After seven years of discussions — and to cheers in the council chamber — the Concord City Council passed a rent stabilization ordinance Tuesday night, joining other Contra Costa County cities like Richmond and Antioch in controlling how much landlords can raise rents annually.
The council voted 4-1 in favor of the ordinance, with Laura Hoffmeister dissenting.
“We are here because we are now looking to try to address a crisis,” said Mayor Edi Birsan, just before the vote took place after 11:30 p.m. “And, as was said before, crisis shouldn’t last forever … one of the reasons we are here is we are supposed to react to the crisis and what comes up. That’s the role of government.”
The ordinance will come back to the council for a formal second reading before it becomes official.
Single-family homes would not be subject to the proposed ordinance. Neither would rented condominium units or rented accessory dwelling units. Duplexes in which the owner lives in one of the units would also not be subject to either rent stabilization or just cause for eviction regulations.
The ordinance will limit annual rent increases to 3 percent, or 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is lower, and will apply to multi-family rental complexes of two or more units built before Feb. 1, 1995.
The city will also require landlords to have just cause before evicting tenants, something councilmembers Carlyn Obringer and Hoffmeister said many in the community didn’t understand would also apply to single-family homes as well.
Obringer suggested the council consider putting just cause evictions in single-family homes on the ballot, something the majority of the council dismissed.
Hoffmeister said she couldn’t support the ordinance because it could punish landlords doing the right thing for a few who weren’t. She also said she didn’t see rent control solving high housing prices in other cities.
She also said rent raises of 3 percent or 60 percent of CPI was too low.
“Our problem is housing supply,” Hoffmeister said. “It costs a lot to own and operate and build an apartment complex. And that’s the problem. And our affordable housing people will tell us that they’re struggling trying to get money from the state, to make ends meet to do more affordable housing in our community.”
The ordinance’s just cause section will address owners needing to evict so they can move into their units. The council decided, in the case of single-family home evictions in which the owner would move in, the owner would compensate the tenant by paying them first and last month’s rent, plus $2,000 in moving expenses.
Affordable housing complexes will be subject to all rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions. However, if the complexes have a regulatory agreement or deed restriction with the city, county or other governmental agency that caps rent increases to 5 percent or less, those agreements will be honored.
If the tenants go over their income ceiling to qualify for low-income housing, the city will go along with state regulations to cap rent to the lesser of 5 percent increase, plus the annual CPI, or a 10 percent increase. Those tenants wouldn’t be required to pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income for rent.
The ordinance will go into place in April, with rent rollbacks setting rents to their amount in April 2023, plus the increases allowed by the ordinance applying to the previous year.
The ordinance would also establish a process utilizing a hearing officer whereby tenants could appeal their rent increases if they believed them to be inconsistent with the ordinance. Property owners could also request higher rent increases above what the ordinance would otherwise allow to obtain a fair return on their investment property.
According to a staff report for Tuesday’s meeting, Concord has approximately 18,100 residential rental units, 9,200 of which are fully covered units that would be subject to both the rent stabilization and the just cause for eviction provisions, and 8,900 of which are partially covered units that would be subject to just cause for eviction provisions only.
All 18,100 rental units would need to be registered in Concord’s residential rent registry program.
Everyone who owns property subject to either rent stabilization or just cause protections would be required to register their units with the city annually and pay a yet-to-be-determined annual registration and administration fee.
74 comments
A vote for housing to deteriorate to slum conditions. Good job council.
Nah this keeps slum lords from jacking up rent prices beyond what is reasonable.
Yeah, reasonable to which party? Certainly not reasonable to those who OWN the property. Yay for freedom… NOT.
Chuq is a typical progressive that believes every property owner looks like the guy on the Monopoly box.
Guess you’ll have to sell if it’s not profitable to fleece people by increasing the percentage every year.
Chuq – another example of a taker rather a contributor to society.
And what do you suppose people who buy up properties and rent them for exorbitant fees contribute to society exactly? How are they making this area a better place to live?
Chuq
I personally provide multiple single family homes at a reasonable rate (rent has not increased in 3 years) to families who are unable to purchase a home of their own.
Yes I make money. I make ~1000 a month per rental. Why, cause I saved my pennies and invested wisely.
That is how I contribute. How do you ….
All I can say to chuq is, you’re gonna find out. Look at anywhere that has rent control. Unaffordable ghettos. Have fun.
