Candidate Endorsements 2024
United Housing Alliance announces endorsements for the November 2024 Ballot.
The process
UHA chose candidates based on their responses to the three survey questions, their 30 minute discussion with the board of UHA, and their willingness to learn about the business model of small market housing providers. For those who were not endorsed but responded to the survey we have posted their responses. For candidates who did not respond to our initial request in May 2024 to complete the survey or discussion with the board - we emailed multiple times and in many cases used a variety of sources and mediums to reach out to the candidate. We used the utmost diligence in giving candidates more than one opportunity to respond. The fact that candidates choose not to respond matters under this set of circumstances.
District 2
UHA chose Joe Lopez because his answers supported both an understanding and a willingness to learn about housing issues which impact small market housing providers. His answers are provide below. His opponent Pamela Campos did not respond to the requests for survey/board discussion.
Water District
UHA chose Bill Roth because his answers supported a demonstrated willingness to learn about the regulations suffocating small market housing providers. His opponent Shiloh Ballard did not respond to requests for survey/board discussion.
District 6
UHA chose Michael Mulcahy because his answers supported experience with real estate and housing issues as well as related code enforcement policies which impact small market housing providers. His answers are provide below. His opponent Olivia Navarro did not respond to the requests for survey/board discussion.
CA Assembly
UHA chose Ted Stroll because his answers supported experience with his own rentals in Oakland and the difficulties facing small market housing providers. His answers are provide below. His opponent Ash Kalra did not respond to the requests for survey/board discussion.
Congress
UHA is unable to provide any endorsement for Congress. Sam Liccardo set up a meeting with the UHA board and then cancelled it last minute. Evan Low responded that he would respond, but did not.
District 8
UHA is unable to provide an endorsement for D8 however both candidates responded to the survey and their answers are below.
District 10
UHA chose George Casey because his answers supported experience with planning, housing issues, and economic issues which impact small market housing providers. His answers are provide below. His opponent Arjun Batra responded to the survey (Batra's answers below) but did not respond to requests for a board discussion.
County Supervisor District 2
UHA chose Betty Duong because her answers supported an insight and understanding of the small market housing business model; such as "all housing providers expenses go up the same amount, but those under rent control can't catch-up whereas others can". And recognized the symbiotic relationship of housing providers and tenants. Her answers are provide below. Her opponent Madison Nguyen responded to the survey (Nguyen's answers below) but did not respond to requests for a board discussion.
Positions Sought
* Endorsed Candidates
San Jose Council
District 2
Joe Lopez* v Pamela Campos
District 6
Michael Mulcahy* v Olivia Navarro
District 8
Tam Truong v Domingo Candelas
District 10
George Casey* v Arjun Batra
Water District
Bill Roth* v Shiloh Ballard
CA Assembly
Ted Stroll* v Ash Kalra
Congress
Evan Low v Sam Liccardo
List of Survey Questions
During interviews we discussed the following:
The rent control ordinance started in 1979 for SJ, currently all of California is under rent control. San Jose's rent control program is more severe and only impacts small market housing providers.
Rent control is only on 25% of all SJ rentals. And 100% of those rentals are owned and managed by mom and pop housing providers.
There are many housing providers who have not been paid back from the eviction moratorium. One provider is still out over $1M.
We are the only non-taxpayer subsidized affordable housing in San Jose but many are having difficulty keeping up with the lack of payment from the eviction moritorium, endless repairs of older buildings, and dramtically increasing operating costs such as insurance, taxes, and utilities.
Please keep in mind that many of these mom and pops are forced to pay for all renter utilities despite PGE going up 100% and the constant increases of water costs. And we have several instances of misuse of environmental resources such as renters running car washes out of their apartments because - water is 'free'. Corporate housing is permitted to charge renters utilities, while mom and pops under rent control are not.
These are the three questions we asked Candidates for Office:
What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
Joe Lopez
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
As a property owner myself I am very much aware of San Jose’s rent control regulations, including the caps on rent increases and the eviction rules.
Right now our “housing policy” in San Jose and in California is an ever increasing set of rules and regulations and attacks on property owners that actually in the long run make housing more expensive. To make housing truly affordable to working people and the middle class we need to get off the defensive and provide better policy solutions – including streamlining regulations, training workers who can build new housing, and making it much easier to build housing where it makes the most sense – downtown and near well-served transit.
