|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A proposal in Palo Alto to pass an “emergency law” to protect tenants facing evictions before California’s new renter-protection law kicks in faltered on Monday night despite broad political support.
Instead, the council voted — for the second consecutive meeting — to delay adopting the urgency measure, which was proposed in a memo by Councilman Tom DuBois and Councilwoman Lydia Kou. The council’s vote means that even if members approve the law on Dec. 9, it would only be in effect for about three weeks.
The ordinance was proposed as a response to Assembly Bill 1482, which was signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October. The bill, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020, caps rent increases for most multifamily residences at 5% plus the rate of inflation and prohibits evictions without just cause.
But while the law aims to provide long-term protection for tenants, city leaders fear that it may be having the opposite effect in the near term. Alarmed by reports of landlords raising rents with the intent of driving out tenants before the new law kicks in, numerous cities, including Los Angeles, Redwood City and Menlo Park, have adopted ordinances designed to offer tenants protection until Jan. 1.
The memo from Kou and DuBois cites reports of landlords slapping tenants with rent increases as steep as 30%, eviction notices, and hikes in charges for parking, lock services and other amenities.
The delay on Monday was prompted by Councilman Greg Tanaka, who demanded that the city perform more outreach before adopting the urgency law.
“We owe it to the community to try to be as diligent as possible so we don’t rush into something without making a mistake unnecessarily,” Tanaka said.
With Councilwoman Liz Kniss recusing because she owns a rental property, all six council members had to sign off on the urgency law for it to take effect. That’s because urgency laws require approval by a four-fifths majority of council members present, including those recused.
The law appeared to be on its way to passing when five council members signaled their support, with various degrees of enthusiasm.
“This is to protect people who have rented for a year or more and who are evicted without cause,” DuBois said. “These are renters in good standing who are being evicted only to avoid state law. This is disruptive to our community.”
Councilwoman Alison Cormack and Vice Mayor Adrian Fine were more cautious. Cormack noted that Palo Alto residents have not been overly supportive of rent control in the past, with 57% rejecting Proposition 10, the 2018 measure that aimed to give cities more flexibility in capping rent increases. She concluded that the law will likely benefit a few residents but said she would support it.
“What we are looking at tonight is the unintended consequence of the state law and whether we should put a Band-Aid on it,” Cormack said.
Fine also supported the proposed ordinance but argued that the city should be doing far more to address the root issue: a shortage of housing. Despite the fact that the council set housing as a priority in 2018, the city has struggled to attract new developments.
“We should be doing everything to (achieve) our goal and we aren’t,” Fine said. “It’s time to get with the program.”
The law appeared to be on its way to passing before Tanaka proposed delaying the discussion by another week. DuBois rejected his proposal, leading Tanaka to vote against the ordinance. Tanaka then joined the rest of his colleagues in a separate vote to take up the subject again at the council’s next meeting on Dec. 9.
The Monday hearing marked the second time that the council considered but failed to advance the urgency ordinance despite majority support. At the Nov. 18 meeting, with Fine absent and Kniss recused, Mayor Eric Filseth erroneously believed that there weren’t enough members present for the vote — only five, when six votes would be needed.
The draft ordinance provided to the council by the City Attorney’s Office seems to state as much, noting that municipal code section 2.04.270 “authorizes the adoption of an urgency ordinance … by four-fifths of the council.” Four-fifths of a seven-member council is 5.6 members — or, rounded up, six.
However, the city’s code actually states that an urgency ordinance to preserve public peace, health and safety “may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by a vote of four-fifths of the council members present.”
With six members present on Nov. 18, the ordinance could have passed with five votes.
When Filseth at the November meeting stated his understanding was that the proposal would require approval from six council members, and no one at the meeting — including any member of the City Attorney’s Office — corrected him.
On Monday, in delaying the decision yet again, the council agreed to place the ordinance on its Dec. 9 “consent calendar,” where issues are voted on without any debate or discussion. Between now and then, city staff will be notifying community members about the proposed law.
Some residents and stakeholders addressed the council on Monday, with most encouraging council members to approve the urgency law. The only exception was Keshav Kumar, public affairs coordinator for the California Apartment Association. Kumar warned that the law could hurt “mom and pop landlords” who had launched eviction proceedings against their tenants under the old law but would now have to restart the proceedings with a just-cause requirement.
But Martin Eichner, a former mediator at Project Sentinel, a nonprofit that provides housing mediation services, argued that AB 1482 leaves some tenants vulnerable during the period before the law kicks in. He said he recently partook in a roundtable event on AB 1482, where there was a general consensus that tenants who receive eviction notice before Jan. 1 will not receive protection under the new law.
“That leaves tenants in doubt and uncertain about what rights they have now,” Eichner said. “That means they are not going to protect themselves.”
How Palo Alto to delay action on a temporary emergency measure for more “outreach” and “input.” I shudder to think what would happen should we ever face a real emergency that required leadership and prompt action.
It would be good to stop and take a deep breath before taking drastic measures. I would hope we could cap compensation increases for all Palo Alto citizens and also provide an absolute prohibition on firing or dismissal for other than good cause. These are good things for society and consistent with our national profile. If we lead on these issues, the nation will follow. Unilateral actions are often required. But pause to think before you jump.
I really understand the urge to protect non-wealthy tenants from arbitrary evictions, but, at the same time, state law makes it really difficult to get rid of nuisance tenants. From the article, “While landlords may properly evict tenants for good cause under the provision of state law” is supposed to be true, practically speaking, it is extremely hard to get rid of troublemakers.
Oh for Pete’s sake – drastic measures has nothing to do with this. And a pause only weakens this measure in making a difference. This measure lasts only to the end of Dec. when the permanent State law that it mirrors takes effect.
That Council member Tanaka blocked this was totally for gratuitous and downright loopy reasons ( if one can even call them reasons). He was once again was an embarrassment to his colleagues and the public, and should he run again for council, he needs to know he has no chance of any serious endorsement or to win.
It was mind-bending listening to Tanaka repeating ‘we need more information’ and ‘we need more outreach.’ The city manager made it clear there was no public request for that.
The Item had been postponed earlier for 2 weeks.
And the many many public speakers made it obvious that the public was well informed.
Tanaka’s repeating those two phrases again and again showed him to be dishonest, he wouldn’t vote against it so he put meaningless roadblocks in the way.
What a disgrace.
This state law is counter democracy and counter property rights. It also retroactively changes the rules under which we live. None of this can be good.
Why can adults not agree to a contract and be held to it. The only justification is that its a tyrannical majority is ignorant that this can happen to them as well. The tables can turn on the mob. It is government sanctioned theft.
We had such an emergency ordinance in mountain view. Rent control transfers money from owners to existing renters, with no means test, increases asking rents, decreases supply and quality of housing, and increases the admin burden, thus the cost, of housing. Project Sentinal gets paid though, so it must be ok.
It just makes our problem worse.
The Hypocrisy Parade rolls on, of the so-called “pro-housing” types who cry rivers about affordability for renters, but actually vote only for their Real Estate political backers and lux cribs for tech hipsters.
The weirdest part was Fine lashing out at “anti housing” Kou and DuBois for authoring the measure in the first place. If you look at their voting record, Kou and DuBois are actually very moderate on housing and strongly pro renter and affordability; while Fine himself voted TWICE against the council even considering renter protections, disdains commercial impact fees for affordable housing, and consistently opposes all restrictions on tech office development whether there’s housing for it or not. Kniss who voluntarily recuses herself on renter protections because Developers hate them but she can’t be seen voting against them in public. Tanaka who opposes the whole thing but got peer-pressured by Cormack into just delaying it, once he realized he was the deciding vote. And finally the naïve public “advocates” who eat up this bait-and-switch, you know who you are, because they can’t tell political posturing from real actions.
Politicians are somehow unable to acknowledge that the reason rent control laws always require lots of bandaids is because rent control is bad public policy. It creates perverse incentives for both landlords and tenants while constructing disincentives for what they claim to be supporting: affordable quality housing.
@An Embarrassment “ Oh for Pete’s sake – drastic measures has nothing to do with this. “
“ Palo Alto delays ‘urgency’ law “
“ A proposal in Palo Alto to pass an “emergency law” to protect tenants “
“Urgency”….” Emergency” …. sounds pretty “drastic” to me !
What article are you reading, Mr/Mrs Embarrassment ?
@Resident
Those are shocking voting records for Fine and Tanaka showing their patterns of opposition for renter support and funding for affordable housing.
On top of that, Tanaka and Kniss are opposing any consideration of a business tax for affordable housing and transportation, and Fine is lukewarm at best.