Property owners are getting fleeced by ever increasing PG&E and other utility rates and costs of ownership. Not to mention ever increasing property taxes imposed by cretins at the local and state levels. I guess in your opinion property ownership should be a net negative financially.
Parent, you described how you contribute to your own bank account. That’s not a problem, it’s just not a contribution to society.
That being said, if you haven’t raised your rates in three years then it doesn’t sound like you have much to fear from rent control.
Yeah you got me Chuq I want the money!
Because I worked hard and was able to put 50% down on the purchase of a rental, and my mortgage could be paid by someone on minimum wage, I should charge less for the 1400 sf house in a nice neighborhood. So I work hard … and someone else benefits, not how life should work.
Antioch and Richmond? I guess the city council does not get out much. If you have driven through either one of those cities lately those are the last places that you would want to be like. Comeplet sh**holes. What a bunch of idiots we have in office in this city.
Antioch is devolving into Concord 2.0, thanks libs!
Great victory for affordable housing!
Super democrat paul, we get it but shouldn’t you be down in san diego washing illegals feet? I mean, come on.
“The council decided, in the case of single-family home evictions in which the owner would move in, the owner would compensate the tenant by paying them first and last month’s rent, plus $2,000 in moving expenses.“
.
This is illegal. This constitutes a seizure of your private property and is a violation of the 4th amendment at minimum.
.
The communists running this city are far worse than even I gave them credit.
.
Probably time to show these public servants who they work for.
If you choose to not renew a tenants lease when it expires, does Concord consider that an eviction?
The council stripped landlords right to choose not to renew a lease and rent to someone else. If the owner wants to sell or move back in, there are heavy restrictions on being able to do so, and if they meet the restrictions, they would have to pay many thousands to the tenant to move.
MAGA SAM,
.
Concord Mayor Edi Birsan “representing” Concord City Council District 4 is again running for reelection to a 4th term this year and Concord Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer “representing” Concord City Council District 2 is again running for reelection to a 3rd term this year. It’s time to recruit capable individuals who live in Concord City Council Districts 2 and 4 to run against and defeat Mayor Edi Birsan and Vice Mayor Carlyn Obringer.
.
Concord residents can also collect the necessary signatures from Concord voters which are required to put a city-wide initiative measure on the ballot to repeal the “Rent Stabilization Ordinance” adopted by the Concord City Council.
The market should determine the rate. If no one wants to pay the landlords price, he will have to adjust it.
not sure this holds up, clearly targeted at large apartment complexes in Concord, which are already crapholes for the most part, this will further cause investors to neglect those properties. The rents may not go up, but the physical maintenance and improvements will be be deferred and result in even more slumlord conditions.
Great win for the tenants! (but at least the council can feel like they did something, even though it’s the wrong thing)
Bingo
This is flat out stupid. We have a city council that has been destroying this city for years. Just look at our roads. They can’t figure out it takes money to maintain them and fix them. So let’s saddle the landlord who is renting out a house that they have paid for. Now those people will be having to cover the cost for house repairs that the rent should be paying for. But then again these idiots in office don’t understand that, just look at how our city has been run and destroyed by them. Remember to vote out every single one of them if you ever want to see this decline of any remaining quality in this city remain they need to be gone. It has gone bad under there years of false leadership. . For these landlords that have worked hard to get what they have, and to maintain a quality rental property will be forced to cut back on how it is done. Welcome to the slums. Something these owners didn’t want.
Concord has been gutterville since I was a kid in the 70s; probably longer.
Why don’t you just move somewhere decent? (I can attest a good decision.)
Please remember Hoffmeister looked at both sides of the issue and voted no. She noted the effect rent control had on Antioch, Richmond and Oakland and saw the detrimental results. The other three never gave a chance for the state rent increase caps to have an effect and saw all landlords as greedy corporations, which they are not. I guess their dream of Concord becoming the next Richmond will come true.
Future landlords had better think twice about renting out a property in Concord
The Concord City Council members completely dismissed all the legitimate concerns the landlords who spoke before them brought up at the recent City Council meeting. I plan to vote every one of them out!
This is what happens when most of the people who vote make their decisions by who has the most and/or prettiest signs up around town.
These regulations were written by lawyers and for lawyers. If you have a tenant in a home you own in Concord and you need to move back in or sell it, or need to take any action adverse to the tenants interests, find a competent lawyer before you communicate with the tenant or file any notices.
BTW the rent registry you need to use will likely be available to the public (including lawyers) who will now have your address and the address of your rental.
6:47PM Wed Feb 14
@ stream.ci.concord.ca.us
19.40.120
Remedies.
(a) Remedies and penalties.
(1)
If a Landlord violates the terms of this Chapter, an aggrieved Tenant may institute
a civil action for injunctive relief, actual, statutory, or direct money damages, and any other relief that the court deems appropriate, which shall include a civil penalty of no less than $2,000, and no more than $5,000, per violation, at the discretion of the court. If the aggrieved Tenant is a Senior Tenant or a Disabled Tenant, the court may award an additional civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, at the discretion of the court.
(2)
Any person who violates, aids, abets, or incites another person to violate this
Chapter is liable in a court action for each and every such offense for money damages of not less than three times actual damages suffered by an aggrieved Tenant (including damages for mental or emotional distress), or for minimum damages in the sum of $1,000, whichever is greater, and whatever other relief the court deems appropriate. In the case of an award of damages for mental or emotional distress, said award shall only be tripled if the trier of fact finds that the defendant Landlord acted in knowing violation of or in reckless disregard of this Chapter.
(3)
If within two (2) years after withdrawing a Covered Rental Unit from the rental
market pursuant to Section 19.40 070(d)(2) a Landlord offers for Rent such Covered Rental Unit, in addition to any right of return that the Tenant may have pursuant to this Chapter, the Landlord shall be liable to the Tenant who was displaced from the Covered Rental Unit actual and exemplary damages provided the Tenant brings an action against the Landlord within three (3) years of the withdrawal of the Covered Rental Unit from the rental market.
The court may award punitive damages in a proper case as set out in Civil Code Section 3294 and pursuant to the standards set forth in that code section or any successor thereto, but may not award both punitive damages and triple damages.
(c) The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Tenant who prevails in any such action. The court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a Landlord who prevails in any such action if the court determines that the Tenant’s action was frivolous.
(d) The remedies available under this Section 19.40.120 shall be in addition to any other existing remedies which may be available to the residential tenant under applicable federal, State, county, or local law.
(e) Except in connection with a Fair Return Petition or a Tenant Petition, no administrative remedy need be exhausted prior to filing suit pursuant to this Chapter.
Authorization of City Attorney to enforce the Ordinance. The City Attorney shall have the right and authority, but not the obligation, to enforce this Chapter, including bringing actipage 37 of 262
24
for injunctive relief, equitable relief, restitution, and/or penalties to ensure compliance with this Chapter.
(g) |
To the extent permitted by law, any violation of this Chapter shall be a defense to an unlawful detainer action.
19.40.130 Waiver Prohibited.
Any waiver of rights under this Chapter shall be void as contrary to public policy.
19.40.140
Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Chapter is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.
It’s criminal. We need to disband the “super majority” in California. The state will just encourage this criminality.
What if you get an LLC for your rental property?
Anon an LLC will not provide any protections against these new regulations
Concord, hard at work racing to the bottom. We can only hope this latest council action gets legally challenged. Retroactive rent reductions? Requiring family move-ins to be 25% owners? Blatant effin BS, and landlords need to collaborate and strike back. Or City if Concord needs to purchase apartment complexes and attempt to operate them under these requirements. Thankfully, we still have Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, but this will turn Concord into a cess-pool.
If my rentals were in Concord, it would be time to sell them. I would refuse to pay a fee, yet to be determined, and be held accountable to these horrendous rules.
Which means more houses would hit the market and make them affordable to people who want to actually live in them. Sounds great.
You are dreaming!
Then what is going to happen to these homes that landlords can’t profit from charging exorbitant rents on? The landlords will keep them unoccupied for sentimental reasons?
They will simply sell them or rent them at prices you still couldn’t afford to cover the extra costs. You don’t really think people are gonna take a loss do you? You have zero clue about anything.
LOLOLOL
GOOD LUCK CHUCK
Way to keep things affordable… “required to register their units with the city annually and pay a yet-to-be-determined annual registration and administration fee.” and another cost to the tax payers with “establish a process utilizing a hearing officer whereby tenants could appeal their rent increases if they believed them to be inconsistent with the ordinance.” Also, “we are supposed to react to the crisis and what comes up. That’s the role of government.” I have a crisis, my PGE, water and insurance bills are increasing much faster than my pay rate. Where is an ordinance for me to prevent those increases?
Did all politicians (starting with Grandpa Joe and working down) skip Econ 101? Let the market work it out.
I believe like most politicians, they have not in their lives even run a lemonade stand. Maybe the only thing for the landlords to do is file a lawsuit against the city.
Did you miss the lecture on price ceiling (ie rent control) and price floor (ie minimum wage) in Econ 101?
We get it Paul .. you can’t afford to buy a house and the house you want, you can not afford to rent. Tell you what, go get a better paying job, get better at saving money, or lower your expectations. That IS simple economics.
Don’t be surprised when owners are presumed and treated as guilty then fined until they can prove their innocence
Council woman Nakamura made a very misleading comment regarding who owns single family homes in Concord. She also shrugged her shoulders when others on the council suggested that homeowners be made more aware of the ordinance.
No misleading statement was made by anyone at the meeting on who owns single family homes. Hoffmeister and Obringer asserted that “many” Concord residents who already rent out single family homes they own that are located in Concord should be able to vote on just cause eviction restrictions on the homes they currently rent out. Nakamura pointed out that, at a minimum, 76% of single family homes located in Concord that are currently rented out are owned by people who do not live in Concord. Meaning, the majority of people who own homes for rent in Concord are not eligible to vote in Concord elections so placing the issue on the ballot would not really address what Obringer said she wanted to address. Hoffmeister expressed doubt on Nakamura’s info and asked where the info on landlords’ locations came from. Nakamura directed Hoffmeister to the info as received from Concord city staff that had been before the Council on multiple occasions over the seven years of discussions. Obringer then changed her story to say she didn’t mean Concord residents who already rent out single family homes in Concord but meant Concord residents who were thinking they might someday want to rent out the single family home they currently live in that is located in Concord. Both Hoffmeister and Obringer had failed to incorporate info from staff into their own original arguments and got caught. No matter your opinion on rent control or stabilization or whatever political title you want to place on it, all these decisions should be based on verifiable information. If you have info that what was provided by staff to council is incorrect, then you would better help your cause by sending your own info to staff and council so it can be corrected.
Interesting. The figure you mentioned of 76% is incorrect. As cited in the report they provided. Did you read the report before repeating the misinformation? It clearly states that 33.4 of single family rentals are owned by Concord residents.
Sounds like you and Nakamura are just repeating what you read from the large sign of the person sitting in front during the meeting rather than verifying the information.
In the meeting they stated they did not know how many homes that were single-family were rented because it does not require a business license. They did have numbers of 76% but they were fake numbers that could not have been proven because there’s no record of who currently rents single-family homes in the city of Concord, because single-family homes are do not require a business license
I was at that meeting, and I was told by council-member Nakamura and a private conversation between her and I that if I could not make money on my single-family home, she would be happy to introduce me to somebody who would be willing to purchase the home to make money on it. Which clearly means that the city is doing with the idea of bankrupting small businesses, as well as single-family homeowners to benefit their friends in the big corporations. by the way, this is considered to be a conflict of interest.
And while we’re on the topic of people doing things that are dishonest and criminal. The city of Concord has posted on their website that rent stabilization ordinance does not affect single-family homes that is a dishonest statement. The ordinance does not affect single-family homes, but the most damaging part of the ordinance, which is the fact that I have to pay for my tenants first and last months rent as well as an additional $2000 for moving expense to reclaim my property after the lease is up is affected by the rent stabilization. It was completely dishonest of the city council to say that single-family homeowners had known about this for seven years.
I have now and will continue to attend city council meetings and call the city out on their damaging or ordinance and policies.
I will also be asking the for all the information I need to petition to recall all four of the city council members that voted for this tyrannical policy.
I also noticed the attempt to mislead the public in their press releases. What a joke. The city claimed that misinformation was being spread in the community, so rather than be completely transparent to avoid further misinformation, they write a press release intended to mislead the community.
Grow Up, I agree with your analysis and applaud your activism, but I would caution not to put all 4 council members who voted for this in the same bucket. The two prime movers of this rent control measure are our two proud progressives: Laura Nakamura and Edi Birsan. The third and deciding vote was from Dominic Aliano, who happens to have the district with the most rentals (by far). Both Dominic and Carlyn Obringer are being or will be challenged by candidates much further to the left. Their vote was more a matter of political survival, in my opinion.
These punitive and harmful rent control measures would never have been drafted in the first place if Tim McGallian was still on the council. Elections have consequences. Laura Nakamura ran a very savvy campaign and was able to use Tim’s vote for Seeno to her great advantage. Carlyn and Dominic’s opponents will have the same strong progressive organizational support.
Yeah but doesn’t 100% pay property tax? Maybe they should care whose signing the paycheck?
With the passing of the ordinance, many homeowners are reluctant to rent out theirs properties. If there isn’t an ordinance which fine or tax homeowners for unoccupied properties, the city of concord should draft it soon!
Paul, why don’t you just come out and say it? “I’m a socialist/communist. I believe private ownership of ANYTHING is an affront to the collective good!”
Paul – Such an ordinance, in conjunction with rent control, would induce rental property owners to sell en masse (at fire sale prices), thus reducing the city’s and MDUSD’s property tax base and draining private capital investment in the city. Such capital flight caused evey remaining resident’s living standards decline as increasingly impoverished families replace those who flee, which ultimately enriches more affluent neighboring cities with more productive residents, higher tax bases and an infusion of private capital.
Where do you get off believing that the city should tell anybody what to do with their own private property it doesn’t belong to the city it belongs to private citizens.
Should the city tell you the value of your automobile and what you were able to sell it for? Should the city tell you what color shirt to wear? should the city tell you how to cut your hair?
Have you ever heard of the city code enforcement?
To all you renters out there be prepared for the consequences of your city councils vote for rent control.Don’t cry in the future when your new leases skyrocket if you can find a place to rent.You have been taken by your city officials.
Leases have been skyrocketing already. If landlords would prefer to price homes above what people can pay then… how much money are they going to make from rent?
Leases Sky rocketing because of higher insurance rate’s and repair cost inflation in general.Why should landlords absorb these cost so you can live cheap pay you way or live in a tent.
This is a slow motion communist takeover. I tired of people pretending it’s not. This is exactly what a communist transition would look like. It’s time to stop the lying to yourselves.
Keep this ghetto crap out of here. Just people wanting everything handed to him while they sit on their a** at home all day while others are out working so hard for their hard earned money. Total crap.
I would think that those who can do Math, for the city.. Will also make sure that ALL taxes, fees, salary increases… Will not exceed a 3% amount… And somehow make sure Insurance increases stay under 3%…. Delusional… as usual…
And of course they throw in a registry and a fee.. Edi had been trying to get on the council for years and since he’s been there he’s turned Concord into a 3rd world city. You’re told don’t move near downtown Concord, don’t go near Detroit Ave at night, stay away from Park and Shop… so how is this progress? How is rent control.. which is the real term going to fix any of that? I’ll say the quiet part out loud. Many of the apartment complexes have 2 and 3 families per unit. The units are disgusting.. now without a profit the places will get worse. Have you seen the rent control areas in Oakland/Bekeley? Add Concord to the list of downtown slums
Time for a law suit. I’m dead serious in that we need to come together collectively and find a pit bull of a lawyer who specializes in constitutional/property rights to form a class action. 18,000 land lord would be a force to be reckoned with….
California Apartment Association tried that last year in Los Angeles area and were unsuccessful
Unfortunately, such a matter would need to find it’s way to a judge that upholds the Constitution – a rare find in CA.
kick the issue all the way up to the US Supreme Court if you think there is no judge that upholds the constitution in CA.
I wish people that wanted to live in rent control would just go live where there was already rent control such as Richmond, Oakland, San Francisco, Antioch.
I mean Richmond is nice it has an iron triangle.
Oakland‘s nice too you can’t walk down the sidewalk without stepping on a homeless.
San Francisco is beautiful they have a poop map.
Antioch. Nice they don’t have an iron triangle, but that’s only because they haven’t named a section of the town the iron triangle yet.
Maybe all the properties with rent control in the said cities already occupied; I think Pittsburgh will be the next city to pass rent control.
OMG! Post and share on all media sites! That was not just conflict of interest but down right shady!
This is what you get for voting in a Socialist council. They have no idea what this city needs. They’ll continue to force their agenda upon everyone. Keep voting them in!! Can’t wait to see this city burn itself into the ground!!✌🏼
This ordinance is absolutely ridiculous. I am not a landlord, nor would I be one. Deadbeat tenants win!! But, why is the city council stopping with rental measures? Why do they not go after the grocery industry, gas instusty, and other industries of comsumable goods?. These industries are also raises prices.
It should apply to all rental properties not just multi-unit properties.
Comments are closed.