Real Estate

These Californians live in affordable housing: Why did their rent skyrocket?

Advocates push for new Bay Area tenant protections

Organizers stand outside of Redwood City Hall last June to advocate for better tenant protections. Photo by Avery Luke.

When California lawmakers passed a rent cap four years ago to protect tenants from large and frequent rent hikes, they exempted hundreds of thousands of units reserved for some of the state's poorest renters.

Low-income housing, after all, is usually built with public subsidies that already impose rent ceilings on developers and property owners. Some are already managed or overseen by local public housing agencies.

But California also has more than 350,000 privately owned low-income housing units -- built with the help of federal tax credits -- exempted from the state's rent cap. Residents of some of those units have seen their rents soar despite being the exact demographic the law sought to protect.

The 2019 law, known as the Tenant Protection Act, prohibits landlords from increasing rents more than a certain amount -- 10% this year, though usually it's less -- and more than once a year.

It's meant to guarantee some level of stability for tenants, proponents say. Without it, low-income renters like Miguel Contreras are seeing higher increases.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The 53-year-old mechanic got a shock when he opened a letter from his landlord this spring that said rent would go up from $1,828 to $2,138 -- an increase of 17%. The two-bedroom apartment in San Jose where he lives was financed in 2006 with low-income housing tax credits and reserved for renters who must make less than the local average. There's a rent ceiling, but the apartment isn't otherwise subject to state or local caps on how fast the rent can grow.

Contreras said he's lived in that apartment for more than two decades, and most of the time got modest rent increases of about $50 a year. But the past two years, the hikes have been higher.

When the latest increase kicked in this past July, Contreras was paying 25% more than he was just 13 months earlier, according to documents he shared with CalMatters. The rent eats up more than half of what Contreras earns each month, he said. He picks up extra work on Sundays, missing church with his family.

"It's hard to live in this apartment, it's supposed to be affordable," Contreras said through a Spanish interpreter. "But it's hard to move out because when you look for another apartment in the San Jose area, it's very expensive and it seems the owner is trying to raise the rent to be the same like other apartments that are not affordable."

With the help of the Regional Tenant Organizing Network, an activist group, Contreras and residents of several other low-income housing buildings owned by the same company drove to their landlord's office in Newport Beach to protest the rent increases, among other complaints.

The company, KDF Communities, has seven apartment buildings in the San Jose area and 40 across California. They closed their offices, and declined in an email to meet with the tenants, said James Huynh, an organizing network spokesperson. Mayra Peterson, a KDF executive, declined to comment when reached by phone by CalMatters.

Rent cap concerns

Not all private-market tenants are subject to the state's rent cap.

To ease concerns that the regulations would burden small or mom-and-pop landlords, lawmakers carved out exemptions for single-family homes and apartment buildings with only two units if the landlord lives in the other. Situations in which someone rents a room in a landlord's home are also exempt.

Also exempted are deed-restricted affordable housing or housing that receives any kind of government funding to house low-income tenants.

"The thinking was, if they're already rent-restricted it might not make sense to add another layer of complexity to it," said David Chiu, the former Assembly member who authored the 2019 law and current San Francisco city attorney. "This was a heavily negotiated bill."

The exemption for tax credit-funded properties in particular has fueled a quiet but complex policy debate over whether to further regulate rents.

Factors including inflation, rising insurance costs and the fact that many tenants were unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to particularly high rent increases in low-income housing the past two years, said advocates for tenants as well as for nonprofit and for-profit low-income housing developers.

In many cases affordable housing is subject already to federal restrictions on rent by preventing tenants from being charged more than 30% of their income. But in tax credit-funded units, restrictions on rent are tied not to the tenant's individual income but to the local median income, a figure calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development each year.

In Santa Clara County, the median income is $181,300 based on a household of four, and in San Mateo County it is $175,000, according to data released by the Department of Housing in June.

In wealthy areas or times of high inflation, such as the past two years when median incomes have risen, that can create especially high rent ceilings, said Marcos Segura, a staff attorney at the California-based National Housing Law Project.

And where state or local rent caps don't apply, there are few other limits on rents in these affordable housing units, Segura said. As long as the rent stays below the federal ceiling, it can be hiked at whatever percentage and however many times a year a property owner chooses.

But advocates who tried to further regulate low-income housing this year say the solution won't be as simple as adding a rent cap.

