No on both BB+CC (Berkeley, Nov. 2024)

 

BB + CC: NO on two flawed Ordinances to modify Berkeley’s Rent Control system

Two different measures propose complex changes to Berkeley’s rent control system. There’s a tenant-sponsored measure and a landlords-sponsored one. Neither has shown that it has the right combination of being necessary AND not having key flaws, so I’m voting No on both BB and CC. If both pass, the one with more votes will go into effect and the other will not. 

Measure BB started from a tenant-sponsored measure. The tenants’ union and allies on the Rent Board wrote a measure and collected signatures, but they didn’t have enough confirmed signatures to qualify. So they went to the City Council, which modified the measure a bit and, with only 5 members voting in favor, placed it on the ballot. 

BB would make several changes to the rent control system. Some are OK-to-good (e.g., clarifying the right of tenants to organize). Some are meaningless (e.g., lowering the max rent increase from 7% to 5% will have no impact, since the Rent Board hasn’t adopted a 5%+ increase in over 30 years). Some seem actively bad (e.g., imposing more stringent rules on units where the owner shares kitchen or bath facilities with the tenants). And then there’s the many-many changes to exact rules about evictions, which seem complicated enough that they’ll help some situations but hurt others.

The overwhelming message I get from the pro-housing folks I listen to the most (both tenant-focused and landlord-focused folks) is that Measure BB has SO many changes that it will further exacerbate the trend towards large corporate landlords, exactly what Berkeley doesn’t need. Berkeley’s rules are already very complicated and hard to follow for people thinking about renting out their own home or one/some of the units on a few-unit property they own. Making lots of changes will make it harder to stay current for the mom-and-pop landlords and push them to sell (increasingly, to large corporations) or to withhold their units from the market. That in turn will exacerbate Berkeley’s huge supply problem. 

Measure CC is worse. Sponsored by the Berkeley Property Owners Association (disguised as the “Berkeley Rental Housing Coalition”), this landlord-sponsored measure includes several provisions that would weaken good aspects of Berkeley’s current rent control system. It would expand exemptions from rent control, allow landlords to exceed the rent control limit if they secure tenants’ okay (raising potential for landlords to pressure tenants), and limit tenants’ ability to get legal assistance when they need it, among other problems. And while the measure allows a right to organize, it imposes an unrealistically high bar: 75% of tenants must agree before a landlord would have to negotiate with a tenant association. Measure CC does include a very good provision -- requiring the city to dedicate revenue from the city's rental business tax for a dedicated rent relief fund -- but that’s not enough to make up for its flaws. 

Who supports each?

BB has endorsements from 5 councilmembers (Arreguin, Bartlett, Hahn, Lunaparra, Tregub), the tenants union, and many pro-tenant organizations and elected officials. Measure CC has support of 3 councilmembers (Kesarwani, Humbert, Wengraf) and the Berkeley Property Owners Association. 

A lot of people I trust are voting no on both, including Nathan Landau and the Berkeley Democratic Club. 

If you want to learn more: 

• See the city’s document compiling the Ballot language, City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis, Arguments, and Full Text of all 12 measures on the ballot (Measure BB on pages 75-127, Measure CC on pages 128-166)
• Yes BB/No CC campaign website
• Yes CC/No CC campaign website
• See a Mercury News article, 9/11/24