The adjustment directly affects how rents may be set for covered units and gives tenants and property owners a city process for addressing certain disputes. It is a housing-cost change for Oakland, but it does not mean every renter in the city is limited to a 2.3% increase.

Who the 2.3% figure applies to

The City of Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program says the allowable increase applies only to units covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance. Coverage varies by unit type, and some units are exempt under the ordinance.

That distinction is important for renters comparing a proposed increase with the city’s annual figure. The program page does not describe 2.3% as an average change in Oakland rents, nor does it establish a limit for every rental home in the city.

For tenants in covered units, the figure provides a reference point for the annual rent adjustment that can be imposed under the program’s rules. The effective date is August 1, 2026.

Disputes can go through the city program

The Rent Adjustment Program allows tenants to petition over certain rent increases or reductions in housing services. That gives renters a formal way to challenge issues that may not be resolved through a direct conversation with a property owner.

Property owners also must petition for certain increases. The city identifies capital-improvement claims and claims based on increased housing-service costs among the matters that require a petition.

The program provides counseling and mediation, as well as hearings and appeals. Those steps mean the 2.3% figure is part of a broader city process rather than the only way a rent dispute can be handled.

What Oakland renters and owners should check

Tenants should first determine whether their unit is covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance before assuming the 2.3% figure applies. Property owners likewise need to account for ordinance coverage and the program’s petition requirements when seeking increases that fall outside the standard adjustment.

The official program information does not state the prior year’s allowable increase or the number of rental units covered. It also does not provide a unit-by-unit list of exemptions in the information summarized here. Those details can affect how an individual rent notice should be evaluated.

The change arrives as Oakland continues reviewing broader housing policy. A separate city update says the Phase 2 General Plan update remained under review in summer 2026, with a draft environmental-impact-report notice and a public-comment process. That review provides policy context, but it does not change the Rent Adjustment Program’s stated 2.3% figure or its August 1 effective date.

For now, the practical next step for a tenant or property owner with a question is to use the city’s Rent Adjustment Program resources, including counseling, mediation, petitions, hearings and appeals where applicable.

At a July 27, 2026, City Council budget hearing, HEDC officials reviewed a proposed 2026 operating budget of approximately $9.21 million after reporting that the department generated about $34 million in revenue during 2025. That $34 million figure came from department officials during the hearing and local coverage; it was not independently audited in the records reviewed for this article.

The basic numbers

HEDC Director Annisia Cialone said the department’s budget covers 13 entities and nine boards, including commerce, economic development, affordable housing, housing preservation, construction code and business-support functions. The department has nine divisions and 134 employees, including related land-use and cannabis-control functions.

Cialone said about 90% of HEDC spending is personnel-related. Five positions were eliminated in 2026 and six positions were lost the previous year, representing about $800,000 in cuts, according to the hearing coverage. She also said the department’s budget was about $10 million in 2024.

The proposed city budget includes separate HEDC-related appropriations for planning, zoning, construction code, housing preservation, affordable housing, commerce and other functions. Those line items show what the city has proposed to fund, not necessarily everything HEDC officials say the department needs to meet service and enforcement demands.

Where HEDC revenue comes from

Cialone said the Construction Code Office generated about $9 million in 2025. Housing Preservation and Enforcement and Revenue generated about $10 million on a reported $1.8 million budget, including approximately $8.75 million from the hotel occupancy tax.

Other reported collections included approximately $581,000 from landlord-registration fees, $332,000 from vacant-property and foreclosure fees, and $188,000 from short-term-rental fees. HEDC’s commerce-related revenue streams include parking-lot fees, mass-transit fees, Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and the cannabis business tax. The Affordable Housing Division collected about $936,000 in 2025, according to the hearing report.

The city’s introduced 2026 budget separately anticipates $9 million in Uniform Construction Code fees. The official budget identifies those fees as dedicated revenue offset by appropriations under state budget rules. That treatment is different from unrestricted money that could be redirected freely to any city purpose.

What the proposed budget funds

The introduced budget lists $3,573,607 for Construction Code salaries and $84,000 for other expenses. Housing Preservation is listed at $1,134,545 for salaries and $132,000 for other expenses. Affordable Housing is listed at $512,225 for salaries and $207,500 for other expenses.

City Planning is listed at $1,236,503 for salaries and $53,420 for other expenses. Zoning is listed at $684,568 for salaries and $6,500 for other expenses. Commerce is listed at $458,640 for salaries and $52,000 for other expenses.

The Tenants’ Right to Counsel line shows no salary appropriation and $3,000 in other expenses in the introduced budget. These figures remain subject to final budget action, transfers and any later council amendments.

The reinvestment question

Council members asked whether revenue-generating divisions have enough staff and operating capacity to provide the services residents, tenants, developers and property owners expect.

Construction-code enforcement was a central concern. Council members raised complaints about delays and asked whether the office could conduct more proactive inspections. Cialone said the proposed budget was too tight to allow proactive inspections.

Officials also discussed state guidance involving construction-code revenue. Cialone said the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs expects the city to invest in the Construction Code Office, but described that expectation as guidance rather than an absolute dedication or restriction. She said the City Council retains budget jurisdiction. Construction Code Official Joe Severini said the fee schedule is intended to generate enough money to operate the department and has not been changed in more than 20 years.

The practical result is that HEDC revenue should not automatically be treated as money available for any unrelated city service. The eventual use of each stream depends on its legal and budget classification, the adopted budget, council action and applicable state requirements.

Housing enforcement remains unfinished

The hearing also focused on developer accountability, short-term-rental enforcement and Jersey City’s long-awaited rent-control audit.

Officials described the rent-control work as a phased effort. The planned stages include an inventory of properties, identification of documented exemptions, tenant notification and establishing base rents. Cialone said some phases may need outside assistance, while Housing Preservation officials said they were reviewing property records from the 1980s and 1990s. Phase 1 was expected soon in the hearing discussion; the audit was not presented as complete.

Officials also said summonses had been issued to landlords who did not comply with rent-control requirements. Council members questioned whether additional staffing could improve landlord-tenant and preservation enforcement. Cialone said the proposed budget did not reflect everything the department hoped or wanted to accomplish.

Why the citywide budget matters

Jersey City introduced an $886,546,594.16 municipal budget on July 15, 2026. The proposal anticipates $404,420,907.44 in revenue other than current property taxes.

The Solomon administration has described the city as having inherited a structural deficit of approximately $254.8 million, while a separate city budget announcement described the gap as roughly $255 million and cited $109 million in unpaid bills, deferred costs and other obligations. Those figures reflect the administration’s accounting and fiscal framing.

Against that backdrop, HEDC’s reported revenue is politically significant, but the department’s $34 million total does not mean the city can redirect all of it freely. Some revenue is tied to particular programs or budget classifications, while other collections may be available only through the normal budget process and council authority.

For residents, renters and homeowners, the stakes include inspection delays, housing-preservation enforcement, rent-control administration and development review. Developers, landlords, short-term-rental operators and businesses could also face changes in fees, licensing requirements or enforcement priorities if the city adds capacity or seeks additional revenue.

What to watch next

The 2026 HEDC budget remained proposed rather than finally adopted in the cited records. The next meaningful steps are the council’s final budget action, any changes to HEDC appropriations, decisions on vacant positions or fee increases, and later reporting on construction-code capacity and the rent-control audit.

Residents should look for final budget language showing which HEDC positions, inspection functions, housing-preservation services and operating needs receive funding. Those decisions will show whether Jersey City uses its revenue-producing divisions primarily to support the citywide fiscal recovery, expand enforcement and service capacity, or pursue some combination governed by final budget authority and applicable restrictions.

Sources

• Jersey City Council reviews $9.21M HEDC budget
• Resolution Introducing the Calendar Year 2026 Municipal Budget

The city’s required Elections Code 9212 study—prepared for Redwood City by Economic & Planning Systems—also lays out what the city expects the new program could cost to run, including staffing and an annual fee framework on rental property owners. If voters approve the measure, landlords and property managers would likely face new compliance steps, while renters could see stronger protections and higher relocation assistance for certain no-fault evictions.

How the measure got on the ballot

The council’s July 7 action came after the petition cleared signature-sufficiency and verification steps, and after the city requested a supplemental report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212 to examine impacts of the proposed ordinance. The City Council’s resolution calling the election also sets the ballot arguments schedule.

San Mateo County elections materials show the city measure will appear on the November 3, 2026 statewide general election ballot as a City of Redwood City initiative on rent control and eviction limits.

What voters will see on the ballot

In its ballot-question language, Redwood City frames the proposal as replacing existing City Code Chapter 42 with a new Chapter 42 that would:

• Limit rent increases on multifamily housing built before February 1, 1995.
• Expand just-cause eviction protections to most rental housing, including single-family homes, ADUs, and affordable housing.
• Create new City administration estimated to cost $5 million to $11 million annually, funded by annual rental property owner fees.
• Increase relocation assistance for no-fault evictions.

The resolution says the measure would be approved by a simple majority of voters (50% + 1).

Rent-control changes: a lower “base rate” and an annual cap

Under the city attorney’s ballot title and summary, the rent-control component would apply to covered units currently described as those built before February 1, 1995.

Instead of using only the existing state framework, the initiative would cap the base rate to the amount paid on October 29, 2025 for units occupied on that date, or to the initial rent rate for units occupied after that date. From there, the base rate could only be increased annually at a rate equal to 60% of the percentage increase in the local Consumer Price Index—but in no event could the annual increase exceed 5%.

The summary also states the City would determine the annual allowable rent increase, and that both landlords and tenants could petition the City for an increase or decrease in rent under certain circumstances.

Eviction protections: broader “just cause” coverage and longer notice

The ballot summary explains that under state law, landlords can evict only for specific “just cause” reasons and distinguishes between “at fault” and “no-fault” evictions. It then describes the initiative as imposing stricter just-cause requirements, including increased requirements for certain evictions and requiring longer notice periods.

The ballot materials also say the initiative’s eviction provisions would apply to covered units regardless of when they were built.

No-fault relocation assistance: $12,000 minimum, plus extra for older tenants

For no-fault evictions, the ballot summary says landlords would have to provide relocation assistance equal to four (4) times the monthly fair market rent or $12,000, whichever is greater. It also states tenants age 62 and older would receive an additional $6,000.

Administration, hearings, and fees: what the city expects to do

The ballot summary lays out new City duties if the measure is approved, including setting the annual allowable rent increase; conducting hearings on rent petitions; reviewing tenant safety plans; issuing regulations; and educating the community about the initiative. It also says the City would charge an annual fee on landlords to pay for the costs of administering the program.

The Elections Code 9212 study gives more detail about the staffing and fiscal assumptions behind that claim. It estimates total annual program costs could range from approximately $4 million to $10.1 million depending on staffing levels and enforcement approach (plus potential one-time startup costs). It also says peer-city experience suggests a minimum of seven full-time staff would be required to implement a basic program.

On cost recovery, the study states that fully recovering annual costs could require a per-unit fee estimated at roughly $246 to $622 per rental unit per year—far above the placeholder fee levels included in the proposed ordinance (described in the study as $84 per unit for partially covered units and $120 per unit for fully covered units). The study further notes the initiative would prohibit using the City’s General Fund to cover program costs, and says it is unclear how any shortfalls would be financed. It also estimates that if fee compliance lags modeled assumptions, the city could face an annual funding shortfall.

Deadlines for ballot arguments and what to watch next

The City’s calling resolution sets ballot-argument deadlines: ballot arguments for and against the measure are due by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, and rebuttal arguments are due by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

For residents, landlords, and property managers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: if voters approve the initiative, Redwood City would take on a new rent-control and eviction-enforcement role, and renters could see changes in rent increase limits and no-fault relocation assistance. Property owners would likely face new administrative steps and annual fees tied to program costs.

With the November 3, 2026 election ahead, readers can track official voter information through Redwood City and San Mateo County election resources, and review the ballot summary and the city’s Elections Code 9212 study to understand what is proposed and what the city expects the program would require to operate.

Sources

• KQED: “Redwood City to Vote on Rent Control in November”
• San Mateo County Elections (ACRE): Nov. 3, 2026 statewide general election measures page
• City of Redwood City: Elections Code 9212 report (prepared by Economic & Planning Systems)
• City of Redwood City: Ballot title and summary for the “Redwood City Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance”