June 30, 2025
Sent via email to: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
Re: protecting San Pablo tenants
Dear San Pablo City Council: We write to express our gratitude for your consideration of the much-needed Just Cause, Anti-Harassment,
and
Rent
Stabilization
Ordinances.
Just
cause,
anti-harassment
protection,
and
rent
stabilization
are
all
effective
policies
that
prevent
homelessness
and
keep
low-income
residents
housed.
In
this
letter
we,
1. Provide information on the cornerstones of effective tenant protection and
anti-
displacement
policies
2. Address several inaccuracies concerning the proposed tenant protection in
the
May
29,
2025,
PowerPoint
presentation.
I. SAN PABLO MUST PASS MEANINGFUL TENANT PROTECTIONS.
To protect San Pablo’s tenants, San Pablo must pass a model just cause, rent stabilization, and anti-harassment
ordinance.
A. San Pablo should pass a just cause ordinance that closes the state law loopholes.
The Tenant Protection Act (“TPA”) is the floor for tenant protection – the absolute minimum allowed.
1 While
the
TPA
provides
some
protection
from
sudden
displacement,
it
is
not
designed
to
prevent
displacement
over
time.
To
truly
protect
residents
from
being
displaced
from
San
Pablo,
the
following
tenant
protections
are
imperative:
1. Tenant protections must apply to all tenants. The Tenant Protection Act does not apply to most single-family homes and condos, newly constructed
units,
and
some
affordable
housing
complexes.
2 The
TPA
also
does
not
apply
to
any
property
in
the
first
one
to
two
years
of
tenancy.
3 Landlords
can
evict
these
tenants
for
no
reason
without
a
relocation
payment.
Unfortunately,
the
lack
of
a
legal
requirement
to
state
a
reason
for
the
eviction
allows
many
landlords
to
engage
in
illegal
retaliation
and
discrimination.
There
is
no
legal
reason
these
exemptions
from
eviction
protections
are
required.
San
Pablo
can
address
this
3 Cal.
Civ.
Code
1946.2
subd.
(a).
2 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1946.2
subds.
(e)(7)-(9).
1 Cal. Civ. Code, § 1946.2 subd. (i)(3).
issue by passing a local ordinance that applies to all its residents on the first day of their tenancies.
2. Tenants must have the right to return after repairs and other no-fault evictions. The Tenant Protection Act allows landlords to evict tenants permanently when the landlord claims
they
are
"withdrawing"
from
the
rental
market,
renovating,
or
when
code
enforcement
deems
a
unit
uninhabitable.
4 This
loophole
rewards
landlords
who
allow
bad
conditions,
makes
tenants
afraid
to
request
repairs,
and
encourages
landlords
to
fraudulently
"withdraw"
from
the
rental
market.
Effective
local
just
cause
ordinances
allow
evictions
for
repairs
and
withdrawing
from
the
rental
market,
but
if
the
landlord
re-rents,
they
are
required
to
offer
the
unit
back
to
the
displaced
tenant.
The
right
to
return
is
a
common-sense
policy
that
ensures
landlords
do
not
benefit
from
substandard
housing
conditions
and
false
claims
of
"withdrawing
from
the
rental
market."
3. San Pablo must implement the Ellis Act’s protection, or no other protections will be
effective
.
The state's Ellis Act has two primary components. 5 The first component specifies that a city
cannot
prevent
a
landlord
from
going
out
of
business.
6 The
second
provision
of
the
Ellis
Act
allows
cities
to
implement
protections
to
ensure
this
right
is
not
abused.
7 In
a
nod
to
the
Ellis
Act,
the
Tenant
Protection
Act
allows
a
landlord
to
"withdraw
from
the
rental
market."
8 However,
the
Tenant
Protection
Act
does
not
define
what
it
means
to
"withdraw"
and
does
not
implement
any
of
the
Ellis
Act's
Protections.
9 A
simple
fix
to
this
problem
is
to
clarify
that
San
Pablo
is
implementing
all
of
the
Ellis
Act's
protections.
