The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - August 19, 1987 (99)1(0 rTTv �o|��i �EFTTVrl P�TDTQ � ,�ECEi�[C ' R�QCE�7��C K[�T CONT PO! Coun�i� on on nf Councii Member Hirchman, second, ref *rred to staff, a petition received rt,�uestinc rent ! CC -]6 control be established in the City of Lod". F�rzhr, [{-2S �oo..cil directed the City Clerk to fe-ward a |erter to the � ci,cu7ator of the petition advising of thp action of 'he ____ Council in this matter. COUNCIL MITNITTNICA'I'lC Tn: THE CITY COUNCf► I NQ. FROM. THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SLzJEC': PETITION RECEIVED REQUESTING RENT CONTROL BE ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY OF LODI Attached is a petition signed by nineteen people requesting that an "organized rent control" be established in the Lodi area. The author of the petition cites reasons the request is being made and the fact that other cities have established rent control programs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: That Council. by motion action, refer the matter to Staff for review and placement on a future agenda. Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AMR:JJ COUN^OM5 TXTA.OZD Z -c IA- AaAlt J-dt a- l 6f1 a 04),an ��.J Ca& 3 o o 6 Com- 'f,5- 2. Z -c IA- AaAlt J-dt a- l 6f1 a 04),an ��.J :.t ...4�i..C- Q.4_Q_ ./-f•L.Q/[ rc-2.. 7� Y�Q�q/� 0. 2/ I { Wim.! .y 'r a S•a�c �� /� 3 -Ili- �. � 'Y'.� �„ n (tet C ZC 1 aLN� Pmt O �c c t u C4 Zp7ft u a. L D� 5 Yz�I/l i `` _.>.-71 .. .-. ...... J i l• .. .. � J :t.'�� '._ .... .!i ./air ✓� J 2 �17 CLQ Y[(�//i 0. ..G�CV�:�"�•C.' i+Q//, �c-L`�.�.ii� r. �.h�� :.t ...4�i..C- Q.4_Q_ ./-f•L.Q/[ rc-2.. 7� Y�Q�q/� 0. 2/ I { Wim.! .y 'r a S•a�c �� /� 3 -Ili- �. � 'Y'.� �„ n (tet C ZC 1 aLN� Pmt O �c c t u C4 Zp7ft u a. L D� 5 Yz�I/l i `` tOHN R (Rand. i \�>%IDE R Mavor Pro iernpore DAVID !.4 Hlt�;-t;h;AN IA.MES VN PINKERTON. jr FRED:' REID CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE _STREET CALL BOX ?(306 - LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)334-5634 TELECOPIER (209131.3-6795 A, 25, 1987 A> A PE T FR ON ('if.M,-n.iger ALICE P0, RE I:NaCHE Citv Clerk RONALD M. STEIN City Attorney Ms. Carol Kreis 935 South Central Avenue Lodi, CA 95248 Dear Ms. Kreis: Please be advised that your petition dated August 9, 1987 requesting rent control be established in the City of Lodi was presented to the Lodi City Council at its regular meeting of August 19, 1987. Following discussion, that matter was referred to staff for review. Council appreciates receiving your petition outlining your concerns and you will be advised when this item will appear on the agenda. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call this office. Very truly yours, Alice M. Reimche City Clerk AM2:JJ cz zz C.-& 73o7 Soo (. Z,L, cf5.ZYi - I 91 -fl7tL-C-W L7 JA -- CL- Lju— -.0, Lf ;L6� )787 C! -V C! -F- I '-?T V nF cru o_a_e_ Cl- li -� _��olw a -,,J 70"k 7-- -. Cf L7 :3Z l S • ttit •�, \JIT 7— 7-217 , 349 at ti�a-�ii� -787. AUCE 11 'REIGH YT `t CLERK wjY OF L011" Yol Z -I- -Z -Z i lS 3 -j-,-aw CL JL-CLAIO-Q— LM.- f�ll- 111,C-4 -dLl llll�� I-. A�11� -J.'e- ;11� 14 d 1. X ti .'.L :1 '.'�-� V`L''�` a: 1 ��,i-..t„� �' � !G,C'Z''"`a`•— 9'�`WJ� 35"7.2 fi 37 i �_. 74 Ike 41 77 40 14 D 79 7 q y Owe y so So 52 3� n 90 S7 {psa t �TA T"o S9 96 r 40 63 r o o (S _ z /1' 101 _ r '? - &K�g 0 3 4 �� Z57 1q.3 1 4 4 zlv - LO 150 Lt cx 4� f2, Ct a /6 /5 7 647 'X /60 A wa- JLZAL� ,2c 7 16i6 7 6,1 130 1:3 1.70 Q� 33 13 q "J34/ 7 ,z 37 76 76 76 t4 0 OCT Q _ `oty MEMORANGuM, City of Led.. Community Developm.nt Department n^ affce U �' AUC[ M X17 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1987 SUBJECT: BACKGROUND REPORT - RESIDENTIAL RENT CONTROL At its meeting of Wednesday, August 19, 1987, the City Council was in receipt of a request to establish residential rent control in Lodi. The matter was referred to the Community Development Department for the purpose of receivinc background d,ta on the subject. Attached are ten copies