Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Algorithmic Rent Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ordinance to ban algorithmic rent-setting tools, expands private enforcement
Summary
The committee recommended advancing an ordinance to prohibit the sale or use of algorithmic revenue-management software for setting rents or occupancy in San Francisco, adopted narrow definitional amendments, and directed staff to prepare a duplicate file that would expand the private right of action to tenant-protection nonprofits.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee on July 29 recommended advancing an ordinance that would prohibit the sale or use of algorithmic devices to set rents or manage occupancy levels for residential units in San Francisco.
President Aaron Peskin, sponsor of the ordinance, framed the proposal as a local response to investigations and litigation alleging that large revenue-management vendors (named in the hearing as RealPage and Yardi) have facilitated coordinated pricing behavior that increases rents. Peskin said his office offered RealPage an opportunity to testify; the company declined and instead submitted a letter that was included in the file.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, presented the research behind the proposed ban, describing automated rent-setting as a hub-and-spoke model in which nonpublic competitor leasing data is pooled and returned as rent and occupancy recommendations. Hepner cited studies and litigation in several jurisdictions, argued these platforms can raise rents, restrict supply and increase evictions, and urged local action while federal and state investigations continue.
Public commenters including Lena Maybaum of the Housing Rights Committee, Lucas Wiley (organizer), and Mitchell Omberg of the Affordable Housing Alliance and San Francisco Anti-Displacement Coalition supported the ordinance, describing tenant experiences of rent increases and displacement.
The committee adopted the sponsor's narrow definitional amendments, voted to duplicate the file, and approved a substantive amendment on the duplicate to expand the private right of action so nonprofit organizations with a primary mission of protecting tenant rights can bring civil actions to enforce the ban. Votes on the motions were recorded as three ayes (Preston, Peskin, Melgar).
The committee forwarded the amended item to the full Board of Supervisors for further consideration; the duplicate file with the proposed expansion of enforcement will be taken up according to the chair's call.
