rosa council member, argued that Measure C prevents current residents from being displaced and pointed out that the measure was designed with a sunset clause to lift restrictions when the vacancy rate reaches five percent.[7]
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]
| “ |
A Yes vote on Measure C reinstates Santa Rosa’s rent control and protections that: Keep thousands of current renters in their homes, including families, seniors, college students and the disabled. Reduce crime with stable neighborhoods and less renter turnover. Improve learning by keeping students from being moved from school to school. Benefit public health by decreasing stress related to repeated moves and eviction threats. Support local businesses due to residents having more money to spend at local stores, and not just for rent. Our housing crisis affects our entire community. Seniors are forced out of their homes where they’ve lived for decades. College students sleep in their cars. Mothers are evicted for no reason. Now 12,000 rental units that would be covered by rent control face unaffordable rent increases. That’s why last year, after months of debate, study and community meetings, our City Council approved this ordinance to help renters and agreed to build more affordable housing. Measure C by law guarantees landlords a fair return on their investment, allowing increases at 3% / year, and a process for just cause evictions. This modest measure is fair to both renters and landlords, but it’s being challenged by a powerful special-interest group of apartment owners based in Sacramento and Los Angeles. Remember these Facts when voting: Santa Rosa’s rent increases are among the highest in the United States; Our vacancy rate is just 1%; Almost half of Santa Rosa residents are renters; And nearly half of those are “overpaying households” where 30% or more of their income goes to housing costs; 4,500 low-income families are on a list for housing assistance – the average wait time is seven years. Measure C will help immediately, providing dignity, stability and a better community for everyone. Help keep Santa Rosa Fair and Affordable – Vote Yes on Measure C! www.FairAndAffordableSantaRosa.com[3] |
” |
Opposition
The group Citizens for Fair and Equitable Housing - No on C ran the campaign against Measure C.[8]
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[9]
- John Sawyer, Santa Rosa city councilmember
- Tom Schwedhelm, Santa Rosa city councilmember
- Ernesto Olivares, Santa Rosa city councilmember
- Sharon Wright, former Santa Rosa mayor
- Cecilia Rosas, renter, small business owner
Organizations
The following organizations were listed as endorsing a "no" vote on Measure C:[10]
- Santa Rosa Metro Chamber
- Sonoma County Alliance
- Sonoma County Taxpayers Association
- North Bay Leadership Council
- North Bay Association of Realtors (NorBAR)
- North Coast Builders Exchange
- Northern California Engineering Contractors Association
Individuals
The following individuals were listed as endorsing a "no" vote on Measure C:[10]
- Former Santa Rosa Mayor Jane Bender
- Former Santa Rosa Mayor Donna Born
- Former Santa Rosa Mayor Janet Condron
- Former Santa Rosa Mayor Mike Martini
- Former Santa Rosa Mayor Sharon Wright
- Former Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Ihde
Arguments against
At a Sonoma County Alliance meeting, Tom Schwedhelm, a Santa Rosa council member, argued that rent control was too extreme for Santa Rosa and served to distract from the issue of needing to build more housing.[7]
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[9]
| “ |
Affordable housing is a real problem in Santa Rosa, but Measure C is not the answer. It will cost taxpayers millions, have unintended consequences on neighborhood safety, and will not provide any new affordable housing options for Santa Rosa families. Measure C will cost taxpayers more than $1.4 million annually and will create a whole new bureaucracy at City Hall. Measure C does nothing to address homelessness, provide new affordable housing or lower rents. In fact, 80% of Santa Rosa’s housing supply will not be covered under Measure C. Renters in singlefamily homes, condominiums, duplexes, owner-occupied triplexes, and apartments built after 1995 will not be covered by the provisions of Measure C. The State Legislative Analyst’s Office notes that a policy like Measure C “does very little to address the underlying cost of California’s high housing cost: a shortage of housing.” Their report shows that rent control is not effective at creating affordable housing. In fact, it could reduce the amount of affordable rental housing in Santa Rosa by reducing turnover and allowing any available housing covered by Measure C to go to residents with higher credit scores and income levels, instead of prioritizing those units for seniors, families and other residents who actually need affordable housing. Measure C also makes evicting problem tenants virtually impossible. Those who put the safety of their neighbors at-risk by dealing drugs or engaging in other dangerous activities will be safeguarded from evictions, degrading neighborhood quality of life. Voting No on Measure C is a vote to keep fair and equitable housing for all our residents. That’s why renters, homeowners, small business owners, seniors and working families have come together to vote No on Measure C. Don’t be fooled! Measure C won’t address our lack of affordable housing, but will cost taxpayers. Vote No on Measure C. www.FairHousingforAll.com[3] |
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $173,059.57 |
| Opposition: | $834,339.45 |
As of November 1, 2017, one committee had registered to support Measure C, and one had registered to oppose it. Contributions in support of the measure amounted to just over $168,000, while contributions in opposition totaled at almost $833,000.[11]
The top donor in support of Measure C was the Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC, which provided 38.6 percent of support funding.[11]
The top two donors in opposition to the measure, the National Association of Realtors and the Issues Mobilization PAC California Association of Realtors, provided 75.2 percent of the opposition funding.[11]
Support
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors
Below are the top donors in support of Measure C:[11]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC | $65,000.00 | $0.00 | $65,000.00 |
| Committee to Protect Oakland Renters Yes on Measure JJ | $35,000.00 | $0.00 | $35,000.00 |
| NextGen CA Committee | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria | $2,500.00 | $0.00 | $2,500.00 |
| Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee | $1,500.00 | $0.00 | $1,500.00 |
Opposition
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors
Below are the top donors in opposition to Measure C:[11]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Association of Realtors | $316,000.00 | $16,000.00 | $332,000.00 |
