Facing lawsuit threat, Menlo Park council passes stripped-down law to aid evicted renters

Kate bradshaw writes: "Menlo Park landlords won a victory..." I think Menlo Park won a victory, and that Bradshaw's comment belongs in an editorial.

The tenant relocation bill submitted by the Housing Commission, if passed, would have tempted Landlords to raise rents to highest levels allowed in order to fund up against capricious rulings by mediators and big relocation fines. This is only one of many unintended consequences.

The worst IMO, is that we would have to hire more staff and incur more pension debt for an ordinance that would benefit very few. Neither Nash or Taylor ever questioned staff about the cost of administering their ordinance.

Combs, Carlton and Mueller found a better way to help tenants relocate. Kudos to them.

Congratulations and Thanks to Combs, Carlton and Mueller for finding a Better Way to bring this matter to a close.

Over 40 people asked for renter protections! This is more comprehensive than the story in the post.

Rental prices are largely dictated by supply and demand. We can make an immediate dent in rental costs by requiring every Menlo Park homeowner to make unused bedrooms available to those who need them. The sudden addition of 3,000-4,000 housing units would immediately stop rent increases and probably lead to rental price decreases. I know of at least 6-homes on my block with one or more unused bedrooms. This approach meets the restrictions of Costa-Hawkins as it does not add price controls. I believe Betsy Nash has an unused bedroom I her home and I would hope she shows leadership by offering that room for rent immediately.

Who is Mark Mollineaux? Can someone please explain what he is stating? "the giant imbalance between the landed and the landless??? I might be wrong, but I think there are more renters than owners in MP/ Also, how does a landowner/landlord benefit from rising property values unless they sell for more than they bought, otherwise property taxes keep going up. Does he suggest renters get a stake in the building they rent? If so, does he suggest if there are repairs needed, that the renter also have a stake in those costs, how about the increase in property taxes each year. Oh, and what happens when/if values go down, what happens if the renter moves out, does the landlord owe the tenant a share of the (unrealized) appreciation?

quote below:

"Mark Mollineaux pointed out that landowners benefit tremendously from rising property and land values, while renters never benefit from those increases, and instead have their stability threatened. "This measure does a small, small amount to begin to redress the giant imbalance between the landed and the landless," he said."

AND:

Ms. Taylor: "I think Menlo Park can do more"... what does that even mean? Why does MP have to do more? More of what?

I think most readers appreciate that @Thomas Paine comment above is his attempt at satire, as his comment is the antithesis of Paine's beliefs: The poster's statement "We can make an immediate dent in rental costs by requiring every Menlo Park homeowner to make unused bedrooms available to those who need them." is ludicrous on its face.

Lawman:

Paine's satire is as ludicrous as the concept of forcing landlords to subsidize renters. If we, as a community, want to maintain affordable housing we have two basic choices; 1. change the zoning laws to allow for dramatically more density. Or 2. provide subsidies from the city general fund to renters based on some defined criteria.

Hey, I really really want to live in Atherton. My family could use an acre of land to play in, have a bedroom for each child, have a pool, have a large garage where there actually would be space to put my cars, maybe a basketball hoop too. Oh, I cannot afford it, I can ONLY afford to live in Menlo Park. How about WE (meaning YOU) subsidize this for me! It is only fair! As fair as subsidizing someone to live in Menlo Park. But they are poor you say, and I am sure those in Atherton consider me poor as well.

Thank you to Combs, Carlton, and most of all Mueller for standing up for our beloved ~housing providers~! The idea that they would be limited to raising rents by *ONLY CPI + 5%* from one year to another is laughable and probably unconstitutional based on what I think I heard Sean Hannity say about millennials, or something.

Menlo Park is ~full~, get used to it! "new guy" and my anonymous buddy "Brian" from the Willows know what's what.

Are you kidding me? Yet again, the landlords win and the renters lose. All heil to the 1% (or perhaps its the top 10%).

When is the town going to do something that benefits more renters, and not cater to the developers and wealthy? When the town is empty of all but the top 1%

Now we know who funds Ray's campaign...

Am I missing something?

The Council passed the same ordinance as Redwood City plus created a community fund. Now people are attacking Carlton Combs. and Mueller for it?

Soooo Menlo Park is supposed to pass an ordinance that’s different than Redwood City?

The truth came out and we saw the real goal of Nash, Taylor, and the Housing Commission - bring rent control and just cause eviction to Menlo Park. Despite their repeated denial, all their arguments lead to the same conclusion. Betsy practically admitted it during the debate when she said she wants to limit a landlords ability to raise rents by government imposing deterrents. Hey Bets, that’s rent control.

Just cause eviction? That’s what they called “landlord-caused termination.” How sneaky of Betsy to repeatedly try to pass just cause eviction with her amendments and change of terminologies.

Making public policy based on personal idealogies hurts the city. I guess that’s what you get when you elect a neighborhood activist vs a policy maker who is supposed to represent ALL constituents.

