Redwood City's Measure E would cap rents on older apartments

On Buckeye Street, a few blocks off Woodside Road, the apartment buildings are two stories of stucco with a shingle roof, a mailbox by the door and a picket fence out front. Nobody would call them luxury. Under Measure E, apartment buildings like these, if built before 1995, would get Redwood City's first rent control.

Ballots went out this week for the November 3 election, and Measure E asks Redwood City voters to cap yearly rent increases in apartments built before February 1, 1995 at 60 percent of inflation, with a hard ceiling of 5 percent. At today's inflation that works out to a raise of roughly 1 to 2 percent a year. State law now allows 5 percent plus inflation, up to 10.

Renters run about half the city. Census figures put owner-occupied homes at 48.6 percent of Redwood City's 29,951 households, which leaves roughly 51 percent renting. The cheapest place to buy instead is Staumbaugh-Heller, where Houseberry data puts the typical home at about $1.01 million in early October 2026. The citywide typical home is about $2.14 million.

What Measure E changes

The measure is a citizen initiative led by Faith in Action Bay Area, which turned in 4,751 valid signatures against roughly 4,500 needed. It repeals the tenant ordinance the City Council passed in October 2025 and replaces it with a new one. The City Attorney's impartial analysis lays out the main pieces. Here is how they stack up against what applies today.

The current city rules come from the ordinance that took effect in January, as Redwood City Pulse reported. The measure also lets landlords and tenants petition for higher or lower rents, regulates buyout offers, requires safety plans before renovations and allows triple damages for violations.

One thing it cannot change is vacancy. The state's Costa-Hawkins law lets a landlord reset to market rent when a tenant moves out. So the cap protects the people who stay put, and the longer they stay, the bigger the gap between their rent and the market.

What the cap means on a real rent

Zumper's median one-bedroom in Redwood City was $3,010 as of October 4, up 8 percent in a year. Say inflation runs 3 percent. State law would let a landlord raise that rent by 8 percent, or about $241 a month. Measure E would allow 1.8 percent, about $54 a month.

That $187-a-month difference is the whole case for the measure, in one number. Supporters point to rents in older buildings that rose 57 percent over 15 years, a figure they cited to KQED. Councilmember Chris Sturken, who abstained when the council voted to oppose the measure and is campaigning for it, put it this way to NBC Bay Area: "Folks in the service sector in Redwood City depend on this measure."

Who pays, and how much

Here the numbers get uncomfortable. The measure sets a landlord fee of $84 to $120 per unit per year, which landlords cannot pass on to tenants. The city's consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, estimated in July that the program would cost $5 million to $11.1 million a year with up to 18 staff. That fee would cover 13 to 32 percent of it. Covering the full cost would take a fee closer to $246 to $622 a unit, Redwood City Pulse reported, and the California Apartment Association has put the high-end figure near $756.

The council voted 6-0 with Sturken abstaining on July 27 to formally oppose Measure E. Mayor Elmer Martínez Saballos signed the ballot argument against it and told ABC7 the measure, "although well-intentioned," is "poorly written policy." The opposition committee is run by the California Apartment Association, which said in its August coalition announcement that the Chamber San Mateo County, the realtors' association and the city's police and firefighter associations had joined it.

The research is the real counter-case. A Stanford study of San Francisco's rent control, published in the American Economic Review in 2019, found that covered tenants were more likely to stay in the city, and that landlords cut the supply of rental housing in covered buildings by 15 percent, mostly by converting to condos or rebuilding. Both findings are probably true in Redwood City too.

We think the eviction and relocation half of Measure E would do the most good for the least cost, and the funding half is the weakest part of it. Writing a fee into an initiative that covers a third of the program at best leaves the city to cover the rest or to come back and raise the fee. That is a design problem, and voters should weigh it alongside the $187 a month.

For renters who would rather buy, the price spread is wide. Houseberry's typical price runs from about $1.01 million in Staumbaugh-Heller and $1.29 million in Redwood Village to $3.59 million in Clifford Heights, a 3.6 times gap inside one city. Palm Park, at about $1.46 million, is one of the few Redwood City neighborhoods where prices fell over the past year, down 3.2 percent.

How this has gone nearby

Rent control has mostly lost at the ballot box in San Mateo County. San Mateo's Measure Q drew about 39 percent yes in 2016 and Burlingame's Measure R about 33 percent, per CAA's tally. Pacifica rejected Measure C in 2017 with 62 percent voting no. About 60 percent of Redwood City voters rejected the statewide Proposition 33 in 2024. East Palo Alto has had rent stabilization since the 1980s.

The registration deadline is October 19, and ballots must be postmarked by November 3. Whatever happens, rent rules are one more thing that shapes what a Redwood City block feels like, so compare the city's 15 neighborhoods on Houseberry's Redwood City ranking before you sign a lease or make an offer.

Sources

• City Attorney's impartial analysis of Measure E
• San Mateo County Elections, November 3, 2026 measures
• Redwood City Pulse, council formally opposes Measure E
• KQED, Redwood City to vote on rent control
• Diamond, McQuade and Qian, American Economic Review, 2019