FAIRFAX ASSOCIATION OF
SMALL RENTAL PROVIDERS
Letters to the Editor
Liz Froneberger
Marin IJ, 10/30/24
Socialist group’s stance on housing is too extreme
I write in response to Curt Reis’ letter defending the Democratic Socialists of America’s position on the right of every renter to have a roof over their head as “more important than a landlord’s ability to maximize profits.”
I am frustrated that members of the DSA consistently refuse to acknowledge that there are senior citizens renting out rooms or accessory dwelling units in order to augment our income simply to be able to stay in our homes due to our financial insecurity. On occasions, I’ve even felt that they have made fun of our plight. This is an important group that should not be overlooked.
From my perspective, the name of the group is misleading. Supporting a socialist ideology does not mean supporting this DSA position from its 2021 national convention on housing: “We seek to counter the dangers (of the housing crisis) by building on the insurgent tenant movement, and further decommodifying housing and land. This can be done through canceling rent, closing eviction courts, and, as landlords exit the market, using state action to acquire private property and transform into public democratically controlled housing.”
I take this to mean that, by refusing to pay rent and closing the eviction courts (thus removing the landlords’ only lawful course of action to be paid their due rent), landlords will be forced to “exit the market” (I assume by putting property up for sale) which will then be bought up by the state for subsidized housing.
If that is not a forced redistribution of wealth, I don’t know what is.
— Liz Froneberger, Fairfax
Ben Wasserman
Marin IJ, 10/9/24
Fairfax’s Ordinances Make It Hard on Landlords
In her letter to the editor published Sept. 18, Fairfax Councilmember Stephanie Hellman stated that, under the town’s rent-control ordinance, “if a landlord’s costs justify an increase above the cap, that is lawfully permissible.” Stated that way, it may sound reasonable. I would say it another way: Under the law, to request an increase in rent over the cap, currently 2.85%, the property owner must pay for a hearing, at the cost of $1,000. The $1,000 is paid by that property owner, win or lose.
In real terms: If a landlord wants to increase the rent of a $3,000-per-month unit by another 1%, or $30 per month (over the 2.85%), it will take 33 months to pay for the $1,000 hearing cost, if the landlord prevails. Reading between the lines, this is not a viable option, and is an intentional deterrent for the property owner.
I believe the unintended consequences of this are that the norm will be a maximum rent increase each year. With the limit, landlords lose the flexibility of raising rent more selectively (for example, to cover a large expense). This cap creates a “use it or lose it” incentive structure.
Additionally, I think many “mom and pop” landlords will take their properties off the market or sell them to professional investors, both of which could result in higher rents. Rent control may sound like a good solution, but it has likely unintended consequences which will only make the situation worse. With that in mind, I think Fairfax residents should vote yes on Measure I to abolish the renter-supportive ordinances.
— Ben Wasserman, Fairfax
​
Peter Lacques
Marin IJ, 9/29/24
Fairfax Measure I Stops Unfair Renter Ordinances
In 2019, as a Town Council member, I proudly voted for Fairfax’s original rent-control ordinance. It was reasonable, balanced and effective. It passed unanimously. In 2019 and 2022, the state enacted even stronger protections for tenants.
Unfortunately, in 2022, our current Town Council threw them out. They replaced them with a series of ill-conceived ordinances that appear to have been pushed by the Democratic Socialists of America and the Berkeley Rent Control Board. It includes over 13,400 words and 15 pages of fine print. A closer reading of these excessive regulations shows they are rife with absurd consequences for tenants and landlords alike. A few examples:
• Owners are prohibited from evicting tenants for illegal activity — unless they are criminally convicted. I think this “eviction protection” for criminal conduct could expose other tenants to risk of harm from criminal activity such as prostitution or drug dealing, and increase risk of civil liability for a landlord.
• It creates an invasive bureaucracy and tracking system, which mandates landlords to file all rent notices with the town manager — including embarrassing delinquent rent notices which invade the privacy of tenants.
• It severely limits homeowners from moving back into their own homes. It prohibits owners from moving back in if any tenant has any kind of “disability” or “terminal illness” (unless the owner is also disabled or terminally ill). I expect that these restrictions on owners moving back in will discourage renting to elderly or disabled tenants — another unintended consequence that will increase housing discrimination.
These are just a few of the misguided regulations Measure I will correct. Let’s restore reasonable rent control to Fairfax. Vote yes on Measure I to repeal these misguided and excessive regulations.
— Peter Lacques, Fairfax
Liz Froneberger
Marin IJ, 09/24/24
“Socialist Group’s Fairfax Involvement Is Detailed”
I wish to set the record straight regarding the letter written by Niccolo Caldararo, who states proponents of “Yes on Measure I,” like me, are guilty of “distortion” by making the claim that the Fairfax rent-control ordinance was “pushed forward by the Democratic Socialists of America.” He writes further that we are guilty of “negative labeling,” hoping to paint the DSA as “foreign and intrusive.” That seems off-base.