Anti-poverty groups this year sponsored Assembly Bill 846, which would have imposed such a restriction. It ran aground early in the legislative session over concerns, raised mostly by nonprofit affordable housing developers, that a blanket cap would make it hard for them to keep their properties afloat.

Marina Wiant, vice president of government affairs for the California Housing Consortium, which represents both nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers, said property owners need to raise rents sometimes to cover operating costs and repairs.

The recent growth in median incomes, Wiant said, came after years of stagnation during which affordable housing landlords were able to raise rents little or not at all.

Many low-income housing tenants were unable to pay rent during the pandemic, putting nonprofit developers in difficult financial positions, she said.

Last year, the accounting firm Novogradac published a report that found operating costs for tax credit-funded units in California rose 26% between 2018 and 2021 while rental income only rose 11%.

Many affordable housing landlords work with tenants to try to keep rents low, raising rents on those who can afford a hike instead. Owners, she said, are worried a blanket cap will remove that flexibility.

"We are really trying to navigate, what could be something that helps residents not get hit with large rent increases at one time?" she said. "But that (also) doesn't fully challenge a property owner from being able to raise rents consistent with the regulations that already exist. And it's really hard to legislate a solution like that."

Tenant advocates want to bring the bill back next year, but said they're sympathetic to the concerns.

"We don't have an interest in affordable housing developers not being able to maintain the financial viability of their properties," said Anya Lawler, a policy advocate for one of the bill's sponsors, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Nine other states -- including New Jersey, Wisconsin, Montana and Oregon -- do cap rents on low-income housing tax credit-funded properties. Some limit increases to once per year; others cap annual increases at 5%.

Local efforts

Some activists are pushing for local restrictions instead.

In Antioch, the tenant advocacy group of Californians for Community Empowerment last fall successfully pushed for the city council to pass an ordinance that caps rental growth and includes low-income housing.

Tax credit units are also now included in local rent caps in Richmond, Fairfax and Oakland.

This month, the alliance is filing ballot measures for the November 2024 election in four other Bay Area cities -- Redwood City, Larkspur, Pittsburg and San Pablo -- and Delano in the Central Valley that would impose local rent caps on tax credit units, legal and policy director Leah Simon-Weisberg told CalMatters.

Drafts of the measures show the organization is aiming to curb rent increases at between 3% (like the Antioch cap) and 5%. Simon-Weisberg said she's particularly concerned about corporate landlords buying up affordable housing units, and said those owners are more likely than nonprofits to raise rents to the maximum allowed by federal restrictions each year.

The proposals are sure to be fought by landlord groups such as the California Apartment Association, who say the properties are already heavily regulated. Low-income housing landlords in California, said spokesperson Debra Carlton, have affordability restrictions for 55 years, so unlike others who are subject to the state's rent cap, landlords can't just raise rents to market rates when tenants move out of a unit.

"You are getting in the way of owners who have entered into a contract," Carlton said. "You can't change the rules on them now ... You would really create some problems for those owners who would even want to go into the business."

But to Tachina Garrett, a former post office mail handler who moved into a tax credit property in Antioch after being priced out of San Francisco, the exemption for low-income housing is a "loophole" that should be closed. Garrett, 49, fought for the local rent cap last year after her portion of the rent increased by 40%.

"How are you supposed to live in affordable housing, but it's not affordable?" she said.

This story was originally published by CalMatters.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

These Californians live in affordable housing: Why did their rent skyrocket?

Advocates push for new Bay Area tenant protections

When California lawmakers passed a rent cap four years ago to protect tenants from large and frequent rent hikes, they exempted hundreds of thousands of units reserved for some of the state's poorest renters.

Low-income housing, after all, is usually built with public subsidies that already impose rent ceilings on developers and property owners. Some are already managed or overseen by local public housing agencies.

But California also has more than 350,000 privately owned low-income housing units -- built with the help of federal tax credits -- exempted from the state's rent cap. Residents of some of those units have seen their rents soar despite being the exact demographic the law sought to protect.

The 2019 law, known as the Tenant Protection Act, prohibits landlords from increasing rents more than a certain amount -- 10% this year, though usually it's less -- and more than once a year.

It's meant to guarantee some level of stability for tenants, proponents say. Without it, low-income renters like Miguel Contreras are seeing higher increases.

