San Mateo working on rental rules

Setting aside $50,000 from the city’s designated housing fund balance to be able to advance money to tenants in situations in which landlords are being uncooperative and fining those who don’t comply with the rules up to $10,000 have also been weighed. Though councilmembers reviewed a proposed set of rules at their Feb. 19 meeting, the effort was pegged for further study after property owners raised concerns they were too onerous on landlords and may push them toward taking rental units off the market.

Monday’s discussion of how much and when landlords whose units are found to be substandard should pay for tenant relocation benefits, how a household might be defined and what the penalties for failing to pay benefits are sparked similar concerns among landlords, some of whom raised concerns the rules could expose landlords to legal and financial risks. For others who emphasized the urgent need for strong tenant protections, the pressure renters are facing in an increasingly expensive real estate market with few affordable options was a primary focus.

Acknowledging landlords and those advocating for renters may not agree on every aspect of a set of rental protections, Councilman Joe Goethals emphasized there is a lot most everyone who contributed to the discussion agreed on, noting the set of rules officials are reviewing are targeted at only the few landlords who are found providing uninhabitable units.

“I think everyone in this room agrees we have a housing crisis, everyone is this room is trying to make housing available for people who need it,” he said. “One thing that we do agree on is that we have many, many good landlords in San Mateo and … very few bad ones, and that’s all that we are intending this ordinance to apply to.”

Having been a rental property owner in San Mateo, Jeff LaMont was among several others who asked officials to consider a rule allowing those on a given lease to be eligible for relocation benefits instead of those in a “tenant household,” a previously-discussed term they felt could be too broad. LaMont also worried any reference to a tenant’s private right of action could encourage frivolous lawsuits to be filed and commended officials’ decision to not create a housing appeals board.

Though LaMont wasn’t convinced there were enough cases of landlords providing uninhabitable units to constitute a problem, he cautioned officials to craft any ordinance adopted with care.

“I’m not really convinced that there’s a need specifically for it,” he said. “But if we’re going to do it, let’s get it right.”

San Mateo resident Esther Conrad urged officials to consider the rules’ role as a deterrent for those landlords who subject their tenants to conditions that could compromise their health and safety. Conrad was among those who advocated for the city to require those landlords who don’t comply with the relocation benefit rules to pay treble damages.

“Even one or two buildings is too many buildings,” she said. “These are families whose very health and safety is being threatened and we should not have that in our community.”

Councilmembers largely agreed that those tenants who are permanently displaced by substandard living conditions should be paid three months of fair market-rate rent as well as actual moving costs and related expenses not to exceed $1,000. For those who are temporarily displaced, officials also agreed a tenant’s temporary housing accommodations would be included in the relocation benefits and if the size, condition or location of temporary accommodations are not comparable to the unit they were living in, a living stipend of 50 percent of the U.S. General Services Administration per diem rate should be provided.

For Councilman Eric Rodriguez, creating an ordinance that provides fair compensation to the tenants facing substandard conditions and designing fair and reasonable penalties on the very few landlords who may be in violation of the rules was paramount. He noted that whatever set of rules councilmembers eventually adopt will be monitored and can be changed if officials and residents find they aren’t working.

“We’re going to be watching this and seeing how it plays out, and if we think it’s too strict or if it’s too light, it’s on us as the City Council to correct that,” he said. “Hopefully this is not needed, because it’s so rare … but for the times that it is, it’s going to be important.”

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106