The Board of Supervisors this week adopted an ordinance that allows for renters and landlords in unincorporated Marin to employ county mediators to help settle disputes concerning rent increases of more than 5 percent within a 12-month period.
Considered for almost two years and approved under the wire at the last board meeting of 2017, the new rental housing dispute resolution is a win for affordable housing advocates—many of whom were also disappointed by the board’s simultaneous decision to postpone the approval of a sister ordinance that would have required just-cause for evictions.
That ordinance, another policy the board has identified as a priority, will be considered next year.
The board held a first reading of the new ordinance, which will go into effect in January, earlier this month and held a merit hearing on Tuesday. Though proponents of affordable housing across the county were strongly represented, about two-thirds of speakers—many of them landlords and property managers—spoke against the ordinance.
“We have a really good relationship with all of our tenants because it is a collaborative effort, because it is not mandated,” said one woman whose parents have been landlords in Marin for over 50 years. “And my parents don’t like to do rent increases. It’s simple math—if their expenses go up, they have to increase rents…. Property taxes, Marin Municipal Water District rates, garbage rates. Is there any discussion of that?”
Many others said they felt the ordinance demonized landlords and did not account for smaller, mom-and-pop businesses. In response, Leelee Thomas, the county’s planning manager, emphasized that the ordinance “does not address the majority of landlords who have normal relations with their tenants. We’re trying instead to address the people not in this room.”
Under the legislation, when an increase in rent or housing services—such as repairs or utility services—exceeds 5 percent, any tenant or landlord can request mediation services.
After a valid request, both parties are required to participate in a two-step mediation process with a county official from the District Attorney’s office (which already provides voluntary aid), including an in-person session and a written mediation statement.
The mediation does not guarantee that the rent will not go up. The session could, for example, result in the determination that no further progress is likely to result from continued mediation.
County staff emphasized that the ordinance did not amount to rent control. If a landlord still wished to raise the rent following mediation, he or she could do so as long as doing so did not violate any terms agreed on during mediation. However, the ordinance does stipulate that both parties are required to participate in “good faith.”
To flesh out the requirements of good faith for landlords, the county has pulled up existing federal and state laws, including around keeping the lease agreement, performing maintenance or repairs, removing personal property, and not interfering with the tenant’s right to privacy, quiet use and enjoyment, among many others.
The board’s housing subcommittee members, Supervisors Damon Connolly and Katie Rice, explained in their closing comments on Tuesday that the ordinance was intended to address displacement and housing instability caused by large or capricious rent increases.
They also explained the reasoning for postponing action on a just-cause ordinance, which would identify a suite of acceptable reasons for which a landlord may terminate a tenancy. Similar rules have been the focus of many affordable housing advocates in recent years, but pioneering counties did not have enough data to prove their rules’ success, the supervisors said. A just-cause ordinance also threatens to alienate landlords, they added.
“Just cause is a big step with a significant potential for unintended consequences,” Supervisor Connolly commented in his closing remarks. “So, let’s try a menu of steps that we have. I know they won’t be a silver bullet. We don’t have an excess housing stock in Marin, but I hope this will help to stabilize the housing stock we do have. Neither landlords nor tenants are completely happy with what we have today, but it seems to be something we both can live with.”
Though the county does not have specific language drafted, in other jurisdictions, just cause ordinances retain the rights of landlords to terminate a lease for valid reasons, such as non-payment of rent or a material breach of a lease agreement, and they rely on the judicial system for enforcement.
The vast majority of those who spoke in favor of the mandatory mediation ordinance at both recent hearings also voiced support for just cause, and expressed disappointment that the board had deferred its consideration.
Reflective of the commentary, one man called the approved mediation ordinance “toothless” and “not representative of the serious housing crisis we face in the county.”
District Four Supervisor Dennis Rodoni, referencing the tight rental market and the exacerbating effect of the recent North Bay fires, made his support for mandatory mediation plain and advocated for a timely consideration of a just-cause ordinance in the future.
“There’s no perfect solution for this, but not trying some solutions is a mistake,” he said. “I support mandatory mediation recommendations, but I have some doubts about its impact on preventing displacement and preserving rental housing. I recognize that the residential landlord and tenant relations ordinance—just-cause eviction—could be the most impactful ordinance that we would require or pass… Having both might be the best choice for our rental market right now, but I do understand the recommendation to postpone that for up to 12 months.”
Other supervisors expressed similar thoughts, and the board ultimately agreed to consider the just-cause ordinance within the first two quarters of next year.