The
State
of
California
allows
cities
with
rent
control
to
pass
all
of
these
protections.
10 Even
without
rent
control,
a
locality
can
implement
the
most
important
protections.
11 4. Tenants need adequate relocation assistance to avoid displacement from San Pablo.
State law allows a landlord to evict a tenant even when the tenant has always paid their rent and abided
by
all
the
terms
of
their
lease.
12 In
these
situations,
the
law
requires
the
landlord
to
pay
the
tenant
one
month
of
their
current
rent.
13 As
such,
tenants
who
pay
the
lowest
rent
and
need
relocation
assistance
the
most
receive
the
smallest
relocation
payment.
We
suggest
that
San
Pablo
address
this
issue
by
requiring
a
sizeable
relocation
payment
that
prevents
tenants
from
becoming
homeless
due
to
no
fault
of
their
own.
13 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1946.2
(d).
12 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1946.2
subd.
(b).
11 Cal.
Gov.
Code,
§
7060.7
see
also
Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1954.53
subd.
(a)(1).
10 Cal.
Gov.
Code,
§§
7060.2,
7060.4.
9 Randy Shaw, Ellis Act Loophole Puts CA’s Eviction Protections at Risk, Beyond Chron, (Mar. 2, 2021) https://beyondchron.org/ellis-act-loophole-puts-cas-expanded-eviction-protections-at-risk/
.
8 Cal.
Gov.
Code,
§§
1946.2
subd.
(b)(2)(B).
7 Cal
Gov.
Code,
§§
7060.1-7060.7
6 Cal.
Gov.
Code,
§
7060.
5 Cal.
Gov.
Code,
§§
7060-7060.7.
4 Cal. Civ. Code, § 1946.2 subds. (b)(2)(B)-(D).
B. San Pablo should pass a rent stabilization ordinance that limits rent increases to 60 percent
of
the
Consumer
Price
Index,
not
to
exceed
a
three
percent
annual
rent
increase.
The Tenant Protection Act allows rent increases of up to ten percent per year. These rent increases
compound
year
after
year,
ensuring
that
housing
prices
can
skyrocket
over
a
relatively
short
period.
As
shown
below,
the
distinction
between
meaningful
rent
stabilization
and
anti-rent-gouging
laws,
such
as
the
TPA,
is
significant.
Instead of offering short-term protection, San Pablo must adopt a rent ordinance similar to those in
Antioch,
Oakland,
or
Richmond,
which
requires
landlords
and
tenants
to
share
the
burden
of
inflation.
Allowing
rent
increases
at
levels
of
60 percent
of
the
consumer
price
index
is
a
fair
and
just
compromise
between
landlords
and
tenants.
While a rent-stabilization ordinance is often accompanied by a dedicated staff, staff is not required.
Nothing
prohibits
the
city
of
San
Pablo
from
passing
a
law
that
restricts
rent
increases
without
hiring
additional
staff
or
establishing
a
new
city
agency
.
If
hiring
new
staff
is cost-prohibitive, the city can simply pass a rent stabilization ordinance at no cost and allow private
enforcement
by
tenants.
C. San Pablo must adopt an anti-harassment ordinance that effectively deters illegal bad-faith
conduct.
State law narrowly defines tenant harassment to include certain criminal and otherwise illegal acts
if
the
tenant
can
prove
that
the
landlord
committed
the
criminal
act
with
the
intent
to
encourage
the
tenant
to
move.
14 Proving
that
the
landlord,
for
instance,
committed
criminal
burglary
or
extortion
against
the
tenant
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
tenant
harassment.
15 The
tenant
must
prove
that
the
landlord
engaged
in
the
unlawful
conduct
for
"the
purpose
of
influencing
a
tenant
to
vacate
a
dwelling."
16 If
the
tenant
can
prove
this,
they
can
obtain
a
maximum
penalty
of
$2,000.
17 However,
the
tenant
will
need
to
pay
for
their
own
attorney
because
the
law
does
not
provide
for
attorney's
fees.
