Rent control is on the California ballot, but one San Francisco mayoral candidate has serious reservations about applying the caps to more homes in the city.
Daniel Lurie, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and nonprofit founder, has voiced his opposition to expanding rent control in debates and questionnaires before. But in a Thursday interview with KQED “Forum” host Alexis Madrigal, Lurie suggested he would also nix plans by the Board of Supervisors to expand rent control to thousands more units.
Madrigal pressed Lurie to answer a caller’s question: If elected, would he veto new laws passed by the Board of Supervisors to expand rent control? While Lurie avoided saying “yes” to a veto, he did say he believes rent control policies should remain as they are — a de facto “yes.”
“I believe we should continue the rent control policies that are in place now,” Lurie said. “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 question is key as California voters weigh Proposition 33, which would roll back state restrictions that prohibit cities from expanding rent control. Voters are edging ever-so-slightly toward passing Prop. 33, according to polls from the Public Policy Institute of California and the Center for Urban Politics and Policy at CSU Long Beach.
In San Francisco, where most residents are renters, opposing tenant protections is politically risky. And while it may seem like a granular distinction to talk about vetoes, rent control is a tentpole of city politics. In a race where all major candidates are democrats many will say they support rent control broadly, but these fine distinctions can make the difference for thousands of people’s rental security.
Lurie has also been hard to pin down on details, in what may be a campaign tactic to garner second and third-ranked votes.
The other major mayoral candidates span the gamut of views on rent control. Former mayor Mark Farrell outright opposes expanding the rent cap and has said so on the debate stage. Mayor London Breed supports expanding rent control as long as it doesn’t interfere with new housing construction.
Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin has been actively trying to expand rent control in San Francisco — and tried doing so as recently as this week.
State law prevents San Francisco from limiting rent increases on housing built after 1979. Peskin’s legislation, which unanimously passed a first vote of the board this week, would expand rent control to dwellings built through 1994 — but only if Prop. 33 passes. That’s an additional 16,000 units that would be protected from rent increases.
Lurie has voiced opposition to Prop. 33, arguing that it would stymie the construction of badly needed new housing.
Peskin proposed extending rent control to newer units, but later compromised by saying he instead wants to extend caps to housing built through 1994. Opponents of Peskin’s first proposal, like Lurie, worry that rent caps could have a chilling effect on new housing development.
“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 said.
Lurie’s campaign expanded on Peskin’s comments in a statement 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 campaign spokesperson Max Szabo wrote.
After a second reading of Peskin’s legislation at the Board of Supervisors, the rent control expansion will go to Breed for her signature or veto.