Is it true that Fine and Tanaka got the county Democratic Party endorsement even though Tanaka had been a lifelong Republican and Fine a decline-state- until they decided to run for office?
Posted by Dissent, a resident of Mountain View
>> This state law is counter democracy and counter property rights. It also retroactively changes the rules under which we live. None of this can be good.
Mostly agree, but, watch the “property rights” language. As an urban landlord, you are not just living quietly in Hobbiton, you are providing a service in an urban economy and are subject to a lot more laws for a lot of good reasons.
>> Why can adults not agree to a contract and be held to it.
Good question. Mostly agree.
>> The only justification is that its a tyrannical majority is ignorant that this can happen to them as well. The tables can turn on the mob. It is government sanctioned theft.
Unfortunately, your language is becoming intemperate. As stated above, a landlord is not just any old property owner. You are providing a service in the urban service economy, and in some cases, you even have life-and-death power over some of your tenants. Being a landlord can be a big responsibility. Absolute “property rights” don’t exist– there is always a balance of multiple rights against each other. That’s why we need, and, have, “the rule of law”, and, courts to adjudicate situations where rights conflicts.
>> We had such an emergency ordinance in mountain view. Rent control transfers money from owners to existing renters, with no means test, increases asking rents, decreases supply and quality of housing, and increases the admin burden, thus the cost, of housing. … It just makes our problem worse.
Now this, I understand. Pragmatically speaking, rent control never works out well over a long period. Sometimes it is handy in an emergency. If the Developers and their political minions would pipe down about the alleged “housing crisis” we are having, then we could have a rational discussion about how to proceed. Unfortunately, the Developer “community” (LOL) continues to whip up a frenzy of public sentiment in the hopes of capitalizing on up-zoning properties. The result will be sub-optimal.
Posted by Dan, a resident of Midtown
>> Politicians are somehow unable to acknowledge that the reason rent control laws always require lots of bandaids is because rent control is bad public policy. It creates perverse incentives for both landlords and tenants while constructing disincentives for what they claim to be supporting: affordable quality housing.
I agree with you, but, the politicians see this as the lesser of two evils.
The root cause of the situation is the perverse incentives that software companies have that drive them to concentrate jobs in the San Francisco <=> San Jose corridor.
^ Better weather than anywhere else is certainly a perverse incentive.
Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
>> ^ Better weather than anywhere else is certainly a perverse incentive.
So, all those folks who live in Tracy and commute here to work do so because they really like their cubicles to be located in a place with better weather? :rolleyes:
@resident
Lydia Kou has voted against the majority of housing changes over the past few years:
-The affordable housing overlay, which makes it easier to build.. affordable housing
-The workforce housing overlay, which makes it easier to build… workforce housing
-Accesory dwelling unit changes, which make it easier to build… accessory dwelling units
-Housing incentive program, which makes it easier to build.. housing in commercial areas
And Tom DuBois, while supporting many of those measures, used his vote to water them down.
Yes, Kou and DuBois have been big proponents of rent control. Which is absolutely terrible public policy. Especially when Palo Alto is building NO housing.
Fine was right to call them out for there hypocrisy.
Oh yah, Lydia Kou and Tom DuBois were both instrumental in killing the MAYBELL LOW INCOME SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
Weather is all we have that I hear no complaints about.
With council having approved a large housing project on El Camino where the old Nissan dealership used to be (more recently Mikes Bikes) it’s too bad the developer has decided not to go ahead. Also, the developer who purchased of the huge Fry’s site, knowing it was zoned for multi-family housing, is now refusing to build unless offices can be built on the property. Then there is the developer of the large zone busting apartment building on El Camino that the council approved is having problems and construction is held up. And so on.
Seems to me it is the developers who are in the construction business not the council.
Posted by reality distortion, a resident of Midtown
>> MAYBELL LOW INCOME SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.
So, any project, no matter how badly conceived, should be approved if it has all of these magic words in the title:
“low income senior affordable housing” ?
How about Sobrato proposes the FRYS LOW INCOME SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT? That could work. Ask Sobrato about it.
