Rent Contol - Part 3 Rigging the Commission

Let's dig into the 22 page Burlingame "Community Protection" ordinance a bit starting with the Rental Housing Commission in section 20.40.100.  It is to be at least 3 tenants.  So that would mean it could be all tenants since it doesn't also say it shall be at least 2 landlords--it just says no more than 2 landlords.  So when you read letters to the editor like the one in yesterday's Daily Post by local Elana Lieberman stating we need to empower "an independent commission, comprised of the stakeholders -- landlords and tenants --appointed by city council to provide accountability" you should realize that the letter writer is making an assumption that may not hold true and certainly is not required to be true.

Check out what applicants to the commission need to file with the city and the public

The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management, and investment in and association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three (3) years immediately prior to the applicant’s application. This documentation shall be made available to the public. 

Heck, you can run for City Council or apply to any of the other City commissions just by showing you are a B'game resident.  If elected to the Council then you have to provide a bit more about your investments, but you don't have to invite the public into your entire business dealings.  What landlord or realtor would voluntarily handover all of that information?  This commission is rigged from the start by composition and disclosure requirements.  Period.

Comments

[Charlene]

Hi, do you want to play some basketball? Sure come on. My team has 5 players, but yours only gets 4. It'll be a blast. What? You don't want to play? Why not?

[Mike]

Alas, renters could care less about the commission's make up. They just want to have their rent rolled back and to put a stranglehold on rental property. I don't believe that the BARP folks, the Faith in Action rouse, or the socialist attorneys from THE CLSEPA who wrote the language care about anything elseWhat they care about is driving a local progressive redistribution of wealth movement ultimately throughout the Bay Area.
Do you ever hear even once about this organization's concern about the kids or grandkids of a property owner? Of course not, because that's not part of the fabric of the community they want to acknowledge. This movement is just the start of something much bigger than rent!
The issue at hand is getting enough people off of being complacent about what is looming here and to stop it dead in its tracks. Stand up and fight this virus from infecting our beautiful cities.

[Mike]

While we are at it about the ordinance, what if there is a legality challenge to the document? One would think there could be grounds for how it is written, it's intended discrimination, and what it does in areas like the ability to sublet a unit without an owners agreement. This is very dangerous language. Wouldn't it be something if there are enough people to file a class action against BARP, the ordinance, and its authors? Just remember it's not necessarily over on 11/8, and could just be the beginning!

[Mom]

I was wondering about that last point as well, Mike. And it got me thinking about why in the world our city council voted to put it on the ballot in the first place. If they had to vote on it then you have to believe they could have voted NO, right?

[[email protected]]

Once Mr. Trump becomes President of the US a couple of things should happen according to his overall plan for this country.
All illegals will be deported.
There goes one half of the renters.
The pricing of all SF Bay Area housing should drop by one half.
In Mr. Trumps plan, that is "his gift " to the people of the US.
Upward mobility for the lower/middle/ class.
Read it and weep Joe.
Also,
Never Forget
Which unfortunately Burlingame Voice may have.
Never Forget.

[Sysiphus]

HSR passed because it was a "feel good" vote on a bad idea.

Rent control is the same kind of thing and may well pass.

I guarantee you won't see lawn signs against the measure for fear of pro-rent control activists showing up on the same lawn as the sign.

[resident]

Check out the money bags behind this little sneak attack on Burlingame homeowners

http://www.clsepa.org/board-of-directors/

Hewlett Packard, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Linked-in, Cisco, Stanford Law and a bunch of lawyers who make big bucks.

What is going on here?

[[email protected]]

Never Forget.

This social experiment-Rent Control, is clearly an obvious example of the "Class Warfare" that exists in this Democratic Society.
Rent control is not needed anywhere in the US, unless there is a ridiculous disparity of wealth.
All @ NY, DC, SF Bay Area.
This is a problem that is clearly Class Defined.
There is zero reason not for landlords worried about rent control, not to admit that they are reluctant to share the benefits of Prop 13, Extreme Property value increases, with others.

[hillsider]

You are an idiot.

[Andrew]

I will second that motion. Trump isn't going to win and even if he does he isn't going to do what you say. And even if he does it won't do what you say. Rent control hurts the poor fools who vote for it the most. You appear to be one of them.