The 53-year-old mechanic got a shock when he opened a letter from his landlord this spring that said rent would go up from $1,828 to $2,138 -- an increase of 17%. The two-bedroom apartment in San Jose where he lives was financed in 2006 with low-income housing tax credits and reserved for renters who must make less than the local average. There's a rent ceiling, but the apartment isn't otherwise subject to state or local caps on how fast the rent can grow.

Contreras said he's lived in that apartment for more than two decades, and most of the time got modest rent increases of about $50 a year. But the past two years, the hikes have been higher.

When the latest increase kicked in this past July, Contreras was paying 25% more than he was just 13 months earlier, according to documents he shared with CalMatters. The rent eats up more than half of what Contreras earns each month, he said. He picks up extra work on Sundays, missing church with his family.

"It's hard to live in this apartment, it's supposed to be affordable," Contreras said through a Spanish interpreter. "But it's hard to move out because when you look for another apartment in the San Jose area, it's very expensive and it seems the owner is trying to raise the rent to be the same like other apartments that are not affordable."

With the help of the Regional Tenant Organizing Network, an activist group, Contreras and residents of several other low-income housing buildings owned by the same company drove to their landlord's office in Newport Beach to protest the rent increases, among other complaints.

The company, KDF Communities, has seven apartment buildings in the San Jose area and 40 across California. They closed their offices, and declined in an email to meet with the tenants, said James Huynh, an organizing network spokesperson. Mayra Peterson, a KDF executive, declined to comment when reached by phone by CalMatters.

Rent cap concerns

Not all private-market tenants are subject to the state's rent cap.

To ease concerns that the regulations would burden small or mom-and-pop landlords, lawmakers carved out exemptions for single-family homes and apartment buildings with only two units if the landlord lives in the other. Situations in which someone rents a room in a landlord's home are also exempt.

Also exempted are deed-restricted affordable housing or housing that receives any kind of government funding to house low-income tenants.

"The thinking was, if they're already rent-restricted it might not make sense to add another layer of complexity to it," said David Chiu, the former Assembly member who authored the 2019 law and current San Francisco city attorney. "This was a heavily negotiated bill."

The exemption for tax credit-funded properties in particular has fueled a quiet but complex policy debate over whether to further regulate rents.

Factors including inflation, rising insurance costs and the fact that many tenants were unable to pay rent during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to particularly high rent increases in low-income housing the past two years, said advocates for tenants as well as for nonprofit and for-profit low-income housing developers.

In many cases affordable housing is subject already to federal restrictions on rent by preventing tenants from being charged more than 30% of their income. But in tax credit-funded units, restrictions on rent are tied not to the tenant's individual income but to the local median income, a figure calculated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development each year.

In Santa Clara County, the median income is $181,300 based on a household of four, and in San Mateo County it is $175,000, according to data released by the Department of Housing in June.

In wealthy areas or times of high inflation, such as the past two years when median incomes have risen, that can create especially high rent ceilings, said Marcos Segura, a staff attorney at the California-based National Housing Law Project.

And where state or local rent caps don't apply, there are few other limits on rents in these affordable housing units, Segura said. As long as the rent stays below the federal ceiling, it can be hiked at whatever percentage and however many times a year a property owner chooses.

But advocates who tried to further regulate low-income housing this year say the solution won't be as simple as adding a rent cap.

Anti-poverty groups this year sponsored Assembly Bill 846, which would have imposed such a restriction. It ran aground early in the legislative session over concerns, raised mostly by nonprofit affordable housing developers, that a blanket cap would make it hard for them to keep their properties afloat.

Marina Wiant, vice president of government affairs for the California Housing Consortium, which represents both nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers, said property owners need to raise rents sometimes to cover operating costs and repairs.

The recent growth in median incomes, Wiant said, came after years of stagnation during which affordable housing landlords were able to raise rents little or not at all.

Many low-income housing tenants were unable to pay rent during the pandemic, putting nonprofit developers in difficult financial positions, she said.

Last year, the accounting firm Novogradac published a report that found operating costs for tax credit-funded units in California rose 26% between 2018 and 2021 while rental income only rose 11%.

Many affordable housing landlords work with tenants to try to keep rents low, raising rents on those who can afford a hike instead. Owners, she said, are worried a blanket cap will remove that flexibility.

"We are really trying to navigate, what could be something that helps residents not get hit with large rent increases at one time?" she said. "But that (also) doesn't fully challenge a property owner from being able to raise rents consistent with the regulations that already exist. And it's really hard to legislate a solution like that."