The fact is, The Democratic Socialists of America were indeed involved in pushing the extra rent-control ordinances in Fairfax. On the video of the Town Council meeting on Nov. 2, 2022, Curt Reis introduces himself as “a co-chair of the Marin Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and a co-chair of our campaign to establish rent control in Marin, starting right here in Fairfax. We’ve been hard at it for over a year.”
Additionally, the DSA Marin Chapter’s Facebook page makes statements such as: “Faced with rising rents and inflation, the Marin Democratic Socialists of America has been pushing local jurisdictions to approve renter protections,” and “Email the Fairfax Town Council. … Tell them you support the rent stabilization and just cause ordinances proposed by Marin DSA.” It also tells DSA members to attend Town Council meetings even “if you don’t live in Fairfax, come fill the room in support.”
Facts matter.
— Liz Froneberger, Fairfax
​
Teliha Draheim
Marin IJ, 09/7/24
Fairfax Measure I would repeal
unfair rent control
In 2022, the Fairfax Town Council passed a set of radical rent control ordinances, pushed forward by the Democratic Socialists of America. On the eve of an election, in a room packed with DSA activists, these new laws were rammed through before enough local input was heard from people with experience in providing rentals.
The introduction of these stringent rental regulations has sparked concerns among local rental providers. Designed for metropolitan areas, these ordinances are unnecessary for our small town and may lead to a host of unintended consequences. The new laws give tenants an almost unlimited right to sublease up to the density limit, and complicates the removal of tenants not included in the original lease.
As seen in San Francisco, some of these “forever tenants” act as their own landlord, profiteering from sub-tenants, while taking zero responsibility for maintenance or repairs. A typical three-bedroom home could be overfilled with 10 people — which could lead to 10 cars, burdening the whole neighborhood. The homeowner is left with no recourse and a house full of strangers. Such overreach disrupts the careful management that small housing providers have maintained for years.
Strong opposition to these 2022 ordinances led Fairfax voters to place Measure I on the ballot to repeal these regulations. Numerous former mayors and Town Council members endorse Measure I — including John Reed and Peter Lacques (who both voted for more reasonable rent control in 2019), as well as Mike Ghiringhelli, Ryan O’Neil and Lew Tremaine. Their endorsement underscores the town’s broad-based support for balanced housing rules which benefit both renters and small housing providers.
Vote yes on Fairfax’s Measure I to repeal these onerous and excessive regulations.
​
— Teliha Draheim, Fairfax
​
Morgan Hall
Marin IJ, 09/10/24
​Vote for Measure I to
repeal Fairfax rent control
​
The recent article by the Bay Area News group published Aug. 31 in the IJ with the headline, “Allstate receives 34% increase in homeowner’s insurance rates” has this small-time Fairfax rental provider panicking. I worry that insurance hikes, along with the Fairfax Town Council’s severe rent-control ordinances adopted earlier this year, are going to impoverish me.
These ordinances cap annual rent increases at 2.85%, 75% of the California consumer price index. With Allstate premiums up 34%, State Farm, my carrier, up 26.9% and the California construction cost index up 9.3%, I worry endeavor will die a slow economic death.
I’m a Fairfax “mom and pop” landlord. I rent out a small house with a cottage in back. I bought and started improving the property 24 years ago, when I was 50 years old. The property, along with Social Security, is my retirement income. I have no pension, trust fund or other entitlements.
I’ve always charged low rents, my tenants have been content and the money involved stays in Fairfax. Now, though, I’m terrified.
Surviving into my dotage drives me to vote for Measure I to repeal Fairfax rent control this November. This is an unfair form of economic elder abuse. If the measure passes, I will finally be able to catch up on all my recent lost sleep.
​
— Morgan Hall, Fairfax
John Reed
Marin IJ, 09/13/24
Measure I would abolish
unfair Fairfax rent control​
A large majority of Fairfax’s rental units (over two-thirds, or about 1,000 units) are owned by “mom and pop” residents. These owners tend to rent below market rate, because they want to attract good tenants to their shared property. They also avoid raising rents for good neighbors.
Fairfax Town Council recently imposed a misguided set of regulations that is greatly diminishing rentals. Rents are capped below cost inflation. Problem tenants are now almost impossible to get rid of. They seemingly sublease with impunity. These “forever tenants” can profit from densely packing extra people into their rented housing.
Getting stuck in this undesirable position is a real fear for mom-and-pop owners, who are reevaluating whether they can make it work. In a 2023 survey of 306 Fairfax providers, 30% responded that they have already pulled out of the market or were considering doing so.
Some will become “hotel operators” in the vacation-rental market. Others will sell and move away (leaving friends, family and community).
