Rent Control Part 4 Scaring a Senior

Here in Part 4 of what promises to be a very full category, I want to relate a real live conversation I just had with a Burlingame senior citizen.  She is well into her '80s and has lived in Burlingame nearly all of her life.

The rent controllers are fond of relaying sad stories about the effect of rising rents on people so I thought I would do the same but from the other perspective.

My conversation partner is a widow.  She and her husband owned a small business it town and lived in their Burlingame home for decades.  As she relates it, the house was a major part of their retirement fund and hopefully the main asset they would leave to their children.

She has now moved into a senior living center in town and rented out the family home.  So rent comes in one side and goes out the other.  Slightly less is coming in than going out but she has no plans to raise the rent since it seems fair enough to her.  When she read parts of the ordinance she was appalled.  Not only is it confusing (there were plenty of lawyers involved in writing it) but some parts are downright scary to an elderly homeowner.  Does she load the full burden of compliance on her family, some of who have moved to another state?  Will the property manager be able to handle this?  What if the tenants start to act up?

That last question rang in my head when I read a letter in yesterday's Daily Journal found here

I am deeply concerned that voters do not have the necessary information to make an informed decision about Measure Q in San Mateo and Measure R in Burlingame this November. I am a tenant and a property manager in San Mateo County, so I believe I have a balanced view.

I am most concerned about the just cause eviction clause (ed: see 20.04.060 here) in these measures, because if I did not know better, I would vote for it: landlords must have a good reason to evict tenants, sounds fair. Unfortunately, this is not how it works in practice. After managing property in San Francisco for several years, I have enough firsthand experience to know that the consequences of just cause eviction can be devastating.

Most tenants, like most rental property owners, are good people. But occasionally, you get a bad tenant. Someone who is extremely loud or drives recklessly or sublets to strangers, or even engages in violent or threatening behavior. Just cause eviction puts these tenants in a position of real power, because the legal process to remove them is laborious and expensive. It is NOT as simple as serving a notice — I’ve been through it. Many property owners end up stuck, watching helplessly as the property and, most of all, the neighbors, suffer.

I do not think tenants should be evicted for no reason. But just cause eviction is a terrible policy. And voters have a right to know. 

Heather Sirk

Redwood City

On an earlier thread someone stated that "rent control is for corporations"; meaning it is to control them.  That is just plain wrong.  This ordinance would force a number of behavior changes by landlords big and small and very few of them will be to the benefit of renters.  In the meantime, it's scary to some seniors.

Comments

[Mike]

I read this and it's all so enlightening: TENANTS TOGETHER in SF is the socialist group that has given BARP the tools, support, and organizing kit to promote their agenda. Spend some time looking at their web site and you'll readily see where the controlling force is. The attorneys from Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto are part of their legal network. It is quite enlightening if you take the time. www.tenantstogether.org. They want to roll rent control, just cause eviction, and independent commissions to as many cities as they can in CA. Don't think Cindy Cornell has the wherewithal to be originating all of this. She is just their front person. Diane Reddy is another of the militants from Faith in Action that props Cindy and the likes of Saundra Ardito up and emboldens them. These folks are most likely looking for bigger jobs if they succeed. More to come. Please Research Tenants Together yourself. Vote No on R and Q. Stop them or they will damage Burlingame and San Mateo and turn them away from why we came here to live.🚫

[hollyroller@gmail.com]

Very interesting interpretation Joe.
However, the topic you are sharing turns out to be Sociological.
-US Horrible Health Care System.
-Lack of family support for Elders.

Relying on US/State/County, welfare benefits is not enough to fill the vacuum that is left for the people who have no family/friends.
Somehow this turns into another for Rent Control.
How sad that so many people at Burlingame Voice endorse Corporations evicting elders, and your Friend Joe.
FYI Joe.
Most/All landlords are Incorporated-Inc. to limit any personal liability that may occur.
Just another "loophole."

[Mike]

Hollyroller that is plain not true about apartment ownership. Well over 50% are owned by individuals. Granted corporations may have the large complexes though the "garden style" apartments are individuals.

[professorawesome]

Oh my... The problem here has nothing to do with Measure R. In fact, Measure R would give the City authority to address the housing affordability problem for seniors by removing the barrier of Measure T that prevents the council from passing any affordable housing ordinances. Imagine what a difference it would make if the city actually had power to get some affordable housing units set aside for seniors. Remember, as long as Measure T is on the books, the City can't do anything to ensure affordable housing for seniors (or anybody else, for that matter).

And to those of you planning ahead for retirement, don't assume you're in the clear just because you own a home that's paid off. If you can't live at home, you will likely end up in a senior living facility and these facilities are THE MOST EXPENSIVE type of housing on the market. (Have you seen how much assisted living costs??!! It's another example of putting corporate profits above people. Base rents for a studio at $4000/month plus additional fees if you need any kind of supportive/non-medical assistance. And to make matters worse, Medicare does not cover any of it.)

So here's the advice I would give to the senior you talked to: She should consider moving back into her home, investing in whatever modifications may be needed (wheelchair ramps, etc.) and hiring a private caregiver. This is often cheaper and less disruptive than moving into a senior facility.

Another thing worth mentioning is that there are no protections for seniors who are renting apartments in assisted living or other senior facilities. Seniors are particularly vulnerable to unpredictable rent increases that could come at any time whenever the landlord wants.

[Joe]

Another poster who clearly hasn't thought through the facts, but likes to spout an opinion. You neither understand the economics of the local senior living options nor do you understand what it takes to keep a senior in his or her home.

You are fact-free and carelessly giving people bad advice which I hope you are mostly keeping to yourself except on this blog.

[Andrew]

How many new units will be built with rent control? Do these Commies know that increasing supply over demand will cause prices to come down?

[Joe]

The problem is actually a bit more complicated than that given how the ordinance is written. Go here for the background:

http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2016/07/rent-control-measure-threatens-historic-bgame.html#comments

So plenty of new units will get built, but none of them will be rentals--just condos. We will lose much of the character of the town and lose the very same people the rent controllers think they are helping. Very sad how confused they are.

[J. Mir]

I thought the Rent Control didn't apply to single family homes anyway. That's the housing stock that most seniors are moving out of.

[Ian]

Mir - that's what the supporters would have you believe, but if you actually look at the Measure, you'll see two main sets of provisions:
- Rent Stabilization (which regulates prices)
- Just Cause Eviction (which regulates pretty much every other aspect of the landlord-tenant relationship)

In San Mateo's Measure Q, single-family homes and condos are exempt from both sections. However, in Burlingame's Measure R, the supporters quietly removed the exemption from the Just Cause Eviction. If you ask them the question you pose above, the response you'll get is "Yes - all single-family homes are fully exempt from Rent Stabilization." While this may be technically true, it hides the much more consequential fact that in Burlingame there is no protection for homeowners from the broad scope of the Just Cause Eviction section.

A few other threads on this blog outline the ways in which this is a very clear danger to every Burlingame homeowner, so I won't repeat them here. I would just urge anyone who is now or ever hopes to be a homeowner in this community to vote No on measure R for your own protection.

[Joe]

Oh, it applies J. Mir. It will be applied from behind, just below waist level.