Home2023 Blder Candidate _2

Boulder Council Candidates Q & A

With housing affordability an ever-increasing challenge across Colorado, rent control has come up in discussions. This is evidenced by this year’s proposal at the state legislature. Have you researched the topic of rent control? If so, do you think that it is something that makes sense for Boulder?

TAISHYA ADAMS:

I have researched the topic of rent control. The evidence is clear on the long term negative impacts of rent control. What the evidence does not sufficiently capture is the short term needs of families. Families like the 800 per week who seek food subsidies. If you need subsidies for food, imagine the needs for rent. Our cities health and human services budget has finally reached parity with policies. You get what you pay for. I advocate for values aligned investments that are transparently monitored and measured. I agree with Colorado Rep. Javier Mabrey's comments on rent stabilization measure which are needed “to prevent unnecessary displacement, keep communities together, and make sure kids can stay in the neighborhoods where they've been going to school for years.” This is what is at stake. Boulder’s population is declining. We need families who can afford to live, work, steward, and play here. With the update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan during the next Council and historic federal investments aligned with our local Climate Tax, we will have opportunities to reimagine land-use, amplify the strategies that are working and eliminate those that are not. We also can also address the community affordability problem which includes utilities, transportation, healthcare, and transportation. This requires an ecosystem approach that aligns across governmental systems from city, to county, to state, to national. Boulder has a global footprint. Finding the tie that binds us together, healing across communities, reimagining systems, together, we thrive. "

TERRI BRNCIC:

I do not believe that rent control is an effective tool for creating affordable housing. I am from San Francisco and have had the opportunity to experience rent control first hand. Landlords and investors are rational participants in the housing market and will always optimize for profit. In the case of rent control (at least in SF), this meant that they opted to move-in, buy-out or convert to condo their properties in order to avoid the rent control requirements. This took rental housing stock off the market and, if/when they did rebuild, it was largely into higher-end rental properties with even less affordability than before. Also, rent control incentivizes landlords to turnover their leases as frequently as possible in order to maximize rent adjustments. This is achieved by neglecting property maintenance and tenant concerns and ultimately leads to less stability in the market.

In my opinion, a better solution for rental affordability is using a benefit recapture model similar to that applied to ADU variances. In exchange for a non-standard benefit that will accrue to the property owner, they agree to a rental affordability covenant that will transfer some of this benefit back to the renter. I think this model would have worked particularly well in concert with the recent occupancy limits change. In exchange for a 4th or 5th tenant, the landlord would agree to reduced rent on the incremental tenant additions. This would ensure that the majority of the benefit of increased occupancy would flow directly to the renters and result in targeted rental reductions.

CHRISTINA MARQUIS:

Housing affordability is a tremendous challenge and I support exploring ways to increase affordability for renters and owners alike. That being said, rent control has historically been less successful as a tool to increase affordability. However, I am open to evaluating new ideas to provide more stable rent for our community in partnership with landlords, renters, and others.

programs that are collaborative with landlords.

RYAN SCHUCHARD:

Yes! I have studied rent control, and more generally, I am actively examining the issue of housing affordability in Boulder. Boulder is unaffordable for most residents. That is largely because housing is scarce and expensive, which is a result of prior policy decisions that have constrained housing supply and created barriers to development that continue to persist. I do not think strict rent control is a solution to market-rate housing affordability. However, anyone renting a home should have consistency and predictability in rent increases. Sensible policies could include rent stabilization (e.g., rate of inflation plus a % each year), allowing property owners to recoup the cost of maintenance, and allow full flexibility for the property owner to change property uses.

TARA WINER:

I have not researched it as extensively as I need to. I do know that most rent control measures have had unintended consequences in other cities. However, I believe we need to look into other forms of rent stabilization. People’s wages are not keeping up with increases in rent, which is causing stress on families / workers. I hear from EFFA too many people are on the brink of being unhoused. I would like to give cities some freedom to pass policies that slow down the percentage of increase. For instance, an owner cannot increase rent more than x a year. That being said, landlords are our partners, so I would want a working group of stakeholders to discuss what solutions would be acceptable to all.

Who is responsible for tenant behavior whether good or bad? The tenant, the police, the university (if student), the landlord? How is responsibility determined? How can you ensure that any remedies are fair to all involved?

TAISHYA ADAMS:

Each member in the housing 'ecosystem' has a role and responsibility towards each other. Tenants are responsible to live by the rules outlined in the lease agreement, the police to the contract their union signs with the city, the university to the city where it is located, and the land owner who also has contractual obligations to both the city and the tenant. Responsibility is determined by what is outlined in the contractual agreements between and across stakeholders. The legal system is responsible for clarifying the roles and responsibilities when there are disagreements. Knowing the ongoing tensions between these stakeholders since the beginning of humanity, it is not surprising that these tensions exist in the City of Boulder. Unlike times before, we are the ones making decisions. I wonder how we can have better representation by these stakeholders across our decision making spectrum from the city council, city staff, boards/commissions/panels, and throughout our legal system. In addition, I would also recommend more transparency and accountability between tenants and rental property owners.