18 San Pablo can address this issue by passing an anti-harassment ordinance similar to those in Oakland,
Richmond,
Concord,
or
Antioch.
These
ordinances
do
not
classify
any
violation
by
a
landlord
as
"harassment."
However,
if
the
tenant
can
prove
the
landlord
committed
a
list
of
already
illegal
acts
in
"bad
faith,"
then
the
tenant
will
have
significant
remedies
against
the
landlord,
including
the
right
to
recover
attorney's
fees.
These ordinances, again, require no city funding and are an effective deterrent against landlords violating
the
law
in
bad
faith.
D. San Pablo must not waste money on symbolic codification and mediation.
Throughout the state, landlord trade associations have employed various tactics to undermine meaningful
tenant
protections.
The
two
most
common
suggestions
are
to
“codify”
state
law
or
create
a
mediation
program.
1. Symbolic codification of state law does nothing to protect tenants. The first tactic is to encourage cities to pass a local ordinance that "codifies" the state's tenant protections.
Codifying
the
state's
tenant
protections
at
the
local
level
does
nothing
to
protect
tenants.
It
offers
tenants
no
new
protections
and
instead,
encourages
cities
to
preserve
the
status
quo.
2. Mediation is a waste of city resources. The second tactic used by trade associations is to suggest that cities implement costly mediation programs.
Unlike
a
rent
stabilization
ordinance,
which
does
not
require
any
staff
or
any
city
funding,
a
mediation
program
requires
paid
mediators.
While
tenant
advocates
have
no
issue
with
tenants
compromising
with
landlords,
mediation
is
a
losing
proposition
for
tenants
who
lack
sufficient
rights
and
resources.
The
problem
is
compounded
when
landlords
appear
in
mediation
with
an
attorney
and
tenants
are
unrepresented.
18 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1940.2.
17 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1940.2
subd.
(b).
16 Cal.
Civ.
Code,
§
1940.2
subd.
(a).
15 Ibid
.
14 Cal. Civ. Code, § 1940.2.
Most importantly, tenants do not like mediation. As we have seen in Fremont and Alameda, 19 tenants
consistently
report
that
mediation
creates
a
humiliating
and
disempowering
dynamic.
In
these
mediations,
year
after
year,
tenants
must
grovel
in
front
of
their
corporate
landlords
to
avoid
displacement.
While
rent
stabilization
creates
efficiency
and
predictability
for
the
entire
community,
allowing
tenants
and
landlords
to
plan
accordingly,
mediation
introduces
an
element
of
unpredictability
and
isolation
each
and
every
year.
Notably,
no
tenant
groups
support
or
request
mediation
programs.
Mediation
is
only
ever
proposed
by
corporate
landlord
lobbyists
who
seek
to
undermine
real
tenant
protections.
II. THE MAY 29, 2025 SLIDESHOW CONTAINS INACCURACIES After reviewing the May 29, 2025 slideshow, we requested the RSG Report that the slideshow was
based
on.
Upon
close
examination,
we
believe
that
the
slideshow
deviates
from
the
RSG
report
in
some
areas,
while
failing
to
accurately
interpret
the
content
in
others.
A. The potential negative effects of rent stabilization are largely speculative.
The City Manager's May 29, 2025, PowerPoint lists several "potential negative impacts" of rent stabilization.
One
potential
negative
impact
suggested
is
that
rent
stabilization
may
lead
to
increased
crime.
The
commissioned
RSG
report
does
not
mention
criminal
activity
being
associated
with
rent
stabilization.
In
fact,
the
word
"crime"
does
not
appear
in
the
report
once.
The presentation claims that another potential negative effect is "Reduced Turnover & Unit Availability
-
Rents
not
based
on
tenant
income
and
reduces
incentives
to
move
and
free
up
the
unit."
We
must
ask,
"free
up
the
unit
for
who?"
We
do
not
believe
that
unit
turnover
is
inherently
positive,
as
it
often
results
from
forced
displacement.
