Currently, candidates running for local office are permitted to campaign door to door at single-family homes, but some property owners and managers of multiunit housing restrict their entrance. That can create disparities in knowledge and education among residents, depending on where they live, some councilmembers have noted. A new proposed ordinance discussed during a council meeting in July would have prohibited multiunit housing owners from denying candidates access to their buildings for such purposes.
But during a council meeting Aug. 14, a comment from Rhovy Antonio, senior vice president of Local Public Affairs at the California Apartment Association, said the new rule would be in violation of Cedar Point Nursery vs. Hassid, a 2021 Supreme Court case that ruled a California law requiring that agriculture employees grant union organizers access to their property was unconstitutional.
“This creates a right-to-access mandate in South San Francisco to which the Supreme Court already ruled unconstitutional as it affects physical taking under the Fifth and 14th amendments,” Antonio said. “Had there been outreach there would’ve been an opportunity to engage with the City Council and city staff on the proposals and compatibility with existing case law, as well review operational issues that would have made compliance to this ordinance challenging.”
Councilmembers maintained that the effort was meant to stimulate conversation and involvement with constituents, however, they acknowledged the risk it could invite a lawsuit if not more carefully prepared.
“[The ordinance] is actually encouraging people to get more involved because elections are extremely difficult and for those living in private buildings, it makes it difficult for a candidate to engage with the voters,” Councilmember Mark Nagales said. “But I do understand the concerns that Rhovy brought up, and I don’t want to set a precedent where we potentially could have some legal action against us, so I would … like to pull this item.”
The city would have been the first in the state to adopt such a policy, with City Attorney Sky Woodruff acknowledging the uncharted territory the city could find themselves in as a result. The legal justification for the ordinance was largely based on the Cedar Point case’s outlined exceptions — such as requiring access for public health inspections — some of which could likely be applied to council candidate campaigns, as it is a public service. Woodruff cited other examples, such as a federal statute that allows census workers to enter apartment complexes to interview residents.
“It suggests that the court acknowledged ... that they were making a fairly broad decision, and they didn’t have the full scope in front of them of all government activity that may have needed an exception,” Woodruff said.
(4) comments
This sounds like blatant blackmail by the California Apartment Association. They threaten a lawsuit to deny access to voters who live in apartments and condos. It's often said that renters don't vote. This type of voter suppression is a big reason why.
Perhaps renters do not want somebody inside their apartment building knocking on doors, it could be a security issue as well. Who becomes responsible if something goes wrong,? Probably the apartment owner, but certainly not the city council. This has nothing to do with restricting access, this has everything to do with safety and one’s right to secure their own property.
HFAB, I don’t think you understand how blackmail works. Perhaps you mean extortion? Regardless, I doubt you’d be able to convince anyone to charge the California Apartment Association for their freedom of speech. In fact, the CAA should be congratulated on saving taxpayer money. BTW, I didn’t realize voters who live in apartments and condos weren’t allowed to leave their residences to vote or weren’t allowed to receive mail-in ballots. Oh wait, they can and they do. Thus, renters can vote. Thus, no voter suppression.
Great job, Rhovy Antonio, getting an ill-conceived proposed ordinance tossed out. I’d recommend as many folks as possible use the same tactic to get other ordinances/legislation tossed out before they see the light of day. Of course, if SSF folks don’t change the makeup of their council, I’ve no doubt we’ll see another ordinance to achieve their same goal. So stay vigilant, SSF, and start using this issue to determine whether you’ll vote for future candidates.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.