Burlingame, California, Rent Control, Measure R (November 2016)

* Text of measure
* Ballot question
* Impartial analysis
* Support
* Official argument
* Opposition
* Official argument
* Path to the ballot
* See also
* External links
* Footnotes
* More
* Local ballot measures
* State ballot measures
* Local politics

Measure R: Burlingame Rent Control

The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local rent control
Related articles
Local rent control on the ballot

* * *

November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California

* * *

San Mateo County, California ballot measures

* * *

Local housing on the ballot
See also
Burlingame, California

A measure addressing rent control was on the ballot for Burlingame voters in San Mateo County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.

| A yes vote was a vote in favor of (a) repealing a previous city measure that prohibited rent control and (b) establishing a rent control commission and policies, including limiting annual rent increases to between 1 percent and 4 percent.

|

| A no vote was a vote against this proposal, thereby leaving in place a previous voter-approved measure that prohibited rent control.

|

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot question
* 2.2 Impartial analysis
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments in favor
* 3.2.1 Official argument
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments against
* 4.2.1 Official argument
* 5 Path to the ballot
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Measure R

Result| Votes| Percentage
d No| 9,350| 66.7%
Yes|  4,668|  33.3%

Election results from San Mateo County Elections Office

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot question[edit]

The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]

“  |

Shall the ordinance (a) enacting rent stabilization with an annual maximum to increase of 4% for most multi-family rental residences with certificates of occupancy before February 1, 1995; (b) establishing Just cause for eviction restrictions on most rental residential units, including single family homes and multi-family residences built after 1995; (c) creating a Commission authorized to enact regulations and set fees to implement the ordinance; and (d) 13 superseding prior restrictions on the passage of rent control be adopted?

[2]

| ”

|
|

### Impartial analysis[edit]

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Burlingame City Attorney:

“  |

Measure R was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters in the City of Burlingame. Its operation and effect on existing law are as follows:

(1) A prior voter-adopted measure, Measure T, prohibits the City of Burlingame from directly regulating the rental or sale price of real estate units. The measures that that it repeals Measure T.

(2) The measure establishes a rent stablization program. Rent control applies to multi-family rental units with initial certificates of occupancy before February 1, 1995. Single family homes, condominiums, owner-occupied duplexes or secondary dwelling units, hotels and motels (with occupancies of less than fourteen days), hospitals, certain nonprofits, dormitories, and certain governmental facilities are excluded from rent control.

The ordinance sets base rents for each tenancy and limits rent increases. For tenancies starting on or before March 30, 2016, the base rent is the rent in effect on that date. For later tenancies, the base rent is the initial rent upon occupation, with narrow exceptions. Rent increases in an amount equal to the Consumer Price Index are limited to one per year and cannot be less than 1% nor more than 4%.

The ordinance establishes a Rental Housing Commission, charged with implementing the measure. The five-member Commission is appointed by the City Council. Three commissioners must be tenants. Tenants can petition for rent reductions if landlords provide substandard housing, decrease housing services, or raise rents higher than allowed. Landlords may petition for rent increases to ensure a fair rate of return under limited circumstances. Initial hearings conducted by hearing officers retained by the commission are appealable to the Commission and thereafter to the courts. The Commission operates independently of the Council and senior City management. The Commission has the authority to set fees on rental units subject to rent control and just cause for eviction to be paid by the landlords of such units. The City's general fund must advance the costs of setting up the program. It is unclear whether those costs would be fully reimbursed and whether the program or the City's general fund would have to pay for litigation regarding the program.

(3) Just cause for eviction restrictions apply to rent controlled units, as well as single family homes, condominiums, and most multi-family rental units, regardless of when constructed. Landlords may terminate a tenancy for failure to pay rent, breach of lease, nuisance, criminal activity, and failure to grant reasonable access. Landlords may evict tenants but must provide relocation assistance for repairs, owner move-in, withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, and demolition. Relocation assistance must equal at least three months' rent for a similar unit, and tenants have first right of return if the unit is re-rented. Tenants who are disabled, terminally ill, or 62 or older and who have occupied their units for more than 5 years may not be evicted for owner move-in except under limited circumstances.

[2]

| ”

|
|

—Burlingame City Attorney[1]

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure is available here.

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]

* Thomas John Hornblower, Home Owner

* Saundra Ardito, Enrolled Agent

* Jonathan P. Roth, Professor

* Roni Gillenson, Mental Health Professional

* Cynthia Cornell, President, Burlingame Advocates for Renter Protections

### Arguments in favor[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]

“  |

Sky rocketing rent increases threaten to destroy your community.

Valued teachers, nurses, public safety workers, and their hardworking families are leaving Burlingame as rents become unaffordable.

A nearly 30-year old law makes it impossible for the City Council to meaningfully address the housing crisis.

Handcuffing our local leaders, the existing, outdated law is a destructive vestige of the past.

Measure R will protect Burlingame's future.

Vote to protect Burlingame. Vote YES on Measure R.

Measure R makes housing costs predictable and stable, freeing Burlingame residents from constant fear of losing their homes. Rents have skyrocketed in recent years. Wages have not kept pace, putting profound stress on our community. As we lose our family and community members, we lose Burlingame's quality of life.