I am in favor of leaving the current rent control regulations in place as is as a matter of common-sense governance. While we could get into a debate about the effects over rent control in the long term – there are simply not the votes to overturn rent control. What we need to do is focus on making it easier and less expensive to create new housing and not making it harder for the people who now provide housing.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
Of course we should make sure we have safe housing and that we are prepared for earthquakes. But we need to do it in a smart, and cost effective way. Unfortunately politicians in Sacramento and San Jose don’t understand the housing markets very well and keep coming up with these “one size fits all” proposals. For both balconies and retrofits we should focus first on those areas where there is a real threat – like on hillsides, or in liquefaction zones, or for the oldest buildings. We can be smarter on safety which means lower costs for renters. On evictions, we need to be fair to owners and tenants – and we can be. On issues like interest rates, San Jose is not in control of that but we can look at smart ways government can help support construction of new homes with public private partnerships and by unlocking lower-cost government-backed financing with the proper safeguards.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
I do support thoughtful use of vouchers – particularly to prevent homelessness. Perhaps the most cost effective tool we have is just keeping people already housed but in danger of becoming homeless in their current homes and apartments. Vouchers could help with that.
Michael Mulcahy
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
I have founded and supported others to open dozens of small businesses throughout our neighborhoods and have a background in property development and property management. I am keenly aware of existing rent control laws, tenant protections and how those regulations impact our local economy.
I do not support increasing regulations – continuing to add more and more regulations on top of what is already in place will only make building new housing more difficult, and in the long run will make housing more and more expensive for many of our neighbors who need it most.
Instead, I believe we need to lower regulatory barriers, speed permitting, train our workforce and think creatively about how we can leverage our resources to lower capital costs so we can build more housing where it makes sense – downtown and near well-served transit.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
We should all agree that we need to make sure that the housing in our city is safe, livable and up to modern safety standards when it comes to earthquakes (or floods, fires and other natural disasters for that matter). But the “how” here matters, and we can definitely be smarter and more efficient with how we prioritize costly retrofits – especially for earthquakes, where we should first focus on the oldest buildings, in liquefaction zones or on hillsides. Unfortunately, one-size-fits-all policies – however well intentioned – do more to make housing more expensive rather than make us safer, and highlight how little many politicians truly understand about the housing market.
On evictions, we need to make the process fair for both landlords and tenants and make sure the rights of both are respected. And while San Jose has very little control over interest rates, I do think there is a lot more our city leaders should be doing to explore ways local government can help support new construction, and support more public-private partnerships, as long as there are protections in place for taxpayers.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
I believe we need an all of the above approach to addressing street homelessness – but we should focus our precious resources on the most cost-effective ways to get people off the streets first. And I support the efficient use of rental vouchers for that reason: because it’s much more cost effective in the long run to prevent people from entering a cycle of homelessness than it often is to find them housing after they have already spent time on the streets. Vouchers are certainly not the only way to do that, but they can certainly be an important tool at our disposal.
Tam Truong
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
Rent control in San Jose covers buildings of three or more units built before 1979. According to the City, this is approximately 38,000 units. I am in favor of maintaining the status quo when it comes to rent control. I oppose the measures that would expand rent control to buildings built after 1979 because I think this would greatly decrease the production of new rental housing in the future.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
While all of the many inspections, regulations, and red tape we pile on property owners might have initially been well meaning – in total they create a cost burden that drives up housing prices. We need to be smart and strategic – for example inspections for seismic issues should focus on those areas where there are seismic risks. The same should be said for other types of inspections – we don’t need a “one size fits all” approach. I do know higher interest rates and insurance costs are a growing burden on all property owners. While San Jose does not have a great deal it can do about interest rates costs – we can work in concert with our fire protection agencies and other partners to address wildfire risks and other factors driving up insurance rates.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
I do. This is a proven program that costs far less than other options to address homelessness. We need to focus our homeless efforts first on proven, and cost-effective, programs like vouchers, quick-build housing, programs that give jobs to homeless to work their way off the streets and other efforts that will help us end the era of street homelessness.