| Issues Mobilization PAC California Association of Realtors | $294,000.00 | $0.00 | $294,000.00 |
| Woodmont Real Estate Services, L.P. | $75,400.00 | $0.00 | $75,400.00 |
| Pine Creek Properties | $20,000.00 | $0.00 | $20,000.00 |
Media editorials
Support
Ballotpedia has not found any media editorials in favor of Measure C. Please send any information about media editorials in favor of Measure C to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opposition
- The Press Democrat said the following:[12]
| “ | The Santa Rosa City Council last year launched its “Housing action plan” that includes a number of laudable steps for helping renters and encouraging more development. But at a time when Santa Rosa desperately needs hammers for the construction of more affordable housing, Measure C provides an ax, one that would divide the community between the haves and have-nots and between winners and losers. This is not the tool that Santa Rosa needs. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Measure C.[3] | ” |
Background
Housing in Santa Rosa
According to the U.S. Census, the residential rental vacancy rate in Santa Rosa was 3.2 percent in 2015. Between the years 2010 and 2014, the rate fluctuated between 4.4 percent and 5.0 percent. In 2015, 50.27 percent of occupied homes were occupied by renters. From 2010 to 2014, the percent of occupied homes that were occupied by renters varied between 43.91 percent and 48.46 percent. In 2015, 53.85 percent of households in occupied units paying rent paid rent that was 30 percent or more of the household income. From 2010 to 2014, the percent fluctuated between 55.27 percent and 60.57 percent.[13]
Mayoral election
On December 6, 2016, council member Chris Coursey defeated fellow member Tom Schwedhelm in a 4-3 vote by the city council to become mayor. Coursey was supported by members Julie Combs, Jack Tibbetts, and Chris Rogers while Schwedhelm had the support of Ernesto Olivares and former mayor John Sawyer. Coursey and Combs were supporters of Measure C, while Schwedhelm, Olivares, and Sawyer opposed the measure. The deciding vote came down to newly elected Jack Tibbetts who expressed support for rent control and just cause for eviction throughout his campaign.[14][15]
Similar measures
In 2016, voters in the California cities of Mountain View and Richmond approved measures that established maximum rent increases and prohibited evictions without just cause. Following the passage of the measures, the California Apartment Association filed lawsuits against the measures, claiming the laws constituted illegal takings. In May 2017, the association announced they decided to abandon the lawsuits and focus anti-rent control efforts elsewhere. Proponents of rent control believe that the suspension of legal action by the association could make other cities more likely to enact ordinances due to a decreased risk of legal challenge.[16]
Similar measures were on the November 2016 ballots in Burlingame and San Mateo, but they were not approved. Voters in Alameda saw two competing rent control measures in November 2016, Measure L1 and Measure M1. Measure L1, which approved a city ordinance adopted by the city council in March 2016, was approved, while Measure M1, which would have adjusted the ordinance, was defeated.
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot by a successful veto referendum petition.
The Santa Rosa City Council originally passed this ordinance on August 30, 2016, with a 4-2 vote. Council members Chris Coursey, Gary Wysocky, Erin Carlstrom, and Julie Combs voted in favor, while Vice Mayor Tom Schwedhelm and council member Ernesto Olivares voted against. John Sawyer, who was the mayor at the time, recused himself from the vote, though he signed the arguments against Measure C as a council member.[17]
Following the passage of the ordinance, opponents of the law gathered veto referendum petition signatures to force the city council to either repeal the law or put the matter before voters. Petitioners needed to gather at least 8,450 valid signatures in order to force a referendum. In September 2016, a property manager aligned with the California Apartment Association turned in 12,543 signatures. Sonoma County elections officials found 9,648 signatures were valid in December 2016, which caused the referendum to be sent to the city council.[18][19]
On March 7, 2017, the city council voted 6-0 to put the ordinance on the ballot as Measure C rather than repealing it. One council member was absent from the vote.[1]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Santa Rosa Local rent control Measure C. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Support
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Santa Rosa City Clerk, "Resolution No. RES-2017-033," accessed May 18, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Santa Rosa City Clerk, "City Attorney Impartial Analysis," accessed May 18, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Fair and Affordable Santa Rosa, "Let’s keep Santa Rosa Fair & Affordable," accessed May 22, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Santa Rosa City Clerk, "Argument in Favor of Measure C," accessed May 18, 2017
- ↑ Sonoma County Democrats, "Democratic Party Endorses Measure C – Fair and Affordable Housing in Santa Rosa," April 12, 2017
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 North Bay Business Journal, "Santa Rosa rent control: Sides for and against debate June ballot measure," May 3, 2017
- ↑ Citizens for Fair and Equitable Housing, "Vote No On C," accessed May 22, 2017
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Santa Rosa City Clerk, "Argument Against Measure C," accessed May 18, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Citizens for Fair and Equitable Housing, "Endorsements," accessed May 22, 2017
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 City of Santa Rosa, "Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure," accessed July 14, 2017
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Measure C: This is the wrong tool for fixing Santa Rosa's housing crisis," May 7, 2017
- ↑ United States Census Bureau, "American Fact Finder," accessed May 31, 2017
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "Chris Coursey named new Santa Rosa mayor," December 6, 2016
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "Santa Rosa mayor vote falling on Jack Tibbetts’ shoulders," December 4, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Lawsuits’ end could spur other cities to try rent control," May 8, 2017
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "Santa Rosa enacts rent control, capping increases on 11,000 units," August 30, 2016
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "Landlords submit anti-rent control petition in Santa Rosa," September 26, 2016
- ↑ The Press Democrat, "Opponents of Santa Rosa rent control able to force referendum," December 21, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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 |
