The Rent Board voted to ask the City Council to place a measure on the November ballot eliminating the golden duplex exemption, among other actions. The council will take up the matter tonight. Photo: Pete Rosos

For the last two years, the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board has worked to eliminate a carve-out to the citys rent control laws the so-called golden duplex rule.

When Berkeley voters adopted rent control in 1980, they decided that people who owned a duplex, lived there by Dec. 31, 1979, and rented out the other apartment should not be subject to rent control. The thinking was that was an intimate relationship that shouldnt be regulated by a government institution.

But in ensuing years, that philosophy has come under attack. Tenant activists say that all tenants should be protected by rent and eviction controls and that the intimate relationship between a golden duplex owner and their tenants is ripe for exploitation. The owner can raise their tenants rent as high as they want and as often as they want. The owner can kick someone out of their unit whenever they want and for whatever reason they want. For that reason, many Rent Board commissioners, and groups like the Berkeley Tenants Union, want to eliminate the rent and eviction control exemptions for golden duplexes.

On May 29, in a 7-2 vote, the Rent Board voted to ask the City Council to place a measure on the November ballot eliminating the golden duplex exemption, among other actions. The council will take up the matter tonight.

No one is certain how many golden duplexes there are in Berkeley, but estimates range from 400 to 1,000. Since they are exempt from rent regulations, owners do not have to register them with the Rent Board. There are about 27,550 rental units in Berkeley, according to the Rent Board. About 19,667, or 71% of them, are covered by rent and eviction controls

The golden duplex vote has prompted lobbying and action from organizations representing both renters and property owners.

The Berkeley Tenants Union, an organization dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of Berkeley renters, encouraged its members this week to write to the City Council and urge them to place the golden duplex law on the November ballot. Two leaders of the BTU also serve as Rent Board commissioners and voted to ask the council to put the item on the ballot Paola Laverde, the Rent Board president, and John Selawsky. The BTU is providing talking points for members to say at tonights council meeting or in an email.

Dont be fooled by landlords, who are falsely claiming that they need their businesses to be exempt from reasonable regulations, the BTU wrote on Facebook. Just a cursory investigation shows that they are lying about supposed reasons to continue exempting golden duplexes and ADUs.

Being a landlord is a FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS, and a very lucrative one, the BTU post continued. Like every other for-profit industry, it must be regulated at EVERY SCALE in order to protect consumers in this case tenants from exploitative practices.

The Berkeley Property Owners Association, which represents landlords in Berkeley, many of them small property owners, is also advocating for its members to get involved with the vote. In addition, the BPOA filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission against Leah Simon-Weisberg, a Rent Board commissioner. The complaint states that Simon-Weisberg should have recused herself from voting to ask the City Council to place the golden duplex measure on the ballot because she lives in a golden duplex, according to the complaint. Therefore, she stands to benefit financially if that unit becomes rent-controlled, the complaint contends.

Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board Commissioner Leah Simon Weisberg violated [the law] section 87100 when she made a governmental decision which had a reasonably foreseeable material effect on one of her personal financial interests, reads part of the FPPC complaint.

Matt Brown, the acting executive director of the Rent Board, told Berkeleyside that Simon-Weisberg did not have a conflict.

Commissioners are free to participate in discussions and vote upon proposals that may have direct consequences for their personal housing situation or the financial performance of their rental property, so long as the proposal does not treat the Commissioners any differently from anyone else who owns or lives in the same type of property, he said in an email.

(The BPAO also sent a letter to the Berkeley city attorney which incorrectly argued that Simon-Weisberg cast the deciding fifth vote to send the matter to the council. Since she should not have voted, that matter would not have advanced, the letter argued. The BPOA later acknowledged it had counted the votes incorrectly).

The Berkeley Property Owners Association also wants Mayor Jesse Arregun to recuse himself from voting tonight because it believes he lives in a golden duplex in North Berkeley, said Krista Gulbransen, the organizations executive director. She sent what the BPOA considers evidence of this situation to the Berkeley City attorney late Monday night. She said she believes City Council member Ben Bartlett also lives in a golden duplex and should not vote.

In light of this evidence, and due to the fact that the Council will be considering whether to remove the rent control exemption from these properties, we assert the that Mayor stands to gain a financial benefit and should recuse himself from Item #41 ahead of tomorrow nights meeting, just as Councilmember Bartlett has been advised to do, Gulbransen wrote.

Mayor Arregun and Councilmember Bartlett will recuse themselves from voting

Arregun said he has contacted the Fair Political Practices Commission to determine whether it would be a conflict for him to vote on the golden duplex issue since he lives in a golden duplex. He said he was not aware there might be an issue until last night when the BPOA sent a letter to the city.

Out of an abundance of caution, he will not participate in the discussion of the issue, he said.

I resent suggestions I have acted improperly, he said. This last-minute attempt of the Berkeley Property Owners Association to silence me and the people I represent is undemocratic.

Arregun said he will join in on the discussion on the other items the rent board wants put on the ballot.

Bartlett told Berkeleyside that he lives in a golden duplex and is negotiating to buy a property with an ADU so he will not vote on those issues coming up tonight. Bartlett said he consulted with the city attorney about this a few weeks ago and had alerted his constituents to the matter.

Arregun has introduced a compromise measure around golden duplexes. The proposed ballot language suggested by the Rent Board would immediately eliminate the exemptions. Arreguns measure, in contrast, would only eliminate the measure after current owners sell their property. (Arregun said he will no longer introduce this measure).

As long as you owned and lived in your golden duplex as of March 1, 2020 and continuously reside there, you keep the exemption, Arregun said in an email. If you sell it, then you lose the exemption. It is intended to be a compromise to keep existing golden duplex owners rights, recognizing they bought the property with a certain understanding of their legal rights and the landlord-tenant relationship, but once it is sold, it is no longer exempt. This would have the effect of gradually phasing in these properties into full rent control.

The Rent Board also asked the City Council to add other items to the November ballot, including one that would put newly constructed accessory dwelling units, ADUs, under rent control. They are:

Update: 3:45 p.m. This article has been updated twice to add Arregun and Bartletts viewpoints.

Read more:

Should owner-occupied duplexes in Berkeley be subject to rent control? - Berkeleyside