Domingo Candelas
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
San Jose’s Apartment Rent Ordinance (ARO) is San Jose’s version of rent control which sets a maximum allowable rent increase for units built before 1979. There are approximately 45,820 units covered under the ARO. The maximum allowable rent increase for ARO units is 5% of the existing base rent. Given that we are about 8 years into the implementation of this ordinance. We have data that shows that teachers, firefighters, and police officers continue to struggle with keeping up with the increased cost of living including rent. We as a city must look at comprehensive housing solutions to ensure that families can continue to work, live, and play in Silicon Valley.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
It is important for government to ensure that housing providers are not bearing the brunt of these required seismic upgrades. Requiring housing providers to take out loans with current interest rates would unnecessarily impact thousands of residents. There are examples of cities creating low/no interest loan funds for these retrofits; that practice must be implemented to ensure that housing providers are not excessively impacted by these requirements.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
This is an important program and a crucial piece of a homelessness prevention strategy. I have and will continue to support rental voucher programs as currently many tenants rely on vouchers from the Housing Authority to be able to afford rent.
George Casey
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
I am a San Jose Planning Commissioner with a Masters from Cal in real estate development and design and I have a long background in rent control both in the context of San Jose and generally as an economic theory.
I do not support increases in regulations because the net consequence of regulation after regulation is simply to make housing less affordable and less available. I do support doing the serious work of bringing serious people together so we can build the housing we need to make our city affordable.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
The politicians behind this tsunami of regulations might be well meaning – but their lack of knowledge on housing shows. We can all agree that we need to inspect certain types of properties in certain types of high-risk areas (like in liquefaction zones) but these blanket mandates don’t make us safer, they just make our housing even less affordable. We need to hit the pause button on the constant stream of new rules, regulations, planning code changes and other regulations that make our housing more expensive. And if we do need to address safety issues in the future – do it strategically and consult experts, not just advocates.
What we can do is ask our politicians to do their jobs when it comes to advocating for us with the insurance industry. The insurance industry, like any industry, deserves a fair rate of return but their underwriting has now become so restrictive that people who are not even in high risk areas are losing coverage. There is not that much we can do as a city about interest rates but I am willing to explore ideas like using Joint Power Authority financing for the right kind of “missing middle” projects so long as there was no taxpayer money involved and no risk to taxpayers.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
We need to expand vouchers and ask the state and federal government to help. Keeping people in their homes with small levels of support is drastically cheaper than trying to re-house people once they become homeless.
Arjun Batra
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
In San Jose, rent control is in effect for approximately 38,000 units. It is limited to apartments and mobile home units built before 1979 and the City has exempted single family homes, ADU’s, duplexes, townhouses and short term rentals. The ordinance allows for a maximum 5% increase each year in impacted units with some exceptions.
I believe the current rules set an appropriate balance although I will always work to make government more efficient and effective, including ensuring any disputes are adjudicated in a fair and timely fashion.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
California is currently facing a housing crisis and there are a number of steps we need to take to make it easier to build and operate rental units. I am very disturbed by the withdrawal of insurers from the market and believe we need to do more to ensure property owners have the support they need to be safe. To that end, I support greater investment into mitigation to reduce losses from wildfires and floods and believe we need to look at how current regulations impact rates to ensure it is feasible for insurers to work in California.
In the broader picture, we should be working with property owners to ensure regulations are not onerous or unworkable. It is understandable we want reasonable regulation to protect the health and safety of our residents. Those regulations need to be actually workable otherwise we will create more harm than we prevent.
I meet with all the property owners in the Hoffman Via Monte area of my district every two-months. I want to help all of them attain Tier-1 status. I meet with all the tenants every two months also to encourage them to maintain their rental properties like their own and not cause the property owners unnecessary expense. So that the property owners will be motivated to maintain their properties better than the required habitability standards.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
Yes, one of the best ways we can prevent homelessness is to keep families in their homes and/or place them in affordable rental units. I believe this program needs to be built on a foundation of collaboration and, as it is crafted, San Jose should work closely with small property owners to ensure that vouchers are set in a way that is affordable for the city and reasonable for property owners.
Bill Roth
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
San Jose's rent control, known as the Apartment Rent Ordinance (ARO), affects approximately 39,000 units built before September 7, 1979. This ordinance limits rent increases to 5% annually, providing crucial tenant protections against rent hikes larger than 5% and unjust evictions. It also includes provisions for just-cause eviction and tenant relocation assistance.
I believe in strengthening these rent controls to ensure more affordable housing options for our residents. However, I recognize that large corporate housing providers differ significantly from smaller, mom-and-pop landlords. I am open to discussing potential carve-outs or exemptions for these smaller operators to balance their financial viability while maintaining robust tenant protections. This could include allowing larger rent increases when local inflation peaks above some threshold.
This approach ensures that we protect vulnerable tenants while also considering the operational realities of smaller landlords.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
SB 721, passed in 2018, imposes new safety standards for apartment decks and balconies. This legislation was enacted in response to the tragic balcony collapse in Berkeley, which highlighted severe safety issues due to dry rot and lack of proper inspections. The law requires every apartment facility with elevated elements like decks, balconies, and walkways to undergo safety inspections by January 1, 2025. These inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel, and the findings must be documented and kept for 12 years.
The compliance requirements, recurring inspections every six years, and potential penalties for non-compliance, ranging from $100 to $500 per day, add to the operational and financial pressures on property owners. Moreover, the impact on insurance eligibility for non-compliant properties further complicates the situation. This, coupled with other financial strains such as mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, and expensive and lengthy eviction processes, creates significant challenges for housing providers.
Understanding these challenges is crucial as they can discourage property owners from maintaining or expanding their rental portfolios, ultimately impacting the availability and affordability of housing. Finding a balance that ensures the safety and habitability of rental units without imposing undue financial burdens on property owners is essential. Collaboration between local government, housing providers, and tenants is necessary to comprehensively develop fair and effective policies addressing these issues.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
I strongly support the implementation of rental vouchers as part of a comprehensive homelessness prevention program. Rental vouchers can provide immediate relief to individuals and families at risk of homelessness by covering a portion of their rent, thus ensuring they have a stable place to live.
The Denver-based LIVE Denver program offers valuable insights into the potential benefits and challenges of such an initiative. LIVE Denver, a first-of-its-kind program, blends public and private funds to subsidize rents for lower-income workers who earn too much to qualify for federal housing vouchers but not enough to afford typical city rents. Despite its innovative approach, the program faced challenges in scaling up and securing enough partnerships.
To implement a successful rental voucher program in San Jose, we must ensure adequate funding and efficient administration. This involves collaborating with local housing authorities, non-profit organizations, employers, and property owners to create a streamlined application and distribution process. Additionally, addressing any potential stigma associated with rental vouchers and increasing acceptance among landlords is crucial.
Drawing lessons from LIVE Denver, it is essential to provide financial education components to help recipients manage their money and set aside savings. The program must also be flexible, allowing participants more choices in housing units and ensuring that subsidies make housing genuinely affordable. Integrating supportive services, such as case management and job training, will help voucher recipients achieve long-term stability and self-sufficiency.
With thoughtful planning and collaboration, a rental voucher program in San Jose can provide significant relief to those at risk of homelessness, ensuring they have access to safe, affordable housing.
Ted Stroll
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
As far as I know, the city's rent-control ordinance applies to units built in 1979 and earlier, with three or more units. About 30% of the city's rental housing is rent-stabilized. There are also state laws that limit rent increases and apply to San Jose with different criteria.
Rent control is always a bad idea, because its artificial price control on the property owner provides various disincentives. To summarize from The Intelligent Economist, “Over the long run . . . rent control decreases the availability of apartments, since suppliers do not wish to spend the money to build more apartments when they cannot charge a profitable rent. Landlords not only do not develop any more apartments, but they also do not maintain the ones that they have, not just to save costs but also because they do not have to worry about the market demand. Demand is already very high because there is excessive demand for rent-controlled apartments. According to many economists, this excess demand and limited supply for housing can ultimately lead to a massive housing shortage. Thus, according to survey data, a majority of economists would argue that ‘a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.’”
There are real issues with elderly people on fixed incomes who cannot afford large rent increases. In that case, all taxpayers, not just the owners of the properties where they happen to live, must subsidize their living expenses so that they're not forced out of their homes with nowhere to go that they can afford, unless they leave their friends and family to move to Erie, Pa., or a similar place.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
We see the effects of state and local overregulation in the high rents property owners charge tenants in this state. People are underhoused. Next door to me are about 25 mostly Honduran Spanish-speakers crammed into a six-bedroom house. Their situation is far from alone.