TERRI BRNCIC:

A lease is a legal contract between landlord and tenant. Therefore, I believe the tenant is primarily responsible for their own behavior. They are expected to abide by the provisions of the lease and respect the rights of their neighbors and the property. Using the City of Boulder Landlord-Tenant handbook as a resource during the lease initiation process ensures that proper expectations are set and that both parties are aware of local laws. In order to avoid ambiguity regarding responsibility determinations, it is critical that lease agreements are written in accordance with local and state regulations and that they address all key provisions. Responsibility for failures to abide by the lease terms should be determined based on legal precedents and local laws and regulations. To ensure fair remedies, it is important that landlords and tenants communicate and address issues early on to prevent them from escalating. Both parties should know the law and be informed about their rights. Landlords should seek to maintain consistent enforcement of lease provisions so that there are no questions regarding fairness or equity.

CHRISTINA MARQUIS:

In general, tenant behavior starts with the tenant. Over time, the landlord may share responsibility depending on the situation. The city is addressing this in part with a persistent nuisance ordinance. I think it’s important to evaluate how the ordinance works in practice, hearing from all those involved.

RYAN SCHUCHARD:

Assuming this is a question about who “should” be responsible, the party of responsibility varies based on the circumstance. In general, the tenant is primarily responsible to behave in a way that is compliant with city code and other statutes, to familiarize themself with relevant regulations and contract terms, and to be a good neighbor.

The landlord has a responsibility to establish contract terms that are clear, legal, and consistent with guidance provided by the city. It would also be a good practice for the landlord to provide supplemental information to the tenant concerning nuisance ordinances and the expectation for the tenant to comply. Those issues include year-round nuisances such as noise, garbage, litter, and parking issues, as well as nuisances that tend to crop up seasonally like fireworks, noxious weeds, and sidewalk snow.

The university probably has a role to play in educating students who are moving off campus about some of the unique aspects of living in Boulder, including key nuisance ordinances. This would also be a good time for the university to encourage students to consider going car-lite.

As for ensuring remedies are fair, I am not sure. I have not studied this issue closely. What I do know is this question is going to become more important for Boulder as we add residents to the population and as the city potentially steps up efforts for chronic nuisance management. I would be very open to hearing suggestions about what policies would work best.

TARA WINER:

All bear a partial responsibility. The students must be held responsible for their own behavior. The landlord can help them, perhaps by a “three times you are out” rule or other carrot/ stick measures. Students can take responsibility if the penalties are stiff enough. While laying the burden of tenant behavior on the landlord is not fair, I think there is more the landlord can do, particularly in neighborhoods adjacent to the university. The police are also responsible. Right now, because we don’t have enough officers, wait time for a noise complaint is too long. We need to hire more staff to control noise. As always, we need to make sure in any new ordinance that there are not unintended consequences.

With the passage of HB23-1255 that prohibits growth caps, thus repealing the growth cap in Boulder, how do you intend to support both staff and citizens in streamlining the building process?

TAISHYA ADAMS:

The city council voted 6-3 to allow five unrelated people to live together. This will have implications for our growth limits. I will work with the fellow city council members, affected community members, land owners, businesses, and community organizations. We will also build on the successes of current building permit improvements that are underway.

TERRI BRNCIC:

First and foremost, we need better training at the Planning Department with an emphasis on customer service and collaborative problem-solving. We need to reorient the thinking in the department to recognize that Boulder residents and businesses are their “customers” and should be approached with a solutions mindset rather than an adversarial one.

I also think the City needs to be more mindful of the impact of its frequent code changes. While it is important that Boulder be at the forefront of innovative and sustainable planning policy, these changes need to be balanced against the added cost and time burden imposed on housing development. We need to find a middle ground that will help us achieve our sustainability goals while also considering the implications on affordable and attainable housing.

For our residential and commercial real estate developers, I think we need to look at our planning and permitting processes as an opportunity to drive better outcomes in affordability. Perhaps the City could offer fast track permitting options in exchange for enhanced affordability features. Speed of redevelopment is clearly a big motivator and so the City should leverage this component to drive better outcomes all around.

CHRISTINA MARQUIS:

I think the first step is to hear from staff and citizens what are the specific improvements that are needed to streamline the building process. As someone who is particularly interested in building for affordability, I might prioritize efforts that create affordability, especially as new funding from Proposition 123 is available.

