Supes’ rent-control resolution roils San Francisco housing debate

What does it mean to be pro-housing in San Francisco? Who is truly on the side of renters?

These questions came up again and again as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors settled their latest knock-down, drag-out fight over a nonbinding resolution . This time, the dispute centered on rent control.

Supervisors voted 8-2 on Tuesday to pass a resolution in support of a November statewide ballot measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins, the 1995 California law that blocks cities from expanding rent control. It also prohibits certain forms of the policy altogether.

It’s the third time such a repeal measure will go before California voters in six years after the last two attempts failed. Tuesday’s vote also marked the third time in recent years that San Francisco supervisors have issued support for Costa-Hawkins' repeal.

The resolution’s eventual passage, however, only came after several weeks of rancorous board debate.

On one side, supervisors who support the November repeal measure — known as Proposition 33 — frame it as a straightforward method to overturn a law long viewed as one of the primary obstacles preventing cities from protecting tenants from California’s ever-deepening affordability crisis.

In contrast, opponents say the seemingly simple reform actually masks the true intention of many backers: to prevent new housing developments mandated by the state. They cite reports finding that a prominent Southern California Republican has been arguing that cities could use their new rent control powers to force rents down so low that developers would no longer be able to make a profit on residential construction.

Such concerns have now been raised by a number of prominent voices in California’s housing debate , including State Sen. Toni Atkins and East Bay Assemblymember Buffy Wicks . But when Supervisors Catherine Stefani and Matt Dorsey brought them up as well during a June 18 board meeting, their colleagues responded with bewilderment — and recriminations.

“I’m just so flabbergasted by this whole discussion,” said Supervisor Hillary Ronen at the time. Explaining that she grew up in a rent-controlled apartment herself, she said, “this is personal to me, and the fact that you are distorting the very plain language of the law is unbelievable.”

The deliberations only grew more heated from there.

“I refuse to sit here and be demonized,” said Stefani, claiming that despite her opposition to the resolution, she supports tenant protection, including the preservation of rent-controlled units. “I’m not going to sit here and have someone tell me that I don’t care about poor people!”

For supporters of Costa-Hawkins repeal, such protests ring hollow.

“The idea that this is some kind of Republican ploy — with all due respect — is really laughable,” said Supervisor Dean Preston, who introduced the board’s resolution in support of Prop. 33.

“You cannot simultaneously say you support rent control and then oppose the ballot measure” that overturns Costa-Hawkins, he added.

At the center of all the vitriol is an unusually succinct ballot measure that simply strikes out the provisions of Costa-Hawkins and replaces them with a single line of text.

In just 23 words, that line turns the tables on the state: Instead of restrictions on local governments, the new measure would restrain Sacramento lawmakers, preventing them from setting limits on local rent-control measures and leaving it up to cities and counties to determine their own policies.

In San Francisco, the effects could be far-reaching. Due to Costa-Hawkins, more than 100,000 units of housing in The City are currently exempt from rent control, according to an analysis of city data from Preston’s office. Those include all single-family homes and condominiums as well as all apartments built before 1979, the year that San Francisco’s own rent-control measure was enacted .

Tenant advocates in San Francisco said they hope expanding rent control will enable The City to wrestle market power away from landlords, stem the rising tide of evictions and halt the gentrification of San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods.

Typically, opponents of rent control have argued that while some renters might benefit in the short term from the policy, such measures also produce a number of unintended knock-on effects, including driving down housing construction by reducing the profitability of new developments. This claim is fiercely contested by supporters of rent control, and both sides of the debate say research into housing policy is on their side .

However, in explaining his opposition to San Francisco’s just-passed resolution, Dorsey made a very different case.

When the resolution came up once again during Tuesday’s board meeting, Dorsey said that he supports rent control, and voted for the failed 2018 and 2020 ballot initiative to repeal Costa-Hawkins, both of which won narrow majorities in San Francisco. Nevertheless, he argued, the language of Prop. 33 goes much further than those previous measures.

“That single sentence would wholly eviscerate state authority over residential rent control,” he warned, opening the door to “bad actors” in local government to use rent control as a tool to thwart the growing body of state housing laws aimed at pressing cities and counties to produce more housing.

Opposition to the measure, Dorsey insisted, “does not equate to opposition to rent control, generally. The underlying measure is opposed by pro-housing Democrats in the State Legislature.”

During his comments, Dorsey cited a series of reports that Politico filed earlier this year, which found that Huntington Beach Councilmember Tony Strickland — a Republican who has led local opposition to state housing mandates — seemed to be contemplating just such a scheme.

“Statewide rent control is a ludicrous idea, but the measure’s language goes further,” he said during a March city council meeting, according to Politico. “It gives local governments ironclad protections from the state’s housing policy and therefore overreaching enforcement.”

The campaign behind Prop. 33 has disavowed that interpretation of the measure.

Responding to Dorsey, Ronen called such concerns “fantastical,” adding “it’s not a real argument. It’s a way to pretend that they care about rent control when they don’t.”

Preston made a similar case, pushing back against the use of the label “pro-housing” for any politician who opposes Costa-Hawkins repeal, while also pointing out that Prop. 33 enjoys broad support from California tenant groups, anti-poverty organizations and affordable housing advocates.

In contrast, the measure is opposed by a number of landlord groups , including the California Apartment Association.

Locally, it also faces opposition from the Housing Action Coalition, an advocacy group representing housing interests, including many within the construction and real-estate industries. Still, Executive Director Corey Smith told The Examiner that his group is not opposed to rent-control measures in principle, and could support a less sweeping law designed to limit potential impacts on housing production.

Dorsey was joined by fellow moderate Supervisor Joel Engardio in casting the lone votes against the board’s resolution. Stefani was not present Tuesday.

Earlier at that same meeting, Mayor London Breed skirted a question about whether or not she supported the repeal of Costa-Hawkins, but did suggest that The City should focus its efforts to boost affordability primarily on supporting housing production rather than passing new restrictions.

Outside of City Hall, Costa-Hawkins repeal has also divided The City’s pro-development “yes in my backyard” advocates.

“Historically speaking, about a third of YIMBY leads are pro-rent control and a third are rent-control skeptical,” said Laura Foote, the San Francisco-based leader of the national YIMBY Action advocacy group.

The remaining third are undecided, she said, explaining that the divergent views are driven by different beliefs about how rent-control measures will impact housing production.

Meanwhile, while some observers grumbled about the legislative time and energy spent by board members on yet another resolution that will have only symbolic policy significance, others took a different view.

“Even though it’s nonbinding, it says a lot about what San Francisco stands for,” said Fred Sherburn-Zimmer, the Executive Director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, which supported the resolution. “It says a lot about what individual supervisors stand for if they can’t back tenants up on this one.”