Tenant advocates want to bring the bill back next year, but said they're sympathetic to the concerns.

"We don't have an interest in affordable housing developers not being able to maintain the financial viability of their properties," said Anya Lawler, a policy advocate for one of the bill's sponsors, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.

Nine other states -- including New Jersey, Wisconsin, Montana and Oregon -- do cap rents on low-income housing tax credit-funded properties. Some limit increases to once per year; others cap annual increases at 5%.

Local efforts

Some activists are pushing for local restrictions instead.

In Antioch, the tenant advocacy group of Californians for Community Empowerment last fall successfully pushed for the city council to pass an ordinance that caps rental growth and includes low-income housing.

Tax credit units are also now included in local rent caps in Richmond, Fairfax and Oakland.

This month, the alliance is filing ballot measures for the November 2024 election in four other Bay Area cities -- Redwood City, Larkspur, Pittsburg and San Pablo -- and Delano in the Central Valley that would impose local rent caps on tax credit units, legal and policy director Leah Simon-Weisberg told CalMatters.

Drafts of the measures show the organization is aiming to curb rent increases at between 3% (like the Antioch cap) and 5%. Simon-Weisberg said she's particularly concerned about corporate landlords buying up affordable housing units, and said those owners are more likely than nonprofits to raise rents to the maximum allowed by federal restrictions each year.

The proposals are sure to be fought by landlord groups such as the California Apartment Association, who say the properties are already heavily regulated. Low-income housing landlords in California, said spokesperson Debra Carlton, have affordability restrictions for 55 years, so unlike others who are subject to the state's rent cap, landlords can't just raise rents to market rates when tenants move out of a unit.

"You are getting in the way of owners who have entered into a contract," Carlton said. "You can't change the rules on them now ... You would really create some problems for those owners who would even want to go into the business."

But to Tachina Garrett, a former post office mail handler who moved into a tax credit property in Antioch after being priced out of San Francisco, the exemption for low-income housing is a "loophole" that should be closed. Garrett, 49, fought for the local rent cap last year after her portion of the rent increased by 40%.

"How are you supposed to live in affordable housing, but it's not affordable?" she said.

This story was originally published by CalMatters.

Comments

Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Dec 22, 2023 at 10:45 am
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Dec 22, 2023 at 10:45 am

"These Californians live in affordable housing: Why did their rent skyrocket?"

Maybe because Californians keep electing the pro-density pro-development politicians whose main purpose is to support their deep-pocketed backers who've made a mockery of the concept of truly affordable housing?


MyFeelz
Registered user
another community
on Dec 23, 2023 at 10:55 am
MyFeelz, another community
Registered user
on Dec 23, 2023 at 10:55 am

From >Web Link which may be the actual reason for rent increases. Lots of cogs and wheels churning out money for developers in the form of tax credits that they can use, or sell. Like monopoly game.

"Q: Does AB 1482 – The California Tenant Protection Act – restrict the amount that rents can be increased?A: No. Per Section 3 1947.12(d)(1) of the legislation, the Tenant Protection Act does not apply to “Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income ... or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income....”Since the LIHTC program is a federal regulatory restriction, with a recorded Regulatory Agreement, by a government agency (CTCAC) for affordable housing for households that are considered low or very low income (50%-60% AMI), the protections under AB 1482 do not apply. And here's a q&a from Novogradac that may demystify (or the opposite, depeding on your perspective: >Web Link An LIHTC rental can become just as unaffordable as FMR after time.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Dec 23, 2023 at 11:17 am
Native to the BAY, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Dec 23, 2023 at 11:17 am

@MyFeelz Mayfield Place in Palo Alto is a 100% tax credit privately owned, for very very low income renters. Its owned multi National, billion dollar corporation Related. Raise the rents on tenants every year. Strange thing. The tenants have to prove really stupid things like submitting current grocery store receipt showing the amount on their EBT card, to get re certified every year.


Native to the BAY
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 23, 2023 at 1:26 pm
Native to the BAY, Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 23, 2023 at 1:26 pm

@online name How many 100% tax credit multi family residents complex' are in Palo Alto. I only know of one: Related's Mayfield Place.