[[email protected]]

you guys are funny!

[Ian]

Actually, what's really funny is that anyone would support both renters and Trump - that's some truly major-league cognitive dissonance in action.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/28/news/trump-apartment-tenants/

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140904/east-village/elected-officials-accuse-ny-observer-owner-of-tenant-harassment

http://gothamist.com/2016/03/30/jared_kushner_not_good.php

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-donald-trumps-dad-was-woody-guthries-racist-l-239966

Of course, if you just realize that he'd be such a disaster that he'd crash the economy, which would then bring down rents (which I guess is implied by the comments made in his defense above), you may be onto something.

[hillsider]

The only thing he's onto is his 5th drink.

[Mike]

I read this response to the big money against R in the SM Daily today authored by Cynthia Cornell president of BARP, which she does not clearly state. Whenever one reads the slant by Cynthia, Saundra Ardito, Diane Reddy or others that will soon be named, take it to be means to con one out of their money and rights.
Taxpayers and Voters-- VOTE NO!

Cynthia, Please you are not just of BARP but its president! You have been well trained to divert facts and bury them in claims. This is a poorly written document that actually endangers the residents of Burlingame as does the like one in San Mateo. R most certainly can "R"educe funding for Police, Fire, and Schools due to the massive litigation these cities will face and also taxpayer funds can be tapped by this so called commission as the document is written. Your group says no that won't happen but it sets up the ability to do so. and that is a fact! You are in the legal profession and know all to well what authority is implicitly or explicitly given by the Ordinance as written. The just cause eviction clause virtually makes it impossible to remove a bad tenant without a lengthy court process. That goes for all forms of housing, homes, apartments, condos, duplexes and more. Many neighbors out of fear of retaliation will not step up as witnesses in the courts.

I do not believe the City of Burlingame's residents want Burlingame to become a Berkeley or an East Palo Alto. That surely did not go into the decision process for residents to move to the city to have it be like those as an example. They moved for the good schools, which by the way SMUSD isn't bleeding teachers as you claim, and safety as well as peace of mind. That will be eroded under R-- hence VOTE NO!!

The commission if formed will be an unregulated taxing entity that works in its own interest and certainly not for the entire community. Why do you claim there to be embarrassing amounts of money being spent against R versus the enormous amount of wasted money that will pour into this so called commission? That is what you should be pointing to as "embarrassing piles of money". Are you looking for a job there to reduce your commute from the law firm you currently work at?

Oh, let's be clear, BARP was the direct cause of the much publicized evictions at 117 Anita and nothing more. Also, you bring up commuting, well the news is most workers commute to and from their homes. Of course pointing anything to the contrary out to you and the organization you run BARP is wasted ink. Perhaps the voters in these cities will allow themselves to become full versed in the nuances of the ordinance language which can and most certainly will be detrimental to all residents.

[Joe]

Here is a bit of the pertinent section on costs to B'gamers (20.04.100)

d(6) Establish a budget for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the provisions of this Chapter, including WITHOUT LIMITATION the hiring of necessary staff, and charge fees as set forth herein in an amount sufficient to support that budget.

d(12) Establish a schedule of PENALTIES that may be imposed for noncompliance with this Chapter or with rules and regulations promulgated under this Chapter.

d(j) Financing. The Commission shall finance its reasonable and necessary expenses by charging Landlords an annual Rental Housing Fee as set forth herein, in AMOUNTS DEEMED REASONABLE by the Commission in accordance with applicable law. The Commission is also empowered to request and receive funding when and if necessary from ANY AVAILABLE SOURCE for its reasonable and necessary expenses.

(1) Rental Housing Fee. All Landlords shall pay a Rental Housing Fee on an annual basis. The first Commission convened after the effective date of this Chapter shall determine the amount of the Rental Housing Fee. The amount of the Rental Housing Fee may differ between Rental Units subject to the entirety of this Chapter and those that are Partially Exempt. The Commission may adjust the amount of the Rental Housing Fee at its discretion to ensure full funding of its reasonable and necessary expenses, in accordance with all applicable law.

(2) City to Advance Initial Funds. During the initial implementation of this Chapter, the City shall advance ALL NECESSARY FUNDS to ensure the effective implementation of this Chapter, until the Commission has collected Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Chapter. The City may seek a
reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Rental Housing Commission after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected.