The
presentation
neglected
to
mention
the
report’s
own
cited
studies
showing
that
rent
stabilization
effectively
reduces
tenant
displacement
and
housing
instability.
Similarly,
we
question
why
the
city
would
be
concerned
that
rents
are
not
based
on
tenant
income,
as
this
is
generally
true
regardless
of
whether
a
rent
stabilization
ordinance
is
in
place.
While
some
landlord
groups
believe
that
rent
stabilization
itself
should
be
means-tested,
no
city
in
California
has
adopted
this
type
of
policy.
The remaining negative impacts are equally problematic. For example, the slide notes that "Lower
profit
margins
may
discourage
new
rental
housing
projects,
negatively
impacting
RHNA."
As
stated
on
slide
23,
due
to
the
Costa-Hawkins
Rental
Act,
"rent
control
does
not
apply
to
units
built
after
1995."
Further,
the
RSG
report
states
on
page
24 that
“the
[rent
stabilization]
Ordinance
would
not
affect
the
development
of
new
housing
units
in
the
City
if
Costa-Hawkins
remains
in
place.”
As
Costa-Hawkins
was
not
repealed,
developers
are
unlikely
to
consider
the
effects
of
rent
stabilization
on
new
developments.
The remaining potential negative impacts are largely speculative, with research on both sides of the
issue.
19 The city of Alameda has abolished its failed program.
B. Rent stabilization can be implemented with little or no cost to the city.
While staff to implement and enforce a rent-stabilization ordinance is ideal, a city is not required to
have
staff
dedicated
to
implementing
a
rent-stabilization
ordinance.
A
city,
with
no
administrative
costs,
can
simply
pass
an
ordinance
that
prohibits
certain
rent
increases.
While dedicated staff is ideal, the RSG report notes that for San Pablo, "[t]he estimated fiscal impact
of
the
proposed
Ordinance
to
the
City
is
approximately
$1.21
Million
in
ongoing
annual
costs,
excluding
adjustments
for
inflation."
(RSG
Report
P.2.)
The
slideshow
states
something
different,
asserting
that
these
costs
could
be
"up
to
tens
of
millions
annually."
This
figure
is
placed
next
to
a
picture
of
a
decreasing
dollar
sign
inside
a
house.
C. San Pablo rents are not decreasing.
The RSG report notes that market rents in San Pablo have increased every year since 2020. (RSG Report
p.
17.)
This
data
was
not
included;
instead,
the
slideshow
includes
a
different
graph
that
claims
to
show
that
"in
the
last
year,
rents
have
decreased
by
$200
compared
to
the
previous
year."
The
data
source
is
listed
as
"Zillow,
May
11,
2025."
It
is
unclear
why
the
five-year
study
in
the
report
commissioned
by
the
city
was
excluded
in
favor
of
a
graph
from
Zillow
that
only
focused
on
the
first
five
months
of
2025
compared
to
2024.
This
data
is
far
less
reliable,
as
demonstrated
by
the
same
Zillow
graph,
a
month
later,
stating
that
San
Pablo's
rents
have
"increased
by
$150
compared
to
the
previous
year."
Graph in presentation Current graph
III. CONCLUSION
We thank the council for considering effective tenant protection policies. We are hopeful that San Pablo
will
adopt
just
cause,
rent
stabilization,
and
anti-harassment
ordinances
modeled
after
cities
with
effective
protections.
We
are
confident
that
the
city
will
not
be
fooled
by
corporate
landlord
lobbying
tactics
such
as
paying
fake
advocates
$250
in
cash
to
oppose
tenant
protections.
20 We
are
optimistic
that
the
city
will
reject
the
corporate
landlord
and
realtor
trade
associations’
talking
points
and
take
the
necessary
steps
to
protect
San
Pablo
Tenants.
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Rising Juntos California Center for Movement Legal Services 20 Jennifer Wadsworth, The ad offered a quick $250. The job? Shilling for a bunch of landlords , The San Francisco
Standard,
(Apr.
16,
2025)
https://sfstandard.com/2025/04/16/landlords-paid-activists-concord-rent-control/