San Diego County considers outlawing ‘junk fees’ for renters

San Diego County officials will consider cracking down on what they say are hidden and excessive fees tacked onto renters every month, including fees for pest control, trash collection and pets.

The county Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted 3-2 to begin drafting a new law that aims to protect renters from “price gouging and fee exploitation.” It’s similar to the proposal introduced by a San Diego City Council committee last week. Both proposals — from the city and county — will return to public meetings at a later date.

County Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, who introduced the proposal with Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, said surprise fees for things like key fobs, trash pickup and online payment portals are not only costly and confusing, but they can also be exploitative.

“These hidden costs make budgeting nearly impossible, create barriers that keep people from securing stable housing and erode trust between tenants and landlords,” Aguirre said.

The proposed ordinance aims to set clear rules on fees that can be applied to renters. That means:

• Capping monthly fees at 5% of the total rent.
• Banning fees for basic services that make the home livable, including pest control and trash collection.
• Eliminating monthly fees to own a pet — not including a pet security deposit.

The proposal comes in the midst of an ongoing cost-of-living crisis in San Diego. The average rent in the county has increased 52% since 2018, and over 80% of extremely low-income households pay more than half of their income on housing, according to staff reports. Nearly every month, more people fall into homelessness for the first time than those who move off the streets and into housing.

An inewsource investigation into illegal rent increases uncovered the frequency of add-on fees applied to tenants, also known as “junk fees.” 

In 2020, state lawmakers set a cap on rent increases — 5% plus inflation, or 10%, whichever is lower — and some property owners started finding creative ways to get around the cap by imposing add-on fees. This includes new fees for water, sewer, trash, or parking — even a sudden requirement to obtain renters insurance.

Dozens of residents, property owners and industry experts spoke during Tuesday’s board meeting expressing support and opposition.

Supervisor Jim Desmond, who voted no on the proposal, raised concerns about property owners’ ability to recover the cost of providing housing. 

“While I believe this item is well intentioned, I think it’ll do the opposite,” Desmond said, adding that he was once a “mom and pop landlord” who rented a couple of single-family homes.

“If this fell in my lap and I had to decipher all of this, I would just raise the rent three-hundred, four-hundred bucks and say, alright I’m going to cover whatever fees I might have later,” he added.

Supervisor Joel Anderson, who also voted no, said he’s in the process of building an accessory dwelling unit. He said if he were to rent it out, he’d have to “jack (up) the rent, because it’s my retirement, I can’t afford it.”

And rental housing providers will likely have to “invest in another state to get their passive income,” Anderson added.

“I don’t think there’s anybody on this board that thinks that rents should go up and people should be taken advantage of,” he added, “but on the same token, it’s not hard to figure out that people aren’t going to give away property for free.”