Glen Starkey’s recent article, “Renters, you have rights: A guide to your basic rights and helpful resources” (Sept. 12) highlights some of the key legal protections tenants currently enjoy. These include caps on security deposits and limits on annual rent increases. While useful, these measures are not enough to ensure that renters in San Luis Obispo have access to safe, secure, and affordable housing.
For example, Starkey points out that tenants should contact code enforcement when landlords fail to address health hazards like black mold or faulty utilities. But I can tell you from personal experience that this is not sufficient. When I lived in Mustang Village, mold was an ongoing issue. Despite our best efforts to engage with management, they failed to address the root cause. While going door-to-door to speak with renters locally, I spoke with one tenant who moved into a unit where nails were sticking up from the floorboards—an egregious safety hazard that went unresolved for weeks.
This neglect is far too common in San Luis Obispo, especially in older, multi-unit buildings that cater to students and low-income residents. We need proactive measures to prevent unsafe conditions from arising in the first place. That’s why the San Luis Obispo Tenants Union is advocating for the city to adopt a mandatory rental registry, which would help hold landlords accountable for the condition of their properties and prevent issues like mold, faulty wiring, or inadequate locks from going unchecked, instead of relying solely on tenants to report problems after they’ve already suffered the consequences.
Additionally, the current rent stabilization measures, which limit rent increases to 5 percent plus inflation, or 10 percent annually, are not enough to protect renters from the crushing financial pressures of San Luis Obispo’s housing market. While the intent of these measures is good, the fact remains that rent increases of nearly 8 percent in a single year are still devastating for many families. Renters shouldn’t have to live in fear of sudden, drastic increases that could force them out of their homes. We need stronger rent stabilization measures that cap increases at a more reasonable rate, keeping rent affordable for the majority of our city’s residents—65 percent of whom are renters.
Housing is not just a business transaction; it is a fundamental human need. In his article, Starkey reminds readers that landlords are in the rental business for financial gain. While I respect that property owners have a right to operate their businesses, that doesn’t negate their responsibility to provide safe, livable conditions for their tenants. We need a balanced approach, one that supports both landlords and tenants. This is why we are also advocating for stronger health and safety protections, like requiring deadbolts on all exterior doors and establishing a comprehensive mold ordinance.
The current rental landscape in San Luis Obispo is a microcosm of California’s larger housing crisis. The cost of living continues to rise, pushing low- and middle-income residents further to the margins, and our health and safety concerns remain unaddressed. San Luis Obispo has an opportunity to lead by example and show that a city can be a great place to live and an equitable place to rent. By adopting a rental registry, strengthening health and safety protections, and implementing more robust rent stabilization policies, we can make San Luis Obispo a fairer and safer place for all of its residents.
I am a proud resident of San Luis Obispo and a member of the SLO Tenants Union. I have seen our city make significant strides in improving the lives of renters. The City Council and staff deserve credit for their work on the recent public memorandum on renter protections and the email campaign that informed tenants about their existing rights. These are essential steps, but there remains a considerable gap between where we are and where we need to be in terms of tenant protection, particularly regarding health and safety.
One of the city’s policy proposals that would improve communication and offer relocation assistance for tenants displaced by renovations is certainly a step in the right direction, but changes like these are baby steps relative to the leaps and bounds needed to protect SLO residents. The reality is that tenants face dangerous living conditions daily with little recourse or landlord accountability. This is why the SLO Tenants Union is calling for the city to go further by adopting a mandatory rental registry, stronger health and safety protections, and rent stabilization measures.
Overall, the city has already laid a strong foundation, and now is the time to build on it. I urge the City Council to take these proposals seriously and work toward policies that ensure every resident—regardless of their income, background, or housing situation—can enjoy safe, secure, and affordable housing. Thank you to the council and city staff for your ongoing commitment to improving our community. Let’s keep moving forward. Δ
Tyler Coari lives in SLO and co-founded the SLO Tenants Union. Write a response for publication by sending it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Oct 10-20, 2024.
