East Palo Alto rent-control manager resigns after audit
Original post made
on Mar 19, 2014
The manager of East Palo Alto's rent-control program tendered her resignation on March 12 after telling the Rent Stabilization Board that the program had been audited.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 9:59 AM
Posted by mary brown
a resident of University South
on Mar 24, 2014 at 12:38 pm
mary brown is a registered user.
Well, here we are---with a bunch of knee-jerk, grammatically painful, and obviously biased responses. As a resident, and one who has dealt with all kinds--troublesome landlords, great landlords, poor tenants, irresponsible tenants--let me say that I am glad there are responses such as those of Mmmm, Cymande, and Aquamarine. As for poor Joey, well, it's easy to mouth-off in a biased manner and generalize. Generalize--that is the crux. In a poor community, generalities don't work, they don't work in any humane situation. It's the context that is relevant.
So, basically, if there are compassionate landlords who understand that this is a poor community, and if they assist tenants in meeting their obligations, there may be less friction. For example, as an example, instead of slapping a poor tenant with a legal notice to evict for non-payment of rent, perhaps a landlord could talk to the tenant, and a referral to a support agency could be given to tenant.
Of course, landlords have to also afford owning property, and also make a profit. That is their business and livelihood too. Repeated late or no rent payments make that difficult. Perhaps there are humane ways to encourage or buyout a non-paying tenant to leave. Again, this is humane, landlords have to consider that they chose to be/buy in a low-income community.
Finally, of all the criticism of Lamont, mainly by Joey, well, apparently Joey is biased. He has absolutely no idea of the inner workings of the rent ordinance's office. I highly doubt he knows the ordinances either. So, Joey, take our challenge, and define for us two ordinances. From what I gather, and in talking with people, Lamont is an educated, intelligent woman. I doubt if she would jeopardize her reputation by being blatantly biased against landlords. Listen to what people who know her are writing here about her, Joey. I get the sense from these postings that she has worked CONTEXTUALLY, addressing each situation with its own merits.
Several readers have commented on Joey's incoherence. I can understand him/her quite well. He is referring to situations that are specific for his situation and generalizing it to Lamont's entire work. Yes, Joey may be correct in implying that there are many redundant or difficult aspects of Lamont's job that is, of the rent ordinance in general. But it is a new project in its 2010 ordinances, and it is a work in progress. The more disturbing issue is the city manager who has apparently gotten herself into a real hot soup by her attack on Lamont. And, by extension, of then the Rent Board, and by further extension, of the Rent Board members, members who work for a coffee-money stipend. I wonder if the Rent Board considers Gonzalez' report an affront on their office. Hers was an unprofessional move--she targeted one office out of all in the city, she went over the city council's (her boss') head, she spent city money without approval. She will probably pay for it with her job. Instead, she could have approached the city council, the rent board, and Lamont with a mediator, to discuss her complaints--which are personally against Lamont and less with the job.
In fact, in fact, the city of EPA is looking much better these days--and this is obviously and apparently due to a combined effort of "good" landlords and the rent ordinance. Congratulations.