Redwood City to Vote on Rent Control in November

The measure would cap annual rent increases for qualified units at 5% — or 60% of inflation, whichever is less — and roll rents back to their October 2025 levels.

Because of California’s Costa-Hawkins Act, the cap would reach only multifamily buildings built before Feb. 1, 1995 — about 40% of the city’s rental stock, according to a city staff report, or roughly one in five housing units citywide, according to the city’s consultant.

But most of the 46-page measure is even more stringent, expanding just-cause eviction protections to nearly all rentals, including single-family homes and ADUs; raising relocation payments for no-fault evictions to at least $12,000; guaranteeing displaced tenants a right to return to the unit; barring landlords from passing utility costs to tenants in rent-capped units; and creating a new, fee-funded city program to run a rent registry, hear petitions and provide free legal aid to low-income tenants.

The city commissioned its own study of what the ordinance would do. Economic & Planning Systems, the firm Redwood City hired, found its reach extends well past the rent cap — the eviction, relocation and fee provisions carry “material costs and risks to property owners and investors,” managing principal Jason Moody told the council.

William Gomez, a school social worker and Faith in Action leader, said nearly 60% of students in the Redwood City School District are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and that many live doubled- or tripled-up while parents work multiple jobs to cover rent.

A family of three earning about $50,000 a year takes home roughly $4,000 a month, he said — about what rent for a one-bedroom now costs in the area.

“When it comes to housing, it seems for us to always prioritize corporations that value profit over human belonging,” Gomez said.

According to the campaign, rents in older buildings have risen 57% over 15 years, and corporations and real estate trusts own 87% of the city’s apartments.

Redwood City has never had local rent control, relying instead on California’s 2019 Tenant Protection Act, which imposed rules concerning rent increases and tenants rights in the state.

Residents tried to qualify a similar measure in recent years but fell short on valid signatures. Sturken said the city’s absence of a rent cap — even as neighbors like East Palo Alto have had one for years — comes down to a “fierce” real estate lobby and past policies.

Earlier councils had sought compromise, producing an anti-displacement strategy and a tenant-protection ordinance that stopped short of rent control.

Opponents, led by real estate and landlord groups, argue the measure would do the opposite of what it intends. Fernando Peña, government affairs director for the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, said it “doesn’t add one unit of housing” and would “reduce supply, increase cost for everyone, and discourage investment.”

He noted that only two of the measure’s 46 pages deal with rent control, with the rest covering evictions, relocation and fees. The burden, he said, would fall on small homeowners — “families, the retirees” — not just corporations. The city should focus on building housing, he said, arguing Redwood City already has among the county’s strongest anti-displacement protections.

The California Apartment Association, which represents landlords across the state, also opposes the measure. In a statement, Joshua Howard, the group’s executive vice president of local public affairs, said California and Redwood City already provide strong protections and that the initiative would swap them for “an expensive new layer of city bureaucracy.”

“This measure builds government, not housing,” he said.

Howard also pointed to Proposition 33, the 2024 statewide rent-control expansion he said nearly 60% of Redwood City voters rejected, and dismissed the measure’s provision letting owners petition for higher increases as “a farce.”

EPS’s analysis estimated the new program would cost the city $5 million to $11 million a year — far more than the $84 to $120 per-unit annual fees written into the ordinance, which it said would cover only 13% to 32% of the cost.

Real per-unit fees, it projected, would run $320 to $700. Moody said the heaviest impact would fall on pre-1995 buildings, which he called the city’s “naturally occurring affordable housing,” and warned that the ban on billing tenants for utilities would be “an immediate hit” to older properties.

EPS also found that, adjusted for inflation, Redwood City rents have gradually declined over the past decade.

EPS associate Kaavya Chhatrapati, who modeled the effect on affordable housing, said the measure “is not expected to directly prevent Redwood City from meeting its” state-mandated housing goals, “but it could make affordable housing production and preservation more difficult over time.”

Sturken told KQED the council’s role is “a bridge” between “sides that are diametrically opposed.” His bigger worry, he said, is the campaign ahead: “There’s going to be a lot of misinformation, a lot of fear-mongering.”

He urged voters to read the measure and the city’s financial reports before Election Day arguments are due on Aug. 11.