There is a shortage of rental housing here, and a lot of hand wringing over the reluctance of developers to build more. Articles like this, and Prop. 33, demonstrate why that is. It is already hard enough to get rid of deadbeat tenants as it is, taking months, and costing a landlord thousands of dollars. Restrictions on reporting evictions make it hard to know who the deadbeats are, and security deposit restrictions make it harder for a landlord to protect themself. Throw in a cap on how much rent they can charge, with the amount allowed likely to be set by political calculation, and not the market place, well, what could be better? What person with a lot of money available to invest, ever said to themself “Gee, l think I’ll invest in rental properties. I like the idea of being treated as a civic asset who is obligated to provide housing, and who is eager to lose my money supporting deadbeat tenants who have no reservations about exploiting my situation. Why would I want to invest in something as relatively pain free as the stock market” ?
Billy Joel is 75.
@johndonegan – What exactly is your objection to a registry as proposed in this article? This would provide transparency about poor landlord practices, of which there are many. Landlord abuses have been widely documented in SLO county for years (not making repairs, excessive security deposit requirements, etc.). A registry seems like common sense to me.
Dismissing those who struggle to afford rent in one of the most expensive counties in the country as “deadbeats” demonstrates no awareness of the housing burden that most residents face trying to survive here. For example, the area struggles to attract physicians and other medical personnel, and Cal Poly often has candidates turn down faculty positions because of the high cost of housing. Are doctors and college faculty “deadbeats” for struggling to afford their rent, let alone own a home? The entire middle-class is rent-burdened here.
@VMM: Who was objecting to anything, or calling all tenants deadbeats? Most tenants are fine, and do what they have agreed to do, but there are some who are deadbeats and who have no problem cheating a landlord. And usually it is not because they lack the money, but because they are pathological thieves who go through life ripping off others. That is why the laws limiting the ability of credit reporting agencies to list evictions is destructive. Of course it stigmatizes those who are evicted. The tenant who won’t pay the agreed rent, and forces a landlord to go through the eviction process, deserves to be stigmatized. It protects others from unknowingly doing business with them.
My point was to just explain why people with money are reluctant to invest in rental housing. The more difficult you make it for landlords to operate, the fewer people will be willing to invest their money and go into the rental business. There are easier and less risky ways to invest your money. This writer seems to think that landlords have an obligation to provide everyone with “affordable housing”, but few prospective landlords see themselves as involuntary public servants tasked with housing others at a price they feel like paying. Why voluntarily subject yourself to the aggravation?
When you complain that few can afford rents, you ignore the fact that the people currently occupying rental properties obviously can. The issue is that there are fewer rentals available than there are tenants who want to rent them. And beating up on landlords and making things more difficult for them assures that more rentals are unlikely to ever be built.
@johndonegan – Great! Glad you’re in favor of a rental registry for deadbeat landlords to be held accountable for violating renter protections. I hope you’ll dedicate a future column to advancing that argument.
You seem imply that the problem with a lack of affordable housing in the area can be attributed to “pathological thieves” who rip off landlords even though they have the money for rent, a claim for which you provide zero evidence (because there is none – if this is true, give me some credible evidence beyond anecdote and conjecture). I’ve never thought of getting evicted as a money-making scheme for the person getting evicted. You’ll have to explain that one to me.
You also suggest that housing is affordable in the area because some people can afford it. This is a ludicrous metric to use in assessing housing affordability and completely ignores the concept of “rent burden,” which was the entire crux of my comment. If someone is spending 60 percent of their paycheck on rent, they may be able to cover the rent and utilities, but absolutely nobody can make the claim that this housing is affordable.
There is lots of evidence that “just cause” eviction ordinances help renters stay in their homes (presumably helping landlords with the hassle of eviction proceedings), in addition to providing more stable housing for the entire community (see Julieta Cuellar’s research on this topic). When paired with relaxed zoning and land use regulations, limitations on short-term rentals, expedited environmental review processes, and alternative housing models (tenant-owned units, community land trusts, social housing, etc), these ordinances can be one part of a broader suite of policies to lower housing costs.
Castigating and stigmatizing the evicted will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem–it misidentifies the roots of the problem, papers over the social factors that lead to eviction, and lets landlords escape accountability for their negligence.