“Never trust an upzoner”
Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
>> Weather is all we have that I hear no complaints about.
touché
@Resident
Tanaka gots major financial support from commercial property owners during his election campaign. Fine made it clear the last time he voted down even having a council discussion about protections that he takes a regional position and how important renter turnover is for the tech industry. In Palo Alto, existing renters need to be encouraged to move on because if they don’t it’s not fair to renters who don’t live in Palo Alto but would like to. Tanaka’s position during that council discussion was that we need existing renters to move out because otherwise there won’t be “diversity” without renter turnover. Both their positions appeared to be Palo Alto would stagnate without renter turnover. Of course, with Fine’s term coming to an end and presumably a reelection to fight he had to vote yes last night, however demonstrably reluctantly.
Actually the municipal code 2.04.270 (d) says:
“Emergency ordinances…..may be introduced and adopted at one and the same meeting if passed by a vote of four fifths if the council members PRESENT”
No mention if exceptions for those council members not present due to recusal
Perhaps the weekly can cite another place in the code that establishes recused and not present members as part of the count?
Recusals, such as that of Liz Kniss last night, are still counted as “present.” This can lead to an absurd situation that if two (of the 7) council members recuse (yet still counted as present), six votes are still need to pass an emergency ordinance, but only 5 members are present.
Following up … The above code interpretation of the city attorney, not me, that someone “recused” is still “present” is not easy to grasp.
To answer this question:
Is it true that Fine and Tanaka got the county Democratic Party endorsement even though Tanaka had been a lifelong Republican and Fine a decline-state- until they decided to run for office?
Yes yes and yes
It feels like the city attorney is not taking this seriously!
Not following why it is ever necessary for any Council member to get nasty towards another but it happens frequently; nothing to be proud of in that. Where’s Miss Manners when we need her?
And the “not there but still present” paradox is, somehow, fitting for this now weird and contradictory city.
This is NOT a surprise. Follow the money. Councilmembers Tanaka, Cormack, Kniss and Fine are all pro-development and had HUGE sums contributed to their campaigns by developers. It is not a stretch to imply there is a financial linkage between developers and landlords who buy from developers.
If you want honesty and integrity, VOTE next time for Council Members who COMMIT to not having any economic or political interest to developers.
This problem happens EVERY time Council is up for election. Gregg Scharff is the best example: a real estate attorney with developers as clients. And he has had dealings with Michael Alcheck who is on the Planning Commission and clearly had ethical lapses. Yet the pro-development council majority does nothing despite his bad behavior.
Rent control is another band-aid on a ruptured artery; dooming the patient to an even worse condition in the near future.
The solution is to fix the ruptured artery.
California is short 2 million plus homes right now. The solution is to build several million homes in a short period of time; but not even Gov. Newsome’s housing plan will mitigate the loss of blood or the continued bleeding.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2019/10/09/governor-gavin-newsom-signs-18-bills-to-boost-housing-production/
What are the liberal/democratic policy makers attempting to do with all this legislation? They are attempting to reverse the policies they implemented over the last 40 years that created the housing emergency and save face doing so.
They cannot admit that they have been wrong all along; and this failure to admit they have made a mistake prevents them from implementing policy that would truly solve the housing emergency.
So due to their greed and cognitive dissonance we will be burdened with outrageous housing costs for the next couple of decades at least.
@mjc “Of course, with Fine’s term coming to an end and presumably a reelection to fight he had to vote yes last night, however demonstrably reluctantly.”
When you say “demonstrably reluctantly”, are you referring to Adrian Fine’s hissy tantrum lashing out at Dubois and Kou? It was quite entertaining watching Fine’s childishness.
When are the voters going to get that disruptive government just takes more money out of their own pockets because special interests manages to spin the narrative.
#ostrich
Rent control does not work and is taking someone’s property.
The effect of the state law is to ensure every landlord makes sure to be at market rate.
Thank you Greg Tanaka for delaying an ineffective and probably illegal bandaid to a stupid and counterproductive law.
@musical : “Weather is all we have that I hear no complaints about.”
Smoke, smog, drought, constant spare the air days, we’ll i
Over 100 deg temps, your weather is pretty bad. You should try living in the PNW a while. You’ll see how dead and dry.the Bay Area is. Your weather is not good, unless you’re comparing to Texas.
Stop posturing city council. Do something until the end of the year just several weeks to go? You’ve got to pay to play including all the congestion. Palo Alto and Atherton flat farm county, you think you’re living in the mid west. With global warming our political leaders are going to learn how to be harsh but accurate in terms of economics. Rent control is gut shot with the San Jose Property Rights Initiative. No money, no development.
George Drysdale the teacher