Measure R is a fair and common sense solution:

* Allows rents to be raised 1 to 4% annually, depending on inflation (typically 2 to 3%);

* Allows larger rent increases for increased maintenance costs on property taxes;

* Limits evictions to specific situations (unpaid rent, illegal activity, etc.) preventing evictions just to raise rents

* Protects families too frightened to report unsafe conditions for fear of retaliatory evictions

* Protects "mom and pop" landlords by completely exempting owner-occupied duplexes and in-law units

* Protects homeowners by exempting single-family homes from rent stablization. Units built after February 1, 1995 are similarly exempt (doesn't discourage new construction)

* Rolls rents back to March 2016 levels

* Creates an independent Commission to administer and enforce the law, providing flexibility, accountability, and transparency at no significant expense to the city

Burlingame's high rents affect everyone. We're losing teachers. Restaurants can't find workers. Property values are directly related to the quality of our schools and availability of essential service personnel.

Together, we can sustain a vibrant and livable Burlingame.

Vote YES to protect Burlingame's future. Vote Yes on Measure R.

[2]

| ”

|
|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]

* Ann Keighran, Mayor

* Ricardo Ortiz, Vice Mayor

* Michael Brownell, Council Member

* Donna Colson, Council Member

* Emily Beach, Council Member

### Arguments against[edit]

#### Official argument[edit]

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]

“  |

Burlingame has always had a range of housing options, creating a vibrant and diverse community. While maintaining a varied housing stock is a real priority, Measure R is a deeply flawed, ambiguous ordinance with no legal or financial accountability to residents.

We urge you to vote NO on Measure R.

Measure R mandates a Rental Housing Commission; an unaccountable body with the power to assess fees, hire countless staff and lawyers, and sue at will - virtually a blank check. The power of taxation should not reside in an unelected body. Moreover, appeals would go directly into San Mateo County's overburdened courts.

Measure R is unexpectedly broad, applying not just to apartments, but to homeowners who rent out a single unit. They would face significant red-tape and fees to remove a tenant, even if only to move themselves or a family member into their own home.

The ordinance regulates hotel rooms, creating problems for an industry that significantly contributes to Burlingame's budget and economy.

Measure R does not screen by income, so wealthy people could occupy below-market units for decades as newcomers struggle to find affordable housing.

Finally, Measure R potentially exposes the city to expensive litigation paid for by Burlingame's general fund, reducing resources for services, and capital needs.

The unintended consequences of these extensive rules, costs, and bureaucracy could be to reduce housing stock as owners remove rental units. Without continued reinvestment in housing, quality diminishes, values decline, and the tax base for schools erodes.

Maintaining a variety of housing options and a fiscally sound city are important priorities for Burlingame; Measure R is a bad public policy that does not advance these goals. Burlingame would be poorly served by Measure R, with its unaccountable, expensive Rental Housing Commission and the ensuing legal environment.

Join neighbors, civic leaders, school officials, and local business owners; vote NO on Measure R.

[2]

| ”

|
|

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Burlingame Local rent control. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Burlingame, California, Rent Control, Measure R (November 2016) - Google News

## See also[edit]

Local measures

* Local measures in 2016
* Local rent control ballot measures
* Local housing ballot measures
* San Mateo County measures

California

* November 8, 2016 measures in California
* Local ballot measures, California
* Burlingame, California

News and analysis

* State and local preemption conflicts
* Measures advancing national agendas

|
|

## External links[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* San Mateo County Elections Office website

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 San Mateo County Elections, "November 8, 2016 Presidential General Election: Ballot Measure Information," accessed October 22, 2016
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.

v • e

Local ballot measures in California

Counties|

Alameda • Alpine • Amador • Butte • Calaveras • Colusa • Contra Costa • Del Norte • El Dorado • Fresno • Glenn • Humboldt • Imperial • Inyo • Kern • Kings • Lake • Lassen • Los Angeles • Madera • Marin • Mariposa • Mendocino • Merced • Modoc • Mono • Monterey • Napa • Nevada • Orange • Placer • Plumas • Riverside • Sacramento • San Benito • San Bernardino • San Diego • San Francisco • San Joaquin • San Luis Obispo • San Mateo • Santa Barbara • Santa Clara • Santa Cruz • Shasta • Sierra • Siskiyou • Solano • Sonoma • Stanislaus • Sutter • Tehama • Trinity • Tulare • Tuolumne • Ventura • Yolo • Yuba

* * *

Analysis|

Laws governing local ballot measures in California • Ballot measure information on California county websites • Costs of administering local elections • Required approval rates for local California ballot measures

* * *

Political topics|

Advisory votes • Binding arbitration • Business taxes • City charters • Election and voting laws • Gambling • Gann overrides • Hotel taxes • Incorporations • Immigration • Jurisdictional boundaries • Labor • Marijuana • Marijuana taxes • Mottos • Municipal bonds • Parcel taxes • Pensions • Project-Labor Agreements • Recall • Red light cameras • Rent control • Salaries of local officials • Sales taxes • School bonds • Term limits • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes • Zoning and land use

* * *

Tax measures|

Business taxes • Hotel taxes • Marijuana taxes • Oil and gas • Parcel taxes • Real estate transfer taxes • Sales taxes • Utility user taxes • Vehicle registration taxes

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy