Sparring in Santa Rosa over rent control ballot arguments

Supporters of rent control in Santa Rosa are taking issue with the ballot argument opponents have filed with the city, arguing it contains “flagrant falsehoods” that tax dollars should not be used to disseminate.

But opponents said their concerns about the $1.25 million cost of the program and potential safety issues that could be caused by making it harder to evict problem tenants are valid and fair commentary on the controversial law.

City officials say they’re not inclined to get in the middle of the dispute, telling supporters they’ll have to get a judge to remove the statements they view as misleading to voters.

“Courts have a really high standard for any public agency to restrict anybody from (expressing) their First Amendment speech,” City Clerk Daisy Gomez said Friday.

The rent control law passed by the City Council in August would cap rent increases for about 11,000 older apartments, duplexes and owner-occupied triplexes in the city at 3 percent annually. It would also provide ways for landlords to recoup the cost of upgrades, and require landlords to have “just cause” to evict tenants.

The law has yet to go into effect, however, because a campaign funded by landlord interests collected enough signatures to force a referendum vote.

The law will remain suspended unless a majority of voters approve it at the special June 6 election, which is paired with a local cannabis business tax. The election is expected to cost about $500,000 for both measures.

The fight over rent control, however, is expected to be fierce.

About $460,000 has already been raised for the battle, the majority of it from statewide landlord groups seeking to prevent rent control from getting a toehold in the North Bay.

The ballot arguments for and against the law, titled Measure C on the ballot, were due March 20.

The 300-word argument filed in favor of the measure, which was submitted by the “Yes on C: Fair and Affordable Santa Rosa” campaign, focused on the impacts of soaring rents, the protection it would provide for renters, and the health and educational benefits of stabilizing the rental market.

“Measure C will help immediately, providing dignity, stability and a better community for everyone,” the argument said.

It was signed by Mayor Chris Coursey, among others.

The argument against Measure C was funded by a group called “Citizens for Fair and Equitable Housing - No on C” and written by political consultant Rob Muelrath.

The argument acknowledged that affordable housing is a problem in the city but asserted that Measure C is not the answer, predicting it will be costly, won’t create any new housing and could hurt the safety of neighborhoods.

“Don’t be fooled! Measure C won’t address our lack of affordable housing, but it will cost taxpayers,” the argument reads.

It was signed by council members John Sawyer, Ernesto Olivares and Tom Schwedhelm, as well as former council member Sharon Wright.

Supporters argue the statement has two glaring inaccuracies. The first is the claim that “Measure C will cost taxpayers more than $1.25 million annually and will create a whole new bureaucracy at City Hall.”

Local political consultant Terry Price, chairman of the Yes on C campaign, called that both “untrue and materially misleading.” Price notes the cost of the program will be borne by landlords, half of which can be passed on to renters.

The city has estimated the fee to administer the program, including education of landlords and renters about their rights and enforcement of the ordinance, at $113 per year per unit.

But Schwedhelm, a retired city police chief, said it’s fair to question the cost of a program that is new for the city.

“Can we truly say that it’s going to be a ?revenue-neutral program for the city?” Schwedhelm asked. “Tell me anything that has been.”

Muelrath said it also is fair to question whether the court system will have additional costs if landlords are required to prove why they have a right to evict tenants.

“There is no question that this is going to be extremely costly to the taxpayers even if you set aside the $1.4 million,” said Muelrath, using a previous city estimate of the program’s cost.

The second statement Price objects to is the claim that Measure C will make it “virtually impossible” to evict someone, thereby “safeguarding” people who are “dealing drugs or engaging in other dangerous activities.” Price called this “pure fiction” and notes that the ordinances make it clear landlords can evict “if the tenant’s conduct is illegal.”

But requiring conduct to be illegal for eviction will mean police will have to get involved and residents might need to testify against neighbors’ conduct either to police or in court, Schwedhelm said. In his experience, that will make people less likely to speak up, he said.

Price and Dan Mullen, the campaign consultant for the Yes on C campaign, considered hiring an attorney and suing to block the argument against the measure, but, for cost reasons, opted instead to ask the city to do it, Mullen said.

The city’s rules allow any resident, including the city clerk, to seek during a 10-day public review period a court order “requiring any or all of the materials” in a proposed ballot argument “be amended or deleted.” A court must find there is “clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with the … election code.” The public review period, and thus the opportunity to force a rewrite of the argument, ended Thursday.

Price said he felt city officials had an obligation to ensure voters aren’t misled.

“To me it seems clear as day that these statements are misleading and fraudulent, and I would think that anybody with an unbiased eye would come to the same conclusion,” Price said.

While the window has closed for either side to challenge the original arguments, the review period for the rebuttal arguments remains open. Mullen said the campaign won’t be challenging those in court, either. He said he hopes voters object to the contested statements and convince council members to take action.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 707-521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.