The housing shortage in California is a crisis that is hitting our most vulnerable community members the hardest. For those living in overcrowded conditions, life can be unbearable. This is the reality for many residents, especially in the North Central area of San Mateo, where more than 20% of the population lives in overcrowded conditions, the highest rate in the city. It is a dire situation that demands urgent attention, especially when conditions are unsafe. Â
To address this issue, the San Mateo City Council passed a red-tag ordinance in 2019. The ordinance was meant to provide a lifeline to those trapped in uninhabitable living conditions. It works by condemning properties that pose a threat to the health and safety of their occupants, providing immediate displacement benefits to the tenants and then seeking reimbursement from the landlords for the costs incurred. It was a bold and necessary step in the right direction.
Recently, a Latino family of 10, including a baby, living in a three-bedroom house experienced a terrifying incident when a portion of the ceiling collapsed, not once, but twice. Understandably concerned for their safety, they contacted the city of San Mateo for assistance. When code inspectors arrived, they discovered a shocking 22 code violations, 10 of which were classified as life-safety violations. These violations included the absence of heat and hot water, pervasive mold and a deteriorating roof. It was a clear-cut case of a property unfit for human habitation.
Following the red-tag ordinance, the city took action. It issued a notice to vacate to the tenants, provided them with much-needed relocation assistance and sent a bill to the landlord for reimbursement. This seemed like a fair and just response to a dire situation but, unfortunately, the story takes a troubling turn.
The landlord, instead of acknowledging their responsibility in this disaster, chose to appeal the bill. Their claim? The tenants themselves caused the damage that led to the life-safety violations. However, evidence presented by the tenants and city staff proved otherwise. Communications revealed the tenants reported the leaky roof to the owner as early as 2020, and Street View images on Google Maps from 2018 showed visible damage to the roof from the exterior.Â
To make matters worse, the landlord obtained a quote to replace the 37-year-old roof in October 2022 but never took any action to address the problem. The tenants also disclosed that the property had been rented to them without heat, and although the landlord replaced the water heater in 2022, the work was done without the required city permit, and the water heater never worked properly. When code inspectors tested the water temperature of the shower, the hottest it would get was 66 degrees — that’s about the same temperature as the water in the Bay.Â
Recommended for you
Adding insult to injury, the City Council recently voted to grant the owner’s appeal. Three councilmembers, despite being presented with irrefutable evidence of the landlord’s negligence, voted in favor of the appeal. One councilmember absurdly believed that the tenants were solely responsible for all the life-safety violations, while another believed that covering the roof with tarps was sufficient repair. And even more dishearteningly, one councilmember admitted that they did not believe the tenants caused the roof damage but voted in favor of the landlord. This decision is not only a blow to justice but also sets a dangerous precedent.
The consequences of this ill-conceived decision are grave. The red-tag ordinance, designed to protect vulnerable tenants, now stands compromised. The City Council has effectively raised the bar for liability so high that landlords will never be held accountable. The displacement fund, meant to provide assistance to those in need, will be depleted, and taxpayers will bear the burden for landlords’ reckless behavior. Worst of all, this ruling will deter tenants living in unsafe conditions from speaking up, fearing eviction by their landlords or displacement by the city itself.
This cannot stand. Housing advocates vehemently disagree with the City Council’s ruling and call upon them to reconsider their decision. The red-tag ordinance is a lifeline for those trapped in unsafe conditions, and it must remain intact. We demand that bad-acting landlords be held accountable for their negligence and that tenants living in precarious situations continue to receive the protection they deserve.
Let us stand together to protect the most vulnerable among us, to ensure that every individual, regardless of their socioeconomic status, has the right to safe and secure housing. Reach out to the San Mateo City Council today via email or at this evening’s council meeting, and let your concerns be heard.Â
Together, we can push for change and create a more just and compassionate community for all.
Rudy Espinoza Murray currently serves on the YIMBY Action National Board of Directors and is a planning commissioner of Redwood City. All opinions are his own.
Thanks for telling this story, and you are correct when you say, "This cannot stand." Coincidentally, there is an LTE in today's Daily Journal about the San Mateo City Council granting this same landlord's appeal.
The proceedings are matter of public record. Who is the landlord and which city council members voted to grant the appeal?
I sat through this meeting and had a slightly different perspective. Ultimately the family was granted relocation assistance over $12K.The issue is whether the landlord had to reimburse the City. It is not weakening the ordinance, but rather the ordinance like any governmental intervention is not perfect. City Staff issued the payment before being in contact with the landlord representative, thus the landlord was denied due process.
I hope that Rudy gets to read your reply and can make a correction to his chicken-little allegation. There is always another side of the story and it still puzzles me why he had to mention that this was happening to a Latino family. Does it matter what the family's ethnicity is or is that part of what we now call entrenched racism?
If Rudy's summary of the rationale given by the three council members who sided with the landlord is accurate, the reasons sound a little sketchy.
I agree that it was unnecessary to mention ethnicity. I would hope advocates would speak up for someone needing help regardless of ethnicity, race or national origin.
Thanks for posting this valuable information. Due process and fairness are still important to some people. I remember a journalism professor who said "truth is the sum of the facts, not some of the facts." Rudy should be ashamed if he left this out on purpose.
Rudy is generally quite fair in his reporting and has done research before the column is posted. He is very biased and still believes that every Latino needs his protection because they downtrodden and helpless. Clearly not residing in the Latino world that many of us live in.
The landlord was not denied due process. Due process in this situation for the owner is the right to appeal the relocation assistance payment order. In this case, the landlord got what they would consider a great outcome. The people of San Mateo got slapped in the face because the Council said that these types
of conditions are not the responsibility of the buildings owner, which is ludicrous on its face. The unhealthy and overcrowded conditions that exist in San Mateo will now only become more common and get worse, because the people who are subject to these conditions will only be more afraid to report these conditions, since the result is that they will be left homeless with no compensation to help them make the move. It should now be very obvious to many people who live in this country that quite a few of the people who run for public office, should not actually hold public office because they do not know how to conduct the business of the people for the people. This decision will only lead to further deteriorating, unsafe and unhealthy properties with no remedy in sight. People need to register to vote, they should vet candidates very thoroughly on the issues that matter and are under the purview of the office which they seek. Lastly, we must always consider that people who do gain any public office soon want to seek higher office and we must make sure (at the earliest opportunity) to ascertain that they are of the character which will serve all of the people in the best way possible. Politics as usual must end, and the people’s needs must be met.
Mr. Bonilla - where do you draw the line. I am sure that there are thousands of less than desirable places to live in this County but is it the responsibility of County Government to correct that situation? Perhaps through home inