Advocates of rent control in the city of Pittsburg gathered at the foot of City Hall on Wednesday to submit signatures that could potentially put a tenant protection initiative on the November ballot.
Members of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action — a grassroots community group — said they had gathered 4,189 verified signatures.
The Pittsburg city clerk’s office confirmed that 4,008 signatures are required in accordance with election law based on the city’s voting population, but those submitted for the rent control legislation have not been counted yet. The elections division will have 30 days to verify the submitted signatures, according to the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s official site.
Petition proponent and ACCE Action member Nicole Arrington highlighted a need for tenant protections to curb homelessness and keep families from being displaced. She pointed out that a 2020 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found a $100 increase in median monthly rent is associated with a 9% increase in homelessness.
“Because unfortunately, Pittsburg has no protections for the tenants, and there’s a lot of atrocities going on out here,” Arrington said. “There’s a lot of corporate slumlords that have bought buildings, and it’s just terrible what they’re doing to the tenants.”
The movement for renters’ rights has swept the Bay Area, with Contra Costa cities like Antioch, Richmond and Concord implementing rent control ordinances. ACCE members in San Pablo recently submitted signatures to place a similar rent control initiative on the ballot this November.
According to real estate search engine Zillow, the median monthly rental rate is $2,750 in Pittsburg, where U.S. Census data reports the median household income to be $88,842.
To live comfortably, a recent Nasdaq report recommended a “40x rent rule,” meaning a household’s annual salary is 40 times higher than a month’s rent. In the case of Pittsburg, those with an annual household salary of $88,842 should seek rent that’s closer to $2,221 per month — if such a rental exists.
Arrington said her group aims to follow Antioch’s lead with an ordinance that would prevent rent increases higher than 3% each year.
She noted the protection extends to all residents of Pittsburg, whether they’re paying rent or mortgage. As a former homeowner who lost her house after being diagnosed with cancer and needing to go on disability, Arrington said everyone is just one sickness, one job loss or catastrophe away from being out on the street.
“If you don’t outright own that home, you don’t have the deed to that home. And if you don’t own that land that that home is on and have the deed to that land and you miss mortgage payments or can’t pay property taxes, the house is gone,” she said.
Nancy Ybarra, who helped spearhead the effort to gain the required signatures, said it was difficult to find a location that would permit her to gather signatures before she was asked to leave. When she’d exhausted possible locations, she resorted to knocking on doors. But within the community, she found strong support from many who shared stories of recent evictions.
“A lot of people are getting displaced, and a lot of people grew up out here and lived here for 20, 30 years, but they’re just getting priced out,” Ybarra said, adding that she’s proud of her team’s work on rent control for the city of Pittsburg.
As someone who has been experiencing homelessness over the last three years, ACCE member Sharrie Lane joined the effort to establish rent control to protect families like hers. Before moving into the Bay Area Rescue Mission shelter in Richmond, Lane once called Pittsburg home. She believes the benefits that renters gain from tenant protections help to create a thriving rental market that can in turn benefit landlords.
“Living on the streets is something that is affecting us day to day,” Lane said. “And by having this rent control petition on the November ballot, it can benefit families like mine, families that maybe have only one source of income.”
21 comments
Awful lot of Spanish in that pic…..
When you depend on living in someone else’s house, you’re a temporary guest.
When you depend on another persons paycheck for living in “your” house you are a leech
“Housing is a human right”. I don’t really disagree with that.
If you can’t afford housing here, maybe it would be a good idea to move somewhere that you can afford to pay for housing. Move somewhere with a lower COL than the Bay Area.
they can move mid states where taxes and homes are wayyyyyyyyy cheaper if they cant afford to live here and stop asking others that work to pay their way.
I am all for rent control but I suspect that institutional real estate investors are the real winners in the long run. Right now, the old properties (built in 1950 and prior ?) are subjected to rent control. The yearly maintenance costs for these properties are likely to exceed the yearly rent increase. If the landlords couldn’t pass on the maintenance costs, they would be better off selling. The real estate institutional investors could buy up the old houses, ask the city to rezone and building multi families houses; then sell the houses for a huge profit.