MyFeelz
Registered user
another community
on Dec 24, 2023 at 12:31 pm
MyFeelz, another community
Registered user
on Dec 24, 2023 at 12:31 pm

Hi @native, my link above that explains how a LIHTC are exempt from rent increase rule had a bad character so it hit a 404 wall, here is the right link
Web Link

Rent increases are based on AMI, and not HUD Voucher systems. The only thing true of both is there is a county-wide utility allowance that is used for Sec 8 and LIHTC buildings.

It seems unfair to only adjust the utility allowance every few years, especially with the doors wide open and the flood of increase in utilities doesn't even come close to the actual cost to the residents.

The CTCAC (who regulate california LIHTC buildings) have charts at their website that updates annually as to the income requirements and the rent allowable. But it's best to start at their main page and examine all of the categories CTCAC governs.

But just reading te Q&A on the link in this post gives a basic idea about how or why rents can increase at and LIHTC building.

Ya know I'm a threadkilla, NTTB! Most people here would rather die than participate in a thread that has a post from me. Happy holidays :)


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Dec 28, 2023 at 7:10 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Dec 28, 2023 at 7:10 pm

I think anthropologists will look back at this phase of American social history and conclude that greed destroyed our social fabric. Perhaps this is inevitable in a capitalist nation. Landlords CAN charge what the market will bear, but they don't HAVE to do that. At some point, isn't more than enough enough?

And the greed is not limited to landlords. See: Online Name's comment above. Greedy, egoistic politicians who do the bidding of certain types of developers in exchange for yes votes on legislation that bring us gems such as Builder's Remedy are a big part of the problem.

Vote carefully.


MyFeelz
Registered user
another community
on Dec 30, 2023 at 6:04 pm
MyFeelz, another community
Registered user
on Dec 30, 2023 at 6:04 pm

Well, Annette, we agree on something here. Ever since the 10% cap became law, landlords give themselves a 10% raise every year. They don't have to. LIHTC buildings operate from a whole 'nother rule book. Federal tax credits that can be sold to whoever can afford it is like money in the bank.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 4, 2024 at 11:39 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jan 4, 2024 at 11:39 am

Reading the SF Chronicle and SJ Mercury is like reading a Police Blotter. Multiple articles which report a Happening but maybe unrelated to other Happenings.

In the SF City a large number of rental units owned by one company which defaulted on loans have been bought by a Canadian Company. The major developers that are now waiting in the wings to take over are out-of-state developers and owners. Or International developers/owners - Menlo Park, etc.

All of these companies have a different tax situation which allows them to side step payments for social security, state insurance compensation that spins into OSHA, etc. All of the elements that a city has to pay for are now short changed on the ability to fund those sustainment elements. WE are being colonized by out-of-state and international companies and coming up short.

You are a taxpayer, US Citizen, homeowner and are being stripped of all of the benefits of your hard work by your own legislature who is cooking up ways that you are going to pay for all of the shortfalls. Meanwhile the out-of-state and international developers and owners are flying to the bank. Read your papers every day - look at where the action and "change" are. Property and the ownership of property is what drives many "end results" that are not discussed while the "change" is being pushed by your legislator,


Silver Linings
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2024 at 1:18 pm
Silver Linings, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jan 5, 2024 at 1:18 pm

"How are you supposed to live in affordable housing, but it's not affordable?" she said.

This is why the discussions on affordable housing need to be about affordable housing for people who need it, not cheaper housing for those who don't, which happens so much in the Bay Area. That said, Hong Kong dealt with the very same issues we deal with all throughout the 20th century. They did an experiment with helping poor people create equity--how did that work out? Would it work here?

There's a fundamental problem here in an expensive area in which someone poor has to pay even 30% of their income for affordable housing. It's nickel and diming people, for money that is far more important to them than to the system. When governments pay half a million per unit to create the housing, what's the point in keeping a poor person poor by making them pay 30% or even 50% of their income, when 20% will allow them to live with dignity and won't break the system.

Instead of creating equity for big corporations, too, why aren't these programs in the longterm geared to lifting people out of poverty and helping them into the middle class? Why the big exceptions and breaks for developments that will revert back to market rate anywhere from 25 to 55 years down the line?


MyFeelz
Registered user
another community
on Jan 5, 2024 at 8:57 pm
MyFeelz, another community
Registered user
on Jan 5, 2024 at 8:57 pm

Web Link

Web Link -- this was once a great idea

Web Link

@SilverLinings, it's greed on steroids.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.