of the Background Report on this subject. Although brief, we feel it covers the subject adequately. If further data is desired, please inform us. Attachment M GENERAL PURPOSE RCO's are an exercise of the city's police po—r to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. They eddress the %drdships caused by serious hous'ng shortages such as the decreased availabilit }f adequate but affordable housing, the excessive rents caused by exploitation and speculation in the housing market, and the displacement of persons who find they cannot keep pace with rapidly rising rents. These hardships especially aff--ct the poor, senior citizens (on fixed incomes), young families, minorities, and students. CONDITIONS INDICATING NEED There are several common conditions that precede the enactment of most RCO's and whose presence indicate a real need for such exists. These are: low vacancy rates (defined as under S%), rapidly increasing rents (greater than IO% per annum), overcrowding (more than 3 persons per room), displacement, and large numbers of non -transient homeless. It is also necessary to determine that any or all of these conditions can be expected to continue into the indeterminate future. SCOPE OF ORDINANCES r Dost rent control ordinances apply to all dwelling units designed for rental use or 2 actually rented as of a certain date (typically Lhe date of the RCO's enactment) -I- nnrnirVTn nio A Background ieport RESIDENTIAL RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES Residential rent control ordinances first gained wide -spread usage in the late I970's. Although the specific language more often refers to them as Rent Stabilization Ordinances (or something similar), this report will hereafter continue to refer to them as rent control ordinances or RCO'S. Currently, approximately 45 cormnunities in California have rent control ordinances. The total population of these communities is over 8 million, or about one-third of all Californians. These jurisdictions are: Alameda Culver City Palo Alto San Marcos Benicia Gardena Pismo Beach Santa Barbara Berkeley Hawthorne Rancho Mirage Santa Barbara County B---erly Hills Hayward Rialto Santa Clara Ca,earillo Hemet Rocklin Santa Clara County Campbell Lancaster Sacramento Santa Monica Capitola Los Angeles Sacramento County Santa Rosa Carpenteria Los Angeles County Salinas Sonoma County Carson Los Gatos San Buenaventura Thousand Oaks Chino Morgan Hill San Francisco Union City Clovis Oceanside San ,lose Vacaville Cotati Palm Springs San Juan Capistrano GENERAL PURPOSE RCO's are an exercise of the city's police po—r to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. They eddress the %drdships caused by serious hous'ng shortages such as the decreased availabilit }f adequate but affordable housing, the excessive rents caused by exploitation and speculation in the housing market, and the displacement of persons who find they cannot keep pace with rapidly rising rents. These hardships especially aff--ct the poor, senior citizens (on fixed incomes), young families, minorities, and students. CONDITIONS INDICATING NEED There are several common conditions that precede the enactment of most RCO's and whose presence indicate a real need for such exists. These are: low vacancy rates (defined as under S%), rapidly increasing rents (greater than IO% per annum), overcrowding (more than 3 persons per room), displacement, and large numbers of non -transient homeless. It is also necessary to determine that any or all of these conditions can be expected to continue into the indeterminate future. SCOPE OF ORDINANCES r Dost rent control ordinances apply to all dwelling units designed for rental use or 2 actually rented as of a certain date (typically Lhe date of the RCO's enactment) -I- nnrnirVTn nio w",h :e' uaii. exceptions. Ne,, -i cC.1,s11,rii%ti('. is exempi.i 'J vir ! y all existing t, "0 s Single-far1;31V residences ung _. � _ '• gra iar;oreres v:ith,;:ss �;icf Toni' t u s may also be exempt