Publication Date: Wednesday Jul 12, 1995
State Sen. Tom Campbell told unhappy East Palo Alto residents Saturday exactly why he supported a state law that would drastically change the city's rent control program.
The residents are still unhappy.
About 50 of them showed up for a Town Hall meeting with Campbell, R-Stanford. Such meetings are supposed to be a chance for legislators to tell local voters what's been happening in Sacramento.
But the main thing on the minds of those who showed up at City Hall was why Campbell supported SB 1257, a bill now in the Assembly, when many of his East Palo Alto constituents were so strongly opposed to it.
The bill, if enacted, would add vacancy decontrol to the few cities in California that do not have it as part of their rent control programs, including East Palo Alto.
That means when apartments become vacant, their rents can be raised up to 25 percent during the first three years. After three years, any market-rate rent can be charged, although apartments are still subject to controlled rent increases once they are occupied again.
"The bill, over a not very long period of time, will have a devastating effect on affordable housing," said William Webster, a member of the city's rent stabilization board.
Webster and others are also upset because the state law would pre-empt the three times city voters have affirmed rent control, thus removing local control from the issue.
"It strikes at the right to vote," Webster said.
Campbell replied that he supported SB 1257 largely based on a study of the effect of rent control laws in Berkeley and Santa Monica, which showed that those two cities lost rental units over time after they adopted strict laws.
But that argument didn't sit well with some people. East Palo Alto, since it passed its law in 1983, has seen an increase in rental units, not a decrease, according to the 1990 census.
Rent control, although it has been supported three times by East Palo Alto voters, remains controversial. Its detractors claim that the law has led to the deterioration of apartment buildings in the city, many of which are in notoriously bad shape.
But rent control advocates argue that mismanagement of those buildings by their owners, and not rent control, is responsible for their poor condition.
"Your support for SB 1257 is based upon a fallacy," said Barbara Mouton, former City Council member and mayor. "We passed it because a large number of renters were at risk."
Another resident, Stephanie Smith of the East Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, criticized Campbell on the local control issue. "Republicans believe in local control," Smith said, "and you impose your will and take away the rights of the local community."
"What kind of government are you running when you take away our rights?" asked another resident, Loreli Tomko.
"I did the best I could (given the study of Santa Monica and Berkeley)," Campbell said. "I asked for East Palo Alto numbers. I'd be very open to new data. Given the data I had available, I reached the conclusion I did."
But Campbell won't get another chance to vote on SB 1257 unless it is changed enough so that it has to come back to the Senate after it is finished in the Assembly.
--Don Kazak