Rent management is on the California poll, however one San Francisco mayoral candidate has severe reservations about making use of the caps to extra properties within the metropolis.
Daniel Lurie, an inheritor to the Levi Strauss fortune and nonprofit founder, has voiced his opposition to expanding rent management in debates and questionnaires earlier than. But in a Thursday interview with KQED “Forum” host Alexis Madrigal, Lurie recommended he would additionally nix plans by the Board of Supervisors to increase rent management to hundreds extra items.
Madrigal pressed Lurie to reply a caller’s query: If elected, would he veto new legal guidelines handed by the Board of Supervisors to increase rent management? While Lurie averted saying “yes” to a veto, he did say he believes rent management insurance policies ought to stay as they're — a de facto “yes.”
“I believe we should continue the rent control policies that are in place now,” Lurie stated. “I believe rent control has had a very positive impact, but expanding it is not something I’m considering at this time.”
The timing of the query is key as California voters weigh Proposition 33, which would roll back state restrictions that prohibit cities from expanding rent management. Voters are edging ever-so-slightly towards passing Prop. 33, based on polls from the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Urban Politics and Policy at CSU Long Beach.
In San Francisco, the place most residents are renters, opposing tenant protections is politically dangerous. And whereas it could look like a granular distinction to speak about vetoes, rent management is a tentpole of metropolis politics. In a race the place all main candidates are democrats many will say they assist rent management broadly, however these effective distinctions could make the distinction for hundreds of individuals’s rental safety.
Lurie has additionally been onerous to pin down on particulars, in what could also be a marketing campaign tactic to garner second and third-ranked votes.
The different main mayoral candidates span the gamut of views on rent management. Former mayor Mark Farrell outright opposes expanding the rent cap and has stated so on the debate stage. Mayor London Breed helps expanding rent management as long as it doesn’t interfere with new housing construction.
Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin has been actively making an attempt to increase rent management in San Francisco — and tried doing in order not too long ago as this week.
State regulation prevents San Francisco from limiting rent will increase on housing constructed after 1979. Peskin’s laws, which unanimously handed a primary vote of the board this week, would increase rent management to dwellings constructed via 1994 — however provided that Prop. 33 passes. That’s a further 16,000 items that may be shielded from rent will increase.
Lurie has voiced opposition to Prop. 33, arguing that it could stymie the development of badly wanted new housing.
Peskin proposed extending rent management to newer items, however later compromised by saying he as a substitute needs to increase caps to housing constructed via 1994. Opponents of Peskin’s first proposal, like Lurie, fear that rent caps may have a chilling impact on new housing improvement.
“The point is, can we count on Daniel Lurie to be a supporter of an expansion of rent control, even something as modest as 30 years back? The answer is no,” Peskin stated.
Lurie’s marketing campaign expanded on Peskin’s feedback in a press release to The Standard.
“As mayor, Daniel will thoughtfully consider the implications of any legislation that crosses his desk, and for that reason we’re unable to speculate on whether he would veto potential legislation that does not currently exist, and that would only be possible were Proposition 33 to pass,” Lurie marketing campaign spokesperson Max Szabo wrote.
After a second studying of Peskin’s laws on the Board of Supervisors, the rent management enlargement will go to Breed for her signature or veto.
