|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump said Monday that she had erred on Dec. 2 when she told the City Council that it did not have enough votes to approve an urgency law protecting tenants from evictions without a just cause.
The council voted 5-1 at that meeting, with Councilman Greg Tanaka dissenting, to approve the ordinance. But because the council was instructed that it needs six votes to approve the ordinance, members had assumed that the law failed and agreed to continue it to the council’s next meeting on Dec. 9.
The council then approved the ordinance on Dec. 9 by a 6-0 vote (Councilwoman Liz Kniss recused at both meetings because she owns rental properties in the city). The delay meant that the law would only be in place for about three weeks before expiring on Dec. 31. The law is set to be supplanted on Jan. 1 by a new state law that caps rent increases and prohibits evictions without just cause.
Stump’s decision was based on the idea that even if Kniss was recused, she still counted as present for the purposes of determining a four-fifths majority, the threshold for adopting an urgency ordinance. If Kniss was counted as present, the council would need six of seven votes to pass the ordinance. If she wasn’t, it would need five of six votes to pass it.
After recalling her Dec. 2 determination that the council did not have enough votes to pass the ordinance, Stump on Monday told the council: “On further review, that statement was not correct.”
The correction means that the council in fact adopted the ordinance on Dec. 2, even if every member thought the vote failed because of Tanaka’s dissenting vote.
“The ordinance was in fact adopted by the council on Dec. 2 and became effective that night,” Stump said.
The council had initially considered the ordinance on Nov. 18 but decided to continue the item to Dec. 2 because members believed — again incorrectly — that with only five members at the dais (Adrian Fine was absent and Kniss recused), they could not possibly get the six votes they thought they needed.
Stump’s latest determination means that evictions without just cause that occurred in Palo Alto between Dec. 2 and Jan. 1 cannot be legally enforced.
“Renters who may be relying on city’s ordinance and may be confused about what ordinance means and would like more information are welcome to call my office,” Stump said.
The phone number of her office is 650-329-2171.
Actually the PA city Attorney’s office number is listed as 650-329-2171.
Dialing the number the city attorney gave last night gets you to a recording stating “you have reached the Palo alto unified school district, the number you called is no longer in service”
what??????
Thanks, @anon. Sorry for the error. I updated the phone number in the story.
(The same folks who couldn’t be bothered to collect the $200,000 the landlords owed the city for not having an operating grocery store (the old JJ&F). But hey, we’re only cash cows to be milked to pay outrageous salaries and $4,000,000 home loans for our city royalty.)
Thank you Mr. Sheyner for providing the correct number.
To be clear it was not the paper’s reporting error;
you correctly reported the number the city attorney gave out last night.
If the City attorney did not give wrong information on November 18, when this emergency ordinance was originally introduced, it would have been voted on and adopted November 18th. But, She prevented the vote.
No problem, Molly just got a 5% pay raise the other day.
I hope the delay did not result in people getting unfair rent increases and/or evictions.
it should have passed on Nov 18th. She either did this intentionally or is grossly incompetent. In either case she should be removed from office.
Listening to last night’s meeting raised concerns about both Legal and Planning. It seems there’s been a series of critical (and costly) errors and omissions. There was the “typo” that created trouble with regard to what can be done with the President Hotel property, the schedule of fines that was left out of official conditions of approval for the College Terrace Centre deal, the wrong advice regarding the urgency ordinance, and a “misunderstanding” about a deadline that was mentioned last night.
Too busy? Rushed? Lacking experience or training? Whatever the reason, these occurrences argue in favor of having an independent auditor.
Annette’s right that these costly “mistakes” suggest we need an independent auditor. It’s also clear that we need that auditor to start auditing these “mistakes” and lay out steps to fix them. NOW might be a good time.