Questions from a Fairfaxian on ‘extra’ rent control law; and response from Mayor Coler

This is a letter from a Fairfax resident seeking clarification on the start of rent stabilization in Fairfax. Her letter is followed by a response from Fairfax Mayor Barbara Coler.

Mayor Coler:

There seems to be much chaos surrounding the Fairfax Town Council’s vote to partially implement the controversial rent stabilization Ordinances at the 2/29/24 Special Meeting. The information provided by Jeff Beiswenger appears confusing and incomplete. Do you even know what you voted on?

I would like clarification on the following:

1. Does the $1000 petition fee deposit required for a hearing with a hearing examiner provided by the Town of Fairfax apply only to housing providers requesting rental increases beyond the legal limit?
2. Can a tenant request a hearing with a hearing examiner to reduce a rental increase that is within the legal limit?
3. Can a tenant request an additional hearing with a hearing examiner after an examiner has determined a rent increase from a previous case?
4. Can a tenant request a hearing with the hearing examiner that applies to other issues the tenant may be having with their lease or their housing provider?
5. Does the hearing examiner hear cases applying to evictions or other lease concerns? If not, how are these cases handled?
6. What guard rails are in place to limit the number of times a tenant may request a hearing relating to the property they are renting?
7. What guard rails are in place to limit aggressive tenants from filing multiple false petitions, costing housing providers $1000 each time?
8. Can a housing provider refuse to pay the $1000 hearing fee for a hearing requested by the tenant and refuse to participate in this hearing without consequence?
9. Are you aware that the $1000 hearing fee would probably be higher than the amount of the total rent increase applied for by the housing provider? In what universe is this fair?
10. What rights do housing providers have? How are housing providers able to recoup their costs involved in the hearings?
11. Why is the tenant not responsible for paying the $1000 deposit if they are the party requesting a hearing?

The people of Fairfax are intelligent. We are wise to the Delphi technique employed to achieve consensus and direct the outcome of the proposed “Options”. True to Delphi manipulation techniques, it was clear the most important option was intentionally left out. This was the option to not implement the Ordinances and by doing so, honor the public initiative which placed them on the November 2024 ballot. Your charade of giving the appearance that you listened to and followed the community recommendation, is false. We are not fooled by your omissions. The packed room who spoke in opposition to these Ordinances, was ignored.

So once again, the Fairfax Town Council has voted on actions which divide the town, favoring a consensus which promotes your personal ideologies within your small group of five members, in opposition to the expressed desires of the town to place the decision on the ballot. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in presenting these half-baked ideas as “solutions” has added greatly to the confusion and chaos surrounding the Ordinances.

I look forward to your response on these important questions. Any delay in answering them will cause further confusion and chaos within the town.

Thank you, 

Teliha Draheim

Barbara Coler’s response:

Dear Ms. Draheim, 

To answer your question, yes I know what I voted for.  Your disparagement and questioning of my integrity are not welcome. 

If a Landlord/Housing Provider wants to raise the rent cap above the Annual General Adjustment (AGA), then they (or the tenant if the Housing Provider does so unilaterally) can request the hearing with the Hearing Examiner.  The Hearing Examiner reviews the justification provided by the Housing Provider to support the increase above the AGA and may decide 1) it is supported, 2) it is not supported, or 3) a different increase above the AGA is warranted.   This decision is final unless appealed. 

If the Housing Provider or the tenant disagree with the Hearing Examiner decision, then they may appeal the decision to the Town Council, who will have an appeal hearing and render a decision.  The decision of the Town Council is final.  There is an option of taking it further to civil court if one party or the other disagrees. 

There is no ability beyond this process to re-request a new hearing on the same increase above the AGA.  

The AGA is the “legal limit” as you say and a tenant may not request a hearing to go lower on a rent increase than the AGA. 

Without the ordinance and resolution discussed at the last meeting, Housing Providers who seek to raise the rent above the AGA, would have to pursue civil action in court, hiring attorneys etc.  You may pursue that option if you prefer it to the Hearing Examiner process to raise the rent above the AGA. 

I have listened to all and met with many on this matter.  I attempted to change the course of the original ordinances (in my view to a more reasonable approach).  I was unsuccessful.  I also sought to have the ballot initiative placed on the ballot in November 2023, again I was outvoted 4-1 and the rest of the Council voted to place it on the ballot in Nov 2024. 

It is several months until Nov 2024, meanwhile Lanai Apts sought unilaterally to charge a 10% increase to all.  Had the Hearing Examiner option been available, possibly Ms. Canin-Black would have used that approach (she told me she may have when I reached out to her). Others may want to go above the AGA in these ensuing months.  The “warm line” with our staff to answer questions I feel would also be helpful, 

Thank you, Barbara (you may check the website for FAQs and review the ordinances for other questions you have).  

Barbara Coler, Mayor

Town of Fairfax