Rent control + restrictions on new construction = dilapidated housing for an exorbitant price. Tried and tested all over the country, and proven true each and every time. What’s so difficult to understand?
Landlords have no incentive to fix the property, because the costs can’t be recouped through rent increases. Tenants have no incentive to move out of the area that they can no longer afford, and then, when the house starts to literally fall down on their heads, we get the hand wringing and the wailing about how they can’t afford any other unit nearby. Duh.
Rents on the units that aren’t rent-controlled sky rocket, so younger working people with families can no longer afford to live near their work. They are forced to commute long hours, mostly by car, so you can add road congestion to the equation. New schools have to be built in the remote suburbs, where young families are concentrated, while the schools in rent-controlled areas sit empty or close.
Yeah – what’s not to like about rent control?
Did you see where the Dim’s are trying to get the California Supreme Court to kick the “Taxpayers Bill Of Rights” off the ballot because it will make harder for Government to raise taxes! this along with “Housing is a human right” are two of the most unfair things I have ever heard! CA Govt. does not want anyone here but leaches!
That’s oversimplified a bit. Rents are very high here. It is unlikely that an owner cannot recoup costs and also achieve a high return. Units that are not rent controlled will only “sky rocket” if they had something much more to offer, which also seems unlikely. Rent control is usually accompanied by tenant rights protections. Personally I’m astounded that so many people get upset about something that helps everyone. It’s like there’s a lot of dark money around funding messaging campaigns on behalf of the 0.5% of the population that are landlords. There’s enormous constraints on supply, this is a tiny drop in the bucket from the good of all.
As a homeowner where is my protection? If they want the renter increases to be less that 3% each year, when will that cost cap be available for me as a homeowner? I’m at the same risk per the article ” it can benefit families like mine, families that maybe have only one source of income.”. Landlords and homeowners have a lot more variables than a renter. If the refrigerator goes out…. cost to landlord/homeowner, trash pickup increase… cost to the landlord/homeowner. Join me in signing a petition to for a homeowner cost control measure to prevent homeowners from being foreclosed on due to raising costs. Renter and homeowner equality now!!!
The Declaration of Independence states that we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing about a right to housing. Feel free to volunteer to pay higher taxes you can do that now by sending in more money, if it’s important to you do it.
Low rent means it will always be a ghetto,ever go to a cheap motel and realize you made a huge mistake because all your neighbors are up to no good and your stuff/car isnt safe?cheap rent brings dirtbags/and multiple people in one dwelling/room…period.
There is no reason for poor people to be in Calif,it doesnt make sense,but the govt wants them here..why?60 percent of the countries homeless are here because Gavin wants them here,they get fed money then only spend 1/4 of it and pocket the rest
I would like to know who’s funding ACCE?
I see condo conversions in Pittsburg’s future.
There’s just going to be less rentals available because if people can’t make a profit renting them out they’ll sell.
And when housing is no longer scalped to renters and the leeches all have to sell what happens to pricing? Shock! People that previously rented can now afford to buy! The horror!
Don’t be too hard on them. They don’t seem to understand how a free market works. I think there should be an overwhelming supply housing because free market. But people can’t seem to understand that the free market is going to limit what’s available to keep the prices artificially high. Be at rentals or homes or anything else for that matter.
Let everyone vote (Legally)!
What are they going to do about controlling the cost hikes of PG&E & Water and Trash and property taxes? Everything is going up and that I am sure all of that contributes to the issue as well. Also it’s expensive to maintain a property and costs of labor and materials have gone up. Homeowners insurance is more expensive now (if you are lucky enough to keep your current policy.) Being a Landlord in CA seems like more headache than it is worth.
Sauce guy – When you depend on living in someone else’s house, you’re a temporary guest.
Comments are closed.