Danny Sauter, a leading candidate in District 3, lost the endorsement this week of the California Democratic Renters Council after it became clear that Sauter does not support Prop. 33. The Council is a statewide chartered organization of the California Democratic Party.
If approved on Nov. 5, Prop 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 and remove limits on cities and counties to impose rent control. The Renters Council supports the measure, and it is a critical issue in determining the group’s endorsement of candidates.
When asked about his position on repealing Costa-Hawkins in a questionnaire in July from the California Democratic Renters Council, Sauter said he supported repealing Costa-Hawkins along with the production of new housing. When asked specifically about the proposed legislation that became Prop 33, he said he supported the measure.
But earlier this month, in response to a Mission Local question about Prop. 33, Sauter wrote, explicitly, “I do not support Prop. 33,” which repeals Costa-Hawkins but does not include elements to speed up housing construction.
“Unfortunately, Prop. 33 does nothing to make it easier to build new affordable homes, and most economists agree it would, in fact, freeze new construction across California,” he added.
Sauter’s answer was then reported by a Mission Local reader to the California Democratic Renters Council, which decided to withdraw its endorsement of Sauter earlier this week.
Arturo Rodriguez, central vice chair of the Renters Council, confirmed that it has unendorsed Sauter; its leaders assumed he supported Prop. 33. “The California Democratic Renters Councils prides itself in being the watchdog for tenant renters and housing affordability policy and stakeholders, and our job is to hold those elected accountable,” Rodriguez said.
“I don’t believe there was any effort by Mr. Sauter to mislead us,” added Igor Trugub, the group’s vice chair and also a Berkeley city councilmember.
When reached out for comments, Sauter also maintained that he’s been consistent with his stance on Prop. 33. “I’m worried now that they’re misunderstanding this, because the whole setup is confusing,” said Sauter, adding that he’s also a renter. “My position has been clear. I want to expand rent control, if it’s done in a package that includes making it easier to build new homes.”
Sauter is far from the only candidate who supports rent control but opposes Prop. 33. In District 3, where more than two-thirds of housing is occupied by renters, candidates Matthew Susk and Eduard Navarro both say they support rent control, but oppose the statewide expansion of it under Prop. 33.
Local tenants groups mostly endorse Sauter’s competitors Sharon Lai or Moe Jamil. The California Democratic Renters Council turned out to be Sauter’s only endorsement from a tenants group, and has been selected as one of the several endorsements to be listed on his mailers and digital ads.
This stance is “completely ridiculous,” said Shanti Singh of Tenants Together. “It’s an absurd thing where you’re trying to appease the real estate industry, who hates rent control in any form … if you’re running for office, you don’t want to piss off those people, but you also don’t want to piss off the actual voters who like rent control.”
Never forget: the last time Marjan Philhour ran (and lost) for the supervisor race (its her THIRD run) she and her campaign team invented (aka completely lied about) a fake and non existent tenant group that supposedly “supported” her for the race.
The Chronicle has always been suspect but endorsing Mahmood and Philhour is just irresponsible.
Marjan Philhour should be included with those ostensibly supporting rent control while opposing prop 33.
It is not unreasonable to support some parts of rent control but not other parts.
So 33 passing might allow vacancy control, or the application of rent control to single family homes. Both might strike some voters as going too far even if they like rent control in general. And in fact SF voters rejected vacancy control back in the 1990s.
Philhour writes: “…we need a long term strategy to ensure housing affordability for future generations.”
The YIMBY credo. A lie that ensures we’ll all be dead by the time it becomes obvious.
Heaven forbid meaningful rent control for single family homes. My sister’s rent went up $275 as her charter school salary was cut. Neoliberalism at its finest.
But again, supporting rent control does not imply that rent control should be as extreme and invasive as possible. It could instead be fair and reasonable without it motivating landlords to instead ellis, do short term lets or otherwise refuse to do long-term lets.
Maybe your sister would be happier not living in one of the most expensive cities on the planet? Just a thought.
You can only punish landlords so much before they stop playing ball.
Not a very impressive thought as she doesn’t live in SF.
leave it to a yimby to rail against rent control.
Campers,
Watch the D-1 League of Women Voters Forum 2024 on SFGTV.
Amazing how powerful Chan is but you judge for yourself cause it’s good.
League always does the best work …
‘Looks like Sauter has read the tea leaves. However, his flip flopping strikes me as disingenuous.
Danny’s endorsement from Scott Wiener disqualifies him.
Frankly, I am surprised that the California Democratic Renters Council supports Prop 33. It’s a real mess of a proposition. Sauter probably endorsed the concept, then read the fine print and rejected it.