Some regulation is desirable so that tenants have recourse against bad landlords. I'm most familiar with Oakland, where the regulatory environment is conducive to killing the mom-and-pop rental business and will surely do so over time. Places like Oakland are way unbalanced in this respect.
In places with a normal rental-housing market, property owners and tenants can adjust to price signals (e.g., if insurance costs more, either party might choose a higher deductible or no earthquake insurance). Rent control does and other regulations may distort those signals, to the benefit of hardly anyone—long-term tenants in rent-stabilized housing being a likely exception, but that's at the cost to people trying to find a place to rent
The Governor's and Chief Justice's Covid-era suspension of state statutory eviction laws was disastrous for one couple I know who own a property in Oakland that was occupied by nightmare tenants who, I am told, caused huge damage, engaged in drug and prostitution activities, and couldn't be evicted for more than a year. The cost to them may be approaching $250,000, taking into account repairs that are underway more than a year after the tenants were finally evicted and legal expenses. I believe that the executive and judicial branches exceeded their authority, and if the Legislature had different people in it, that authority would have been reined in.
All of the foregoing incentivizes property owners to price in a considerable risk premium, because it's hard to evict bad tenants and there's regulatory uncertainty about what punitive measures may suddenly be imposed by a city that doesn't like landlords. It's one reason that rents are so high in the Bay Area, even if not all jurisdictions here have severe measures (there are economic reasons why this happens more uniformly than the jurisdictions' varying rules).
I doubt that more than a handful of members of the state Legislature understand much of the foregoing.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
He ran a Section 8 or Section 8–type program in Tulsa, Okla. Section 8 generally seems like a good approach to affordability of rental housing, though I know that the program as implemented has problems. The key question here is homelessness prevention. About three-quarters of people living in the street are too mentally ill and/or drug-addicted to be able to live in normal housing via Section 8; it would ruin life for their neighbors in the same or nearby dwellings. However, for stable people who are down on their luck or even gainfully employed but living in tidy RVs because of the cost of rental housing in San Jose, Section 8 could help. I imagine that San Jose already has a Section 8 program, but housing most of the homeless requires supervision, treatment, and rehabilitation services, none of which the ordinary rental-housing stock is equipped to provide.
Betty Duong
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
San Jose’s system of rent control limits rent increases on approximately 38,000 apartments in San Jose. The policy covers apartments with three or more units that were built and occupied prior to 1979. There is a long list of exemptions to this policy allowing the majority of San Jose’s rental units to compete at a market rate. Exempt units largely outnumber the 38,000 rent controlled apartments and create an unfair landscape for smaller and older operators who can’t keep pace, are forced to operate at a severe deficit, and unable to maintain their buildings. This ends up hurting both tenants and operators. Furthermore, rent controlled units are still being assessed for property taxes at the same rate as their counterparts who are free of rent increase limitations. I am not in favor of tightening or loosening controls but in favor of reforming the program. Although this is a city jurisdiction, the County should be part of the conversation for its role in assessing taxes, issuing permits, and enforcing code. Too many of the policies affecting the rental market are existing in silos and causing the outcomes that we as a society are trying to avoid: corporate ownership of local properties, small operators being forced to sell, substandard maintenance and building conditions, housing insecurity, and homelessness.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
The cost of being an operator keeps on going up and many of these fees and mandatory expenditures (e.g. seismic upgrades) contribute to financial uncertainty for operators, who in turn must pass on costs to their tenants in an already impacted market. We can’t fix housing on the backs of tenants and operators. As operators continue to leave the market, private equity firms with unlimited capital are ready to buy our communities. 40% of all home purchases in 2023 were made by private equity firms who become long distance landlords formulating rent increases on algorithms designed only to maximize profit. That is not the San Jose that I know and love. This outcome will only further exacerbate the housing crisis. Our local and state policies have created severe unintended consequences that cause harm to tenants and operators alike. As policy makers, we need to look at our laws, assessments, and policies in a holistic manner driven by a new focus: how can we make housing affordable and beneficial for operators and tenants.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
Yes, I do support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program. I would assert that similar programs have existed before in the form of Section 8 Housing and various forms of universal basic income (e.g. welfare). Section 8 Housing has a 10 year waiting list after cutting the list in half, and welfare programs that my family relied on in the 80s have been whittled away. I grew up living in Section 8 Housing and know that it can work. The program was able to give my parents the break they needed to stabilize their lives and eventually purchase a home in East San Jose.
