The Board of Supes approved a measure Tuesday that could expand rent control to thousands of new units after the author, Sup. Aaron Peskin, amended it to head off landlord opposition—and defeated an attempt by Sup. Ahsha Safai to delay the bill.
Peskin’s original bill would have expanded rent control to all buildings constructed between 1979 and November 2024 if Prop. 33 passes, and the Costa-Hawkins Act is repealed.
Peskin clearly didn’t have six votes for that proposal, in part because the landlord lobby was going to oppose it. So he made a particularly savvy move.
In testimony at the Land Use and Transportation Committee, Corey Smith, director of the pro-landlord Housing Action Coalition, said his constituents might accept a plan to expand rent control to buildings that were more than 30 years old—after the original financing was paid off.
That was clearly a tactic to derail this bill—but Peskin called their bluff: He amended his bill to only expand rent control to buildings constructed before 1994—that is, ones that are more than 30 years old.
“We wanted it to go all the way, but the votes for that were not there,” he said.
It’s worth noting, as Sup. Dean Preston pointed out, that the Costa Hawkins Act was passed in 1995, and it barred any future rent control from covering apartments built after that date. But it also forced cities that had existing rent control to exempt buildings all the way back to the date of the original rent control ordinance; in Los Angeles, that’s 1978. In San Francisco, it’s 1979.
So a city with no rent control that passed a rent-control ordinance today would be able to cover far more apartments than San Francisco can.
Still: All of the supervisors said they support expanding rent control to more units, and all of them said that Peskin’s compromise made a lot of sense.
It could have ended there—but it didn’t.
At the last minute, the Building Trades Council, which often sides with landlords and developers, send a letter to the supes saying that the bill should include a provision to create a task force that would include labor, tenants, and landlords to decide how much property should be covered by rent control.
Safai asked that the measure be amended to include that—which would mean it would have to go back to committee for another hearing, and at the very least would have delayed the matter for two weeks.
Does that matter? Yes: Prop. 33 is on the November ballot, and if the supes pass this resolution, it would tell the voters what the outcome might be.
There’s more here: Rent control could be a huge issue in the mayor’s race. If the measure passed quickly, it would then go to the mayor’s desk—and Mayor London Breed, who has vowed to veto any “anti-housing” legislation, would have to take a stand.
Sometimes, it’s important to make public officials vote on litmus-test issues. As Sup. Shamann Walton said, “either you are for rent control or you are against it.”
Safai said he wanted “a consensus vote.” Sup. Hillary Ronen said that “is a delay tactic.”
Safai refused to withdraw his resolution, so Peskin called for a vote on the continuance—that is, the delay.
Sups. Safai, Joel Engardio, Catherine Stefani, and Matt Dorsey voted to delay the bill. The others, 7-4, killed that motion.
At that point, the supes had no choice: They were for rent control, or against it, and the Peskin measure passed 11-0.
Now Breed has to decide which side she is on.
Full disclosure: Both of my kids work on the Peskin for Mayor campaign.