RYAN SCHUCHARD:

I am very interested in streamlining the building process as part of my priority to improve affordability in Boulder. Some things I would like to advance:

Improve the clarity of standards (whatever their stringency) for users and staff in order to create a more predictable, time-efficient process
Move the location of policy development to the process of creating comprehensive plans in order to reduce time that is currently used to relitigate substantive policy issues at multiple decision points
Allow more development by-right while reducing the scope of planning board to veto
Put developers and owners to work to solve our problems with traffic – as them what they need, rather than try to prescribe nearly everything
Monitor and continue to support the work of council on their “identify the bottleneck” initiative

TARA WINER:

Streamlining the building process has been a council priority. Happy to say, our planning department has hired more staff and is at the point of me writing this. New construction permits are now taking 9 weeks. Other permits are taking 6 weeks. We were at 15 weeks/ 9 weeks. We are doing so much better. If we could get new construction down to 6 weeks, I believe we could call it success. Getting rid of rules that are redundant/ outdated/ confusing should continue to be a priority for our planning department.

Just recently there was a bill introduced in the legislature entitled HB23-1171 Just Cause Eviction. If passed it would have prohibited the landlords ability to “Non – renew” a tenant. A non-renewal is simply the landlord not offering the tenant the ability to renew at the end of a lease term. Notice is given. This bill did not pass. We would like to hear your thoughts on the ability of a landlord to “non-renew”?

TAISHYA ADAMS:

I am empathetic to rental property owners' ability to offer a non-renewal clause. However, if the property is the same cost and/or the renter has not broken the lease, I would consider a just cause clause considering the current housing insecurities facing our communities. Renters pay the mortgage and often the taxes for property owners. It is their hard working dollars that fund our commons like transportation, housing, utilities, and health and human services. Housing affordability coupled with decades of discriminatory housing, banking, business, transportation policy at every level of government has resulted in the demographic inequities that we see in our cities and around the world. I have responsibilities on the investment my African American ancestors made to these Ute, Arapaho lands. Ancestors whose enslaved labor paid the the price for the Louisiana Purchase. I have responsibilities to the marginalized people past and present who did not benefit from discriminatory policies. Policies and custom (unwritten rules) that left poor, Indigenous, Black, and other racial minorities to live in a three block radius by the always overflowing Boulder Creek prior to the dam. I have responsibilities to customs and practices that displaced, disenfranchised, and disappointed communities who consistently contribute to the fabric of what makes Boulder, Boulder. I advocate for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all living beings. With the poly-crisis of climate, affordability, and culture, we must act intersectionality to resolve complex problems. When we have socio-economic extremes, we cannot be resilient when we need to be. Together, we thrive.

TERRI BRNCIC:

Just-Cause Evictions are a really important tool in a rent control environment to prevent landlords from churning leases to take advantage of vacancy rent adjustments. However, as a landlord here in Boulder and SF, I don’t see any justification for this type of provision in a market where rent increases are unregulated. A lease is a relationship between a landlord and tenant. Both parties are incentivized to maintain the lease arrangement - for the landlord, to maximize cash flows and for the tenant, to retain stable housing. Since landlords have latitude to raise rent upon renewal, there is very little incentive to non-renew without cause unless the landlord is seeking an alternative use for the property - in which case, they should have the full discretion to use their property as they see fit.

That said, I think it is important that there are clear provisions in the lease that provide guardrails in the event of a non-renewal. In particular, requiring the landlord to provide adequate notice and to provide transparency around the reasons for non-renewal in order to prevent discriminatory practices.

CHRISTINA MARQUIS:

Again, I would like to engage a board group of stakeholders to understand the impacts of any new legislation requiring Just Cause Eviction, including how it might benefit renters, burden landlords and increase or decrease litigation. Several amendments were made to the introduced language, and I would like to understand what is prioritized and/or changed in any new bill.

RYAN SCHUCHARD:

We need to provide a balance of protections between the renter and landlord. A renter should be able to have the security of knowing they can rent for an extended period of time, something that is especially valuable in the face of the housing crisis in Boulder. In such a policy, I would want to make sure we have flexibility for landlords, especially smaller landlords, to do what they need to do with the property.

The landlord should have sensible protections, such as being released from obligation if the tenant is guilty of an unlawful detention of real property. Landlords also need the ability to perform repairs, modifications, sell the property, and change the use of a property as needed.

TARA WINER:

I did not like this bill. Meth production and bike chop shops are some of the things landlords have to deal with and need the ability to end a lease due to sometimes bad or even criminal behavior. And likewise, some people have severe mental health issues that would affect other tenants' quality of life. They are not always ready to live alone unsupervised. Right now it takes months to evict someone who has not followed the rules. Taking away a landlord's ability to non-renew is taking away one of the few options they have for ending a lease with someone that has for instance, destroyed property, or not been a good neighbor.

The unintended consequences of that law would have been landlords taking less risks with people living on the margins. We need landlords to take those risks, as they are a big part in the solution to housing people that are unhoused.