as are temporary housing accommodations (i.e. hotels, motels, bozrding houses) in which the rental period is less than fourteen to thirty days. Some RCG's have also expanded their scope to include mobile home parks. While this type of ordinance addresses the price of spaces in the mobile home park rather than the dwelling units, they are otherwise substantially similar. A rnajority of RO's now include an "eviction for good cause" element to further protect rental residents from arbitrary, discriminatory, or retaliatory eviction. ORDINANCE PROVISIONS The provisions of most RCO's call for the establishment of a cominittee or board to carry out and enforce the provisions of the code. Typically, they are called "Rent Review Committees" or "Rent Stabilization Boards," etc. These boards are charged with 4 basic duties: 1) set rent ceilings; 2) register all rental units; 3) make adjustments on rent ceiling;; and 4) enforce violations of the ordinance. Rent ceilings are usually set at some base level (i.e. runt at time of enactment of the RCO) with provisions to allow for a 5 to 10% increase once per annum provided a 60 day notice is given. The percentage increase may be fixed or tied to the local Consumer Price Index (CFI) or, some other index. Rents in excess of such provisions are unlawful except where successfully appealed before the board due to a particular hardship. Some provisicns provide that the fine for violation of the RCO be paid to the tenant c-. whom the rent was wrongfully imposed. CRITICAL ARGUMENTS 1. The specific language of most RCO's state that efficient landlords will receive no more than a fair return on their property. While this does reduce the widespread speculation in the rental property market, it may also tend to reduce reinvestment in the property in the form of capital improvements. This is especially critical since RCO's tend to only apply to older units where more upkeep is required to maintain a certain standard of living conditions than newer units. A California newspaper concurred, finding that the quality of rental housing declined 14 percent in rent -controlled cities in a recent study. 2. Those ordinances that allow up to a fixed percentage annual rent increase may promote rent increases in excess of actual inflation since landlords may tend to increaEe rents at the highest rate allowed regardless of actual costs. 3. The task and associated cost of administering and enforcing a rent control ordinance is substantial. First, an ordinance has to be written and a board or committee established. Second, each rental unit must be classified as either exempt or not and, if not, must be properly registered and tracked. The enforcement of such an ordinance to insure adequate compliance also creates the need for more manpower, especially legal counsel. -2- DDrn /TYTn n i R } 4. Rent control could bring on a diminution of property values resulting in a reduced property tax base. An independent study of 60 cities showed that property values declined 7-I2 percent in cities with rent control, significantly more than cities wihttut RCO`s. 5. Some measure of de-control must be adopted so that when rent instability is no longer a problem, the city can return control to the landlords without significantly affecting the market. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The benefits of rent control ordinances are clear provided a real need for one exists. However, it must be remembered that such ordinances do n3thing to address the larger problem of an inadequate supply of affordable and safe housing. Nor sh_tuld rent control ordinances be considered the only remedy available. One attractive alternative would be to expand the amount of federally subsidized housing to provide housing for the poor and, at the same time, reduce the number of ordinances should be considered only outright h3meless. Therefore, rent control one part of a larger effort to battle the housing problem. r 4 l: t i r 8- F r t�t 'E k fIG C_ 7 