> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Measure GG: Mostly housekeeping for rent control, with one contested eviction change
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/measure-gg-mostly-housekeeping-for-rent-control-with-one-contested-eviction-change/
- Published: 2026-10-19T22:19:24.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-19T22:19:24.000Z
- Author: Matthew Hall
- Tags: Government & Politics, Election 2026

Measure GG would make a series of administrative changes to how the Rent Control Board operates with the most controversial being **a new requirement that tenants in affordable housing prove they qualify for those reduced cost units**. 

**What it does**

- GG would let Rent Control Board commissioners serve three four-year terms instead of two, with appointed terms counting toward the limit.
- Starting in 2028, the $288-per-unit cap on annual registration fees would rise with inflation, by no more than 5% a year. The board, which now charges $240 per unit, would not have to charge the maximum. The board could also extend its 120-day deadline for deciding rent-adjustment petitions "for good cause."
- The contested section adds two grounds for evicting tenants from units that are deed restricted based on income: when a tenant no longer qualifies, or when a tenant refuses to provide proof of income after written notice. Landlords would have to serve a warning first and comply with "all applicable regulations and guidelines."
- GG also declares that the city's eviction laws are more protective than the state Tenant Protection Act, keeping local rules in force.

**The core debate**

GG's practical stakes rest almost entirely on its two deed-restriction eviction grounds, and their impact turns on longtime "grandfathered" tenants whose incomes have risen above program limits. There are thousands of such units in the city with many located in the Pico neighborhood. 

The case that GG is narrow rests on its text. It applies only to deed-restricted units, requires a written warning before any termination notice and is conditioned on the landlord following "all applicable regulations and guidelines."

The case that it puts tenants at risk rests on what the text leaves out. GG writes the eviction ground into the charter, which only voters can change, while protections for over-income tenants sit in city guidelines that officials can revise. Those guidelines now let a tenant stay until income passes 140% of the limit, then require an offer of another unit or a one-year notice.

Neither side's strongest claim is settled. A current operator's intent not to evict does not bind future owners, and existing leases protect tenants only as far as their terms and each property's deed restriction allow. How much protection grandfathered tenants keep depends on guidelines and agreements GG does not freeze.

The rent-increase argument is weaker. The fee cap cannot rise until 2028, and then by at most 5% a year. Any actual increase requires a separate board vote, and tenants pay at most half: $10 a month at today's $240 fee.

**The case for**

Supporters describe GG as a good-government measure that gives the board the stability to serve more than 27,500 controlled rental units. They say GG "does NOT make it easier for developers to evict" and only ensures deed-restricted units go to income-qualified tenants. 

**The case against**

Critics say the council inserted language "to make it easier for DEVELOPERS to evict tenants from affordable housing." Opponents also argue that because landlords may pass half the registration fee on to tenants, a yes vote means higher rents. At the current fee, that pass-through is $10 a month, and any increase would still require a separate board decision.