Nobody would expect a grocery store owner to continue selling food at a loss, just because a misguided local government decided food was too expensive. The cost of food, like rent, is a reflection of supply and the local economy. Regulating the price and conditions in this way merely causes the provider to get out of the business, reducing supply. A grocery store would close its doors very quickly. Rentals will disappear more slowly, but just as surely.
California’s commonsense and well crafted rent caps and renter protections are fair and balanced. They would remain in effect even if Measure I to abolish Fairfax’s rent control ordinances passes. The misguided ordinances should be thrown out. As a former mayor, I urge you to please vote yes on Measure I.
​
— John Reed, Fairfax
Teliha Draheim
Marin IJ, 4/4/23
Renter ordinances put seniors in tough spot
The Fairfax Town Council has been unfaithful to our town. Residents were not given the opportunity to vote on rent stabilization and “just cause” eviction ordinances. I worry this will result in costing some taxpaying property owners hundreds of thousands annually in legal and administrative fees.
The ordinances are so discriminatory. A survey of some landlords on FairfaxResidents.org shows 30% plan to permanently remove rental units from the market. That number includes some of Fairfax’s “mom and pop” landlords who, in good faith, built accessory dwelling units on their properties in compliance with addressing California’s housing needs.
The new ordinances will be administered by the Berkeley Rent Control Board, which is not in Marin County. My research shows that appealing cases will involve a 19-step process. That’s too much. These new ordinances create legal barriers for homeowners to have control over who lives on their property. This is frightening to senior citizens who could be forced with the prospect of having less money to live or possibly co-exist with abusive tenants. When those seniors pull their rentals from the market, the supply of affordable housing will be further reduced.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires that towns remove any barriers to housing, particularly those that perpetuate patterns of discrimination. According to California’s Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law, government code section 65,008, discriminatory actions passed by a local jurisdiction are considered null and void. I believe these new ordinances foster age discrimination toward seniors who could feel forced into financial struggles.
Our request is simple. Rescind the ordinances and cooperate on future decisions determined by a vote of the people. Only by addressing the needs and concerns of the whole community will decisions be supported and trust restored between policy makers and the community.
— Teliha Draheim, Fairfax
Teliha Draheim
Marin IJ, 2/11/23
Fairfax rent ordinances unfair to property owners
In past generations, the people and governing bodies of small-town America were the foundation and pride of our democracy. I am fearful that our democracy is at risk.
Some Fairfax families have risen in protest and given up Saturdays to collect signatures and lobbied neighbors in an effort to stop the ill-conceived “rent stabilization” and “just cause” ordinance laws recently passed by our Town Council without our consent.
I am outraged because our constitutional rights have been trampled upon by the Town Council. Some council members are using a misguided concept of socialism and taking it upon themselves to make decisions for us that affect our families, our property and our values.
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution outlines the “takings clause,” which says the government cannot seize property without compensating owners. In essence, Fairfax’s ordinances authorize the taking of private property, forcing owners to submit to government control without consideration of their rights or compensation for their losses. A similar case involving New York City landlords fighting rent control could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court soon.
I would also like to cite the 14th Amendment’s “due process clause.” Fairfax property owners were not notified of the Town Council’s intention to pass the ordinances without bringing them to a vote of the people.
We live in a democracy. These decisions feel like a violation of the rights of individuals who have followed the rules, worked hard and made sacrifices their entire lives to achieve the goal of property ownership.
These Town Council decisions have caused harm to businesses, property owners and to the entire town. People will not back down when our rights are being challenged and when our tax dollars are being spent wastefully.
— Teliha Draheim, Fairfax
Teliha Draheim
Marin IJ, 12/13/22
Fairfax Rent Control Decision Was Wrong Move
Orange County was once an orange grove. Pacific Grove used to be a peaceful grove and Fairfax used to be fair. As Joni Mitchell sang, “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”
The Fairfax Town Council’s decision to adopt two ordinances relating to rent stabilization and “just cause” evictions, have turned a peaceful little town upside down, pitting neighbor against neighbor and value against value (“Fairfax critics attack new protections for renters,” Dec. 12).
The root cause of this upset was a lack of communication with groups most affected by the change. From my perspective, it appears landlords and property owners were not contacted, were not brought into the discussion and were denied their right to vote on major issues of policy change with long term effects on neighborhoods. Instead, a Town Council of five decided the fate of a community of thousands. This is not democracy and this is why the town is in an uproar.
This move is intentional and deliberate.
Many concerned residents reported that Councilmember Barbara Coler requested specific outreach to landlords about their rent control efforts. Her colleagues did not appear to support this.
To discover that voting rights, the foundation of our democracy, are being trampled upon in our hometown is distressing. In less than two weeks, over 10% of Fairfax voters signed a petition demanding their right to a vote.
The overwhelming pain that all residents are feeling right now is palpable. There is no joy in Fairfax.
— Teliha Draheim, Fairfax