Columns

Twelve cities in California have rent control laws, including Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco. Berkeley's "Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance" was passed in 1980; Oakland's "Residential Rent Adjustment Program" was passed in 2007; and San Francisco's "Rent Ordinance" was passed in 2007. Enough time has passed to justify an independent empirical study of the effects of rent control, if any, on the quantity and quality of housing stock in these three cities. Why not start with Berkeley, Oakland, or San Francisco? 

About 53 percent of housing units in Berkeley are occupied by tenants/renters. Berkeley has the strictest rent control in the nation. It has rent ceilings, requires just cause for eviction, and forces landlords to pay interest payments on security deposits.  

About 55 percent of housing units in Oakland are occupied by tenants/renters. Under Oakland's Residential Rent Adjustment Program, tenants may only be given one rent increase in any 12-month period, and the rent increase cannot take effect earlier than the tenant's anniversary date. Tenants may file a petition to challenge a rent increase that they believe to be in violation of the "Residential Rent Adjustment Ordinance." Tenants can only be evicted for just cause.  

About 62 percent of housing units in San Francisco are occupied by tenants/renters. All San Francisco properties with a first Certificate of Occupancy that was issued prior to June 13th, 1979 are subject to rent control. If a rental unit was in regular use prior to June 13th, 1979, but does not have a Certificate of Occupancy -- an illegal unit -- the San Francisco Rent Board will still find the unit subject to rent control. This means rents can only be raised by certain amounts per year, which is tied to inflation. Tenants can only be evicted for one of fourteen "just causes."  

The percentage of renters in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco is much higher than the national average where about one-third of United States households live in rental housing 

Many economists argue that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of affordable housing. San Francisco rent control advocates argue that these studies are inapplicable because San Francisco is unique: the City has limited space to expand -- 49 square miles; the City is densely populated; and San Francisco zoning and anti-growth ordinances restrictions inhibit the addition of new housing. This means that without rent control, San Francisco will add too few units to make a significant dent in the City's housing shortage. To prevent an exodus of the middle class workforce due to lack of affordable housing would have dire consequences on the City’s economy. The ability of this work force to be able to live a middle class life style and afford shelter is essential. Thus, the argument goes, for San Francisco as a whole to prosper, some form of rent control is essential. A study would examine the validity of this argument. 

Clearly, rent control can combat out-of-control housing prices. It allows tenants to devote a smaller percentage of their income to rent allowing them to spend their money elsewhere. This is extremely beneficial for low income or fixed income renters, especially during a recession. But how has rent control effected the general population of renters and potential renters? 

Rents serve to compensate housing providers of existing housing units and developers of new units for the cost of providing shelter and provide economic incentives needed to attract new investment in rental housing, as well as maintaining existing housing stock. Has rent control inhibited new construction in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco, or led to the deterioration of existing housing by abandonment of unprofitable property or by condominium conversions or Ellis Act evictions? 

One study, using 1980 and 1990 Census data, showed Berkeley's rent control program resulted in a 10 percent reduction in rental housing stock over the decade.  

A more up-to-date study is needed. 

"The San Francisco Housing DataBook" was released in 2002. When San Francisco Supervisor Amos Brown called for a report on how rent control had devastated the housing market, the Board of Supervisors voted the proposal down. Instead, the "DataBook" became an affordable housing study, not a study on the effects of rent control on housing stock. Obviously, the Board of Supervisors did not want to touch a hot button issue like rent control. 

A study of the effects of rent control in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco on the quantity and quality of housing stock in these three cities would be useful to inform politicians and the general public about rent control issues. Of course, any attack on rent control would be vigorously opposed by the tenant union in each city.