Last month, my column “Questions Not Asked” focused on governing decisions made in which several relevant questions were not asked regarding the issue of amending Concord’s Rent Control ordinance. The answers to the missing questions may exist in reality, but unless the Council can present to the public supporting data, then the Council has not performed responsibly. That is not the way to hold office.
Equally disturbing, answers given by City Council or Staff reports used to drive decisions should be challenged but often are not. I am using Concord as a focus, but the techniques of manipulation or misdirection can be found throughout politics everywhere.
Political Posturing-Big Spin (P.P.-B.S.)
Concord Councilmember Benavente says that the reason he proposed a rent cap of 7% is because it is halfway between the city’s current 3% and the State’s 10%. No data was given (nor is it mathematically accurate—halfway would be 6.5%) to support the need for this increase.
And when Mayor Obringer powers down in response and says, “I will only accept 5%” and explains that is what the landlords would accept, both are perfect examples of answers that should be called out as not being data driven and clearly one-sided.
Is this what the tenants want? What is justified by data analysis? If there were data, the question that should be asked is, “Under what data analysis would a REDUCTION in the rent cap be justified?”
Playing Loose With Numbers Or Percentages
When a councilmember says that garbage rates are going up 9% and attempts to tie that as support for an increase in rent control caps, that equivalency should be challenged. This amounts to an increase of only $3.00 per month or so, while a single-family home that is rented out at $3500 per month at a 7% increase in rent would be $245 more each month.
When quoting expenses to justify revenue increases of hundreds of dollars a month, a $5,000 one-time charge for a fee to exceed the rental cap comes out to only 83 cents a month per apartment for a corporation having 500 units, or $8.33 for a company that has 50 units.
Challenge Fear Of Threats
In the rezoning fight to increase affordable housing and density by adding 1000 apartments in a particular zone as mandated by the state, the staff says we cannot rezone parts of the College District and various parking lots because they are afraid that the state will not accept it and the College District does not want it.
What we should do here is find a 1000 units space elsewhere and then rezone the College District and parking lots anyway. Then in addition, make it so that we can pressure the District to change its position. After all, there are three elections in the eight-year time limit mandated. We can elect a more favorable board and even state legislators to get what we want.
Likewise, when the state demands higher density affordable housing, we should challenge this.
For example, 20 acres of affordable housing would require 6-story buildings to get 1000 apartments. That would generate a massive impact on the neighborhoods. But if we designated 40 acres, we could meet the mandate with 3- and 2- story townhomes. We should define the narrative battle—that we prioritize families fitting in with a neighborhood over 6-story buildings. That is a fight we can win in the public and the courts.
We do not have to roll over and play dumb when the answers by politicians need to be challenged.
–Edi Birsan: Opinions are that of Edi Birsan, not to be confused with the Referee Association of the Major Baseball League or instant replay advocates. EdiBirsan@gmail.com