As for implementation, I would first look to the existing Section 8 administrative structure and existing rental voucher models in other cities and jurisdictions to help us develop our own local program that allows people to use such vouchers to access housing that is right for them. Moreover, many of the families and individuals who would need the assistance of a rental voucher program the most, will already be in our system. Therefore, as the County and the City create their own local housing voucher program, there is an opportunity to intentionally and seamlessly integrate with existing support programs that help with job skills training, economic development, social services, and access to health and behavioral health services. This aspect may also mitigate the challenges other municipalities have faced with lack of staffing for their local voucher programs.
There is no silver bullet to resolving homelessness and housing insecurity but rental vouchers will be a critical component that can help both those in need of housing they can afford and those who need to rent housing at a rate that is sustainable for home operators.
Madison Nguyen
1. What is your understanding of San Jose rent control, as in how many units are affected, the caps, the tenant protections, etc.? And are you in favor of tightening or loosening those controls?
San Jose has about 38,000 rent control units based on criteria established that exempts properties built after 1979, owner occupied units and small properties (i.e., in-law units, ADUs, single family homes and duplexes. Rent increases are capped at 5% annually. On tenant protections, San Jose has a Tenant Protection Ordinance that has 13 reasons for which tenants can be evicted; some are actions by tenants and others are actions by property owners, which include relocation benefits.
San Jose also has a rent registry and several other ordinances:
Ellis Act Ordinance that applies to residential buildings with four or more apartments. It specifies the requirements that must be followed by property owners who are removing their apartments from the rental market (including noticing requirements and relocation assistance).
Housing Payment Equality Ordinance that prohibits discrimination against housing voucher holders who apply for rental housing in San Jose.
The recently passed Tenant Preference Policy for renters seeking affordable housing who live in certain areas of the City that are undergoing or at-risk of displacement.
Mobile Home Rent Ordinance and a Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance.
As for future controls, all stakeholders need to be involved, like with the recently passed Tenant Preference Policy. Economic challenges need to be addressed, and at the same time, we need to focus on addressing the affordable housing crisis by creating new housing.
2. Mandatory inspections and repairs under SB721, mandatory seismic upgrades, increasing interest rates, higher insurance costs, expensive/lengthy evictions and higher operating costs are stressing operators financially and operationally – please elaborate about your understanding of these challenges and the effect it will have on housing and rentals.
SB721 was initiated in response to the balcony collapse in Berkeley which resulted in six fatalities. It requires multi-family properties with three or more units (with exterior elevated walking surfaces) to be inspected by January 1, 2025; and thereafter every six years. If repairs are needed, the owner will have 120 days (after permit approval) to complete the work.
Insurance companies have been discontinuing coverage for apartments (and some houses) in California. Because of this, property owners are seeing increased rates and, in some cases, brokerage costs for finding new insurance.
Evictions can be very costly with attorney fees and unpaid rent. And high interest rates are making it difficult to re-finance and increases costs for those with variable-rate loans. The prospect of mandatory seismic upgrades in the future is another possibility that could greatly increase costs. Along with increased utility bills and labor costs, all of this adds up to large increases in operating costs.
The rising costs make it more difficult for property owners to maintain and upgrade the property and pay their expenses. It’s an economic reality, that increasing costs affects everyone. The quality of housing can be adversely affected, and rents are increased to cover some of the costs. Overall, new and existing housing becomes more expensive for buyers and renters. We need to work together to stabilize housing costs so property owners can continue to operate rentals that are desperately needed for our residents.
3. Do you support rental vouchers as part of a homelessness prevention program and how do you foresee a program implemented? (the incoming SJ director created a housing voucher program in his current city, so this is a very relevant question)
Yes, I support rental vouchers to prevent homelessness. Programs could include directly providing vouchers for tenants who are having difficulty paying all or part of the rent, or having a loan fund for small developers who purchase and enhance existing properties for residents who have housing vouchers. Vouchers can be used where a person lives now or to choose a new location. It’s key to be open-minded, collaborative, and flexible. We need to look at all types of properties and voucher models that cover a range of rental incomes. And we need to improve our databases and coordination between the agencies that are involved in addressing homelessness.