Laserfiche WebLink
<br />203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 150, Redwood City, CA 94065 | T 650-364-1722 | www.chambersmc.org <br />ELEVATING BUSINESS. ENGAGING COMMUNITY. EMPOWERING THE FUTURE. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />July 27, 2026 <br /> <br />The Honorable Elmer Martínez Saballos, Mayor <br />The Honorable Kaia Eakin, Vice Mayor <br />The Honorable Isabella Chu, Council Member <br />The Honorable Jeff Gee, Council Member <br />The Honorable Diane Howard, Council Member <br />The Honorable Marcella Padilla, Council Member <br />The Honorable Chris Sturken, Council Member <br />City of Redwood City, California <br />1017 Middlefield Road <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br /> <br />RE: Encourage Oppose Position for Rent Control and Eviction Limits Ballot Measure <br /> <br />Dear Mayor Martínez Saballos, Vice Mayor Eakin and Members of Council: <br /> <br />At your meeting today, Item 9.B is agendized to provide you with an opportunity to determine if <br />Council will take a position on the recently processed citizen-led rent control and eviction limits ballot <br />measure. Chamber San Mateo County strongly encourages Council to take a firm OPPOSE position on <br />this measure. <br /> <br />During your meetings on June 8, 2026, and July 8, 2026, Council spent significant time reviewing and <br />understanding the impacts of the proposed measure. It was clear from those discussions, from staff <br />and consultant analysis and from the remaining unanswered questions that the proposed ballot <br />measure is bad public policy and will do irreparable harm to the city’s economy and reverse the great <br />progress made in growing affordable housing opportunities. <br /> <br />Per your own independently commissioned economic impact analysis, several critical issues continue <br />to be prominent in leading to an OPPOSE position by Council, including: <br /> <br />1. The ballot measure would create a major new city bureaucracy, which the city can’t afford. The <br />city would need to spend between $5 million – $11 million annually (plus startup costs) to create <br />and administer a rent control program with staffing, hearings, enforcement, a rent registry, legal <br />support, and tenant/landlord services. <br /> <br />2. The program may not be self-funding at the proposed fee levels. The proposed <br />measure/ordinance requires the program to be funded through rental housing fees, not the city’s <br />General Fund; however, the economic analysis found the proposed fees are likely too low to <br />cover the actual costs. As a result, this leaves unresolved questions about funding shortfalls, <br />startup costs, litigation liabilities, and pressure on other city priorities.