A Case Study on Rent Control: 910 Clinton Street, Redwood City

This article was pulled from the Summer Edition of the RealSmart Quarterly Newsletter: In the last few months we have seen more media coverage on the topic of skyrocketing rents, displaced tenants, and the possible need for rent control. Or, as some politicians refer to it: rent stabilization.  The poster child for this movement can be found in a local 18 unit apartment building located at 910 Clinton Street in Redwood City. Reports say, "every resident of an 18-unit apartment complex in Redwood City, including 31 children, had their tenancies terminated by new ownership that plans a complete interior and exterior renovation of the aging building" (San Mateo Daily Journal, May 18th, 2015).  A notification sent by the new management company on May 1st, gave tenants 60 days to vacate the premises. Most of the units had been going for below market rate, and it is assumed that rents post-renovation will be significantly higher.  But for all the front page stories published about the displaced tenants - their rallies for rent control, candle-lit vigils held in their honor and tearful pleas for affordable housing - very little, if anything, has been reported about the previous living conditions at 910 Clinton, or why the owner felt he had to evacuate and renovate it in the first place. We were able to get into contact with someone involved with the new ownership group (who requested to remain anonymous), and found that once you start peeling back the layers, there is much more to the story. According to our source, a majority of the units exceeded the maximum allowable tenants, with many even tripling the maximum allowable tenants.  910 Clinton Street also had routine visits from local law enforcement due to suspected drug and alcohol abuse, suspected drug dealing, noise complaints and a suspected gang presence.  Many neighboring apartment owners have expressed discontent with the previous owner’s “hands-off” approach to management, and thanked the new ownership for taking control.  Local Law Enforcement officials have also reached out to new ownership with positive things to say about re-tenanting 910 Clinton Street due to the constant issues at the property over the years. Does knowing this discredit the plight of the displaced tenants?  Of course not, but it shows that there is more to know than what has been reported. It is evident that the standard of living at 910 Clinton was far below acceptable, and it is well within the owner’s right to correct that. Who should ultimately be held responsible for providing affordable housing to lower income families?  Is it private property owners? Local government?  This will be discussed further in our next newsletter, but for now we’d like to hear what you think.  I've created a poll on my Facebook page where you can chime in.