Problem #2 – Cap Increases in Perpetuity — The yearly increase in rent is well below the appreciation of the property. Effectively, a tenant could forever limit the increase of their rent by signing a lease that was in excess of 33% of their take home pay.

Problem #3 — Roommates — Allowing additional roommates without the consent of the owner just perpetuates scamming the rent control ordinances. As an owner, I should be able to propose a limit to the number of people I want in my building. The tenant is entering into a legal contract agreeing to that limit. If their circumstances change and they want roommate — the tenant should move to a unit that will take that number of roommates. The landlord should not be forced to accept additional damage that comes from additional people in the unit.

Problem #4 — Verification — If this legislation were to pass — how would it be verified? Would the landlord or city need to review the tax returns of renters for income? Is the city going to do that? We are asking for additional oversight at a time when we a running a multi-million dollar deficit.

This economic downturn is difficult on everyone. I fail to see why renters that have the least amount of risk and the greatest amount of portability should receive financial relief to the disadvantage of those who are paying their mortgage. The banks are not offering to provide relief to the landlords. If a jobloss has forced a renter into a situation beyond what they can afford — they should move to a situation commensurate with their income. The landlord should not finance the renters’ life circumstances — just as a landlord does not ask the renter to finance their financial situation.