Redwood City Council formally opposes rent control measure - Redwood City Pulse

Close

Search for:

Search

Close

Skip to content

Menu

Sign In

Open Search

Search for:

Search

Home » Redwood City Council formally opposes rent control measure

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Members of the public attend a City Council meeting at City Hall in Redwood City on July 7, 2026. Photo by Seeger Gray.

Redwood City officials formally opposed a rent control and expanded tenant protection ordinance backed by more than 7,000 Redwood City petition signatures. The proposal will be the only local ballot measure in November.

On Tuesday, Aug. 11, Mayor Elmer Martínez Saballos and Council member Isabella Chu were among the opponents who signed the measure’s primary “argument in opposition,” a written statement that will be included in the official voter guide explaining why voters should vote “no” on the measure.

“I am a renter, my family isare also renters,” Martínez Saballos said at the July 27 city council meeting, when the council voted against passing the measure outright. “We have a responsibility to look at the big picture… this very well-intentioned measure is going to have unintended consequences that will ultimately provide less affordable housing to our community.”

Amy Buckmaster, CEO of the Chamber San Mateo County and Michael Pierce, board president of the St. Francis Center, also signed the form submitted to the city clerk’s office on Tuesday, the filing deadline.

Dozens gathered outside of the Redwood City Downtown Library on April 22 to demonstrate support for renter rights before submitting over 7,300 petition signatures to the city clerk for review. Photo by Miranda de Moraes.

The measure would go beyond the city’s new Tenant Protection Ordinance, which went into effect at the start of 2026, by adding rent stabilization, anti-harassment and “just-cause” eviction safeguards and stronger rights to return after renovations. Additionally, for “no-fault” evictions, the measure would bump relocation assistance up from one to four times the monthly U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rent, or $12,000, whichever is greater. A household that includes someone who is a senior, disabled or terminally ill would receive an additional $6,000.

Opponents centered on the claim that Redwood City cannot afford the measure, citing a city-commissioned analysis that found it could cost the city up to $11 million a year and require up to 18 new full-time employees to implement.

The measure, which was not prepared by the council or city staff, “repeals strong tenant protection measures” that exceed state law, the opponents wrote.

Opponents said the measure had “good intentions,” but that it would result in less affordable housing, higher prices for renters and new costs to the city that could affect essential city programs and services.

They also argued that the measure would “drain funds” needed for repairs and resident services for nonprofit housing providers, as well as target single-family homes and in-law units to what they called “onerous” regulations and fees.

Chu said at the July 27 council meeting that if, for example, a renter has an ADU and suddenly, their mother-in-law has to move in, but passes after a decade, the person who lived in that unit prior would have the right of return at the same price they had a decade ago.

Labor unions, nonprofits and homeowners signed the ordinance’s “argument in favor,” focusing on community needs and how over 7,000 Redwood City voters signed the petition to place the measure on the November ballot.

Organizations represented among the signers include Faith in Action Bay Area, a local nonprofit focused on equitable housing and immigrant rights; the Sequoia District Teachers Association, the union representing Sequoia Union High School District staff; and Local 829, a labor union representing state, county and municipal employees.

The measure, they wrote, would keep costs stable by allowing predictable rent increases of 60% of inflation or 5%, whichever is lower. It would also guarantee landlords a “fair” return on their investment and cost increase, enabling them to petition the city to increase rent, the argument stated.

The ordinance, proponents wrote, would only allow evictions if there is “just cause,” such as failure to pay rent or breach of a lease. As well, it would prevent landlords from using intimidation or withholding repairs “to push people out of their homes,” supporters wrote.

Proponents argued that the ordinance would prevent homelessness by providing higher relocation assistance for no-fault evictions and would be funded by a “small fee” on landlords rather than on homeowners, renters or the city’s general fund.

Public review of the primary ballot measure arguments began Aug. 11 at 5 p.m. and will run through 5 p.m Aug. 21. Public review of rebuttal arguments and the impartial analysis will run from Tuesday at...