Barnidge: Is rent control a good idea for East Bay communities?
By Tom Barnidge Contra Costa Times Columnist
Posted: 05/18/15, 12:02 AM PDT |
You can be sure the rising cost of housing has caused widespread concern when communities as diverse as Richmond and Lafayette both consider rent control measures. The Richmond City Council narrowly rejected a moratorium on rent increases on April 21, and Lafayette did the same last week, but the discussion isn't anywhere near ended.

Rent control is easy enough to understand -- frequency and percentage of increases are restricted by ordinance -- but its merits are where opponents butt heads. No better example exists than in Richmond, where onetime mayoral candidate/perpetual activist/rent-control advocate Mike Parker cast the first blow in a debate that still rages.

His 1,800-word epistle in online publication "Beyond Chron," assaulting the key figure opposing his view, began with a bang: "Richmond Mayor Tom Butt has set himself up to be the spokesman for landlords in a campaign against rent control."
Butt, no stranger to online communication, responded in kind: "I am not a spokesman for landlords or any other interest group in Richmond. What I am is a spokesman for good government and rational public policy."

Amid a flurry of verbal punches, Butt landed one especially sweet jab: "Instead of focusing on regulation to artificially suppress one component of a complex marketplace, I favor politics that lift up people and provide education and other resources that will enable them to better compete in an open market."

The jousting didn't end there. Dean Preston and Dan Harper, representatives of the nonprofit association Tenants Together, followed with an online piece that charged Butt with ensuring "landlords can jack up rents in unlimited amounts." Butt then asked why they didn't also seek price caps on "fuel, food, transportation, sports tickets, beer or wine." I'd like to add health care to that list.

The brickbats will continue to fly because Richmond is a brickbat-throwing town, but it's difficult to imagine a consensus opinion. Rent control's pros and cons leave a guy swaying back and forth.
Such ordinances eliminate profiteering landlords and prevent whimsical rent hikes. Tenants know what they're getting and at what price. Landlords get benefits, too. They are almost guaranteed full occupancy, and there's a strong likelihood of good tenants, none of whom wants to risk eviction.

On the downside, there's little motivation for an apartment owner to upgrade the facility, or even maintain it as might be needed to attract new renters. And if rental fees don't keep up with operating costs, landlords are more prone to do condo conversions or sell to developers with other intentions.

The city also has skin in this game. If it's going to enforce rent control, it needs an enforcement body, which means added expense. Rent-control units also discourage mobility and limit the housing stock. When you discourage new residents, you discourage new business. There's nothing simple about any of this. (Maybe that's why only three other states -- New York, New Jersey, Maryland -- and the District of Columbia have such ordinances.)

The ongoing debate at least evoked some ripe sarcasm, always a good thing. In answering his critics, Butt wrote "in the current economic boom almost everything is going up in price. Maybe rent controllers would rather return to the good old days when rents were low, mortgages were underwater."

Ah, yes, the days of that wacky eminent domain scheme. Good times for everyone.
Contact Tom Barnidge at tbarnidge@bayareanewsgroup.com.