PD Editorial: Santa Rosa City Council has no choice but to put rent law before voters

Five hundred years ago there lived a livery stable owner in England named Thomas Hobson who rented out horses, primarily to Cambridge University students. He was well known for refusing to give customers their pick of rides. In order to rotate his horses properly, he told customers as soon as they arrived that they could either take the horse in the stall nearest the door or take none at all.

Thus was born the term “Hobson’s choice,” which in essence means to have no choice at all.

The Santa Rosa City Council finds itself in such a bind on Tuesday. It is faced with the Hobson’s choice of either repealing its own rent-control ordinance passed last summer or to put a referendum on the ballot that would allow voters to possibly do just that on June 6.

It’s not much of a option.

Although an election is likely to cost the city a significant sum, the council has no choice but to put the matter in the hands of voters, who should have the opportunity to weigh in on such weighty issues anyway.

Given the outside money and influence that was behind this effort, this outcome never really seemed in question.

Sonoma County elections officials found that of the ?12,524 signatures submitted to the city by paid petition gatherers, 9,648 were valid. Those backing the referendum, which consists primary of apartment owners and other real estate interests, only needed 8,485 signatures to force a referendum, according county election officials.

The downside is that the delay in the counting has only played into the hands of rent control opponents as the longer it takes to put the issue before voters, the longer Santa Rosa goes without rent restrictions. And the situation is critical. Given the lack of new construction in recent years and increased demand, the city’s vacancy rate in the fall was said to be less than 3 percent, a level that housing experts regard as essentially full occupancy.

Even if voters reject the referendum in June, nearly 10 months will have passed between the time the council approved the ordinance on a 4-2 vote and when it would take effect.

We have expressed our own reservations about the city’s rent stabilization rules. But we believe the ordinance is far more modest than opponents are claiming. The ordinance limits rent increases to no more than 3 percent a year and, given existing state law, only pertains to housing units built before 1995. It also takes effect retroactively to Jan. 1, 2016, meaning any increases since then could not be more than 3 percent.

But all new programs require additional city staff, which is a concern. City officials say the program would require 41/2 employees to implement and would cost about $1.2 million to run per year, a cost that would be passed on to property owners.

We will have plenty of time in the coming days to analyze the pros and cons of this once the council decides to put this on the ballot. Because while it’s clear the City Council doesn’t have a choice on Tuesday, voters will face a critical one come June.