THE CAPITALIZATION IS MINE.

[Sysiphus]

This measure is so outlandish that it must be a gambit to scare people into voting for a more sanely written measure to be crafted in the future...

Vote no.

[candyman]

Well I guess all you homeowners got yours and you don't want to help anybody who rents.
Who is going to clean your toilets, watch your children, and wait on you in restaurants? People are cobbling together many little jobs to live here and raise their children in a nice town.
Think about this as you attend church every week with your like minded friends. You are all in a bubble happy and smug that your property is worth so much. God forbid you think about helping out in what little way you can. We are talking about people who need some kind of protection against the incredible rent increases that are happening every day.
Snarky trolls will respond, I am sure.

[JohnStossel]

Candyman... If there is a shortage of toilet cleaners, child care leaders or waiters, then the wage rate will rise to attract them as they are scare. The same is to be said of the local rental rates. You blame the landlords but they are not the market.

Would you turn down a wage increase to the market rate in your area? Should we put a cap on wages to keep product prices down? If not, why would we put a cap on rent?

The same church going people who you challenge may also be the people who write the checks to keep those churches functioning in the expensive Bay Area. They provide the charitable donations to help those in need.

Prices are a means to allocate scare resources. The prices would not go up if there were not a line of people behind you who are willing to pay more for the unit.

"People are cobbling together many little jobs to live here and raise their children in a nice town." While this is true, there are others behind you who are willing to do the same thing and pay the market rate for rent. Why is your desire to live in Burlingame greater than theirs?

Why do you get legislative relief from the market and they get shut out? How is that fair to them? Is it really just the landlord?

Why should the local government block these people from obtaining a home in an area where they also want to live and are willing to pay the market rate?

Doesn't the rent control discriminate against these people who want to come to Burlingame? You are attacking the market but you blame the landlords and the residents but the real culprits are those who are wiling to pay more for the apartment unit.

The current measure protect only one group of people, those who are currently living in the units and do not want to move. Rental units need vacancies like homeowners need to sell. The market needs turnover so that new families may provide new resources to a community.

The market is not evil and nor are its landlords. We cannot hail the influx of spending of the Tech Industry (remember when there was none?) and curse the individuals who provide those funds. Its a fact of the market. The higher rental prices are part of the change process in the Bay Area.

[Ian]

Whether or not you're in favor of rent control in the abstract, this particular measure is a complete mess. If you read no other part of it, read the section on the Rental Housing Commission that it would set up (section 100, quoted in part above by Joe). What this describes is an unelected, unaccountable, quasi-legislative body, with its membership statutorily tilted in favor of tenants, and with unlimited power to set its own budget, pulling its funding from "any available source". While some other aspects of the measure appear reasonable to me, I find it hard to fathom that anyone with a long-term interest in this community could read the description of this Commission (starts on p.13 of https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=13635) and still vote in favor.

[Doug Radtke]

They should make Friedrich von Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" mandatory reading.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/RentControlMythsRealities.pdf

[Cathy Baylock]

I wanted to share this snippet from the last City Council meeting that well describes the problems with Measure R, the rent control measure on Burlingame's ballot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SGlm-gwIgA&feature=share

[[email protected]]

Dear Mr. John Stossel,
In my opinion, your comments/belief system are incredibly offensive to every Human Being.
Renter/Non,
Millionaire, Thousandaire, Hundredaire, living in your parents basementaire after 30 years old.
Holy Cow.

[Mike]

Please explain Hollyroller, what is so, so offensive about what John Stossel (a libertarian) wrote? You slam it though don't give specifics about what you believe is abhorrent.

[Mom]

I feel like we need a Community Law service for Burlingame to protect us from the Community Law service in East Palo Alto. Why are they even doing work for a Burlingame measure?

[Mike]

Because CLSEPA is part of the lawyer network of Tenants Together the San Francisco based statewide group that wants to drive these egregious policies in as many cities in CA that they can. This group is the strength behind BARP--which surely is getting confused now.
The frail leader of BARP Cindy Cornell works for Cooley LLP a law firm (One has to wonder how the firm feels about her activist role?). Only protection needed is VOTE NO ON R&Q!!...and tell many friends to do as well.