I am so relieved to read the Council made this decision.
Since comments here from the angry crowd are being focused on Mayor Mueller, I just want to say thank you Ray. Families in this town trust and support you. Once again you have earned it. We don’t need extreme ideological decisions like this being forced on our City Council. Also thank you Drew and Cat.

Menlo Boomer,

I have refrained from getting into this discussion for many reasons, so I am not sure why you are bringing me into it.

I am a home owner and my family has owned houses in Menlo Park for close to 100 years. I think home ownership is a wonderful thing but I have also rented and have many friends that do and seeing them get priced out of the area over time is heartbreaking. Do I support rent control, I don't. Am I in favor of changing zoning to allow for density housing, definitely not. Menlo Park is a great community they way it is. Adding massive amounts of new housing is just going to exacerbate the existing problems. Personally I take the approach of limiting new office space until the current problems are resolved.

When did compromise carry such a negative tone? Mayor Mueller heard all sides and came up with a solution that's right for Menlo Park. I heard a lot of people speak at the council meeting who came from other cities to tell us what we should do. That's outrageous. Mayor Mueller recognized the need to help struggling tenants while creating an environment that keeps Menlo Park competitive for jobs and housing. What was passed the other night struck that balance and I applaud Ray and the council for their great work.

Everybody wants a handout from somebody. I'd like to live in Atherton or Portola Valley for cheap. Perhaps the government should subsidize me or force homeowners there to make rental properties available at low rates?

The steady march towards government interference in so many private matters is a trend that bodes very badly for the future.

Thank you Mayor Mueller and CM Combs and Carlton for making the right decision for all of us. People often forget the non-landlords and renters in this debate. At the end of the day, we residents suffer the consequences of bad laws. I sincerely appreciate these three for their vote. It was the right decision for Menlo Park.

"Most of San Mateo County is the Wild West for renters," summarized Jordan Grimes, a member of Peninsula YIMBY, a pro-housing group.

Now the out of town stack n pack YIMBEES are coming for our property rights! Were they not happy enough with degrading our quality of life and suburban lifestyles with high density monstrosities.

Housing costs what it will cost. We worked hard for many years to afford our rental properties. It is our right to charge whatever we want for them. And no one will take that away from us!

Thank you to Combs Mueller and Carlton for a sensible solution.

Thank you to our new mayor who makes an effort to hear and consider all sides before making a decision. Thank you also to Drew Combs for representing us! It's a first! It was frightening how fast this moved -- no better than pushing big development through without considering its impact. There are so many 'mom and pop' owners that would have been hurt had ideology become law. We need to find other ways to address affordable housing shortages -- I know it's unpopular to say, but I agree with, 'stop further corporate development until we've considered and addressed the potential impact to our community - our schools, traffic, emergency services, affordable housing and so forth. Like, if you're gonna build that huge housing development or office building -- how are you going to make sure you don't break everything else around you in the process? What will you give back to the community -- not just the immmediate neighborhood, but everything outside your project boundaties that's impacted by what you're doing within your project boundaries.

> Who is Mark Mollineaux? Can someone please explain what he is stating? "the giant imbalance between the landed and the landless??? I might be wrong, but I think there are more renters than owners in MP/ Also, how does a landowner/landlord benefit from rising property values unless they sell for more than they bought, otherwise property taxes keep going up.

Hi there, let me introduce you to Prop 13, a 40-year-old amendment to the California Constitution that caps property taxes at 2% per year (Menlo Park real estate has been appreciating a rate far exceeding 2%).

> Does he suggest renters get a stake in the building they rent?

The land, and not the building, but yes.

> If so, does he suggest if there are repairs needed, that the renter also have a stake in those costs, how about the increase in property taxes each year.

Note I say "the land," not "the building." Those who repair physical structures ought to see their just return.

> Oh, and what happens when/if values go down, what happens if the renter moves out, does the landlord owe the tenant a share of the (unrealized) appreciation?

Ideally, yes, but it should be done more generally, through taxation reforms at the highest level. It would be rather tedious to have every tenant bill their landlord invoices for pieces of land appreciation.

Good move. No complaints here. Nobody wants to see a lawsuit for a law that's unnecessary to begin with. Combs, Mueller, and Carlton looked out for the interest of the city. Don't attack them. Thank them.

it’s interesting that a publication that boasts the wealthy and upscale cities “Menlo Park - Atherton - Portola Valley - Woodside” in its banner continually remnoves comments that point to residents who don’t want renters or rent control. People work all their lives to buy into a community like these because they want to be a part of what’s here. I’m sorry that’s vague, they won’t let me post anything more specific.

[Editor's note: The only comments removed from this thread were one in which the person commenting used the name of a frequent poster, making the post deceptive right out of the gate, and another that was disrespectful of specific groups of people. Town Square is not The Wild Wild West, and we do not apologize for setting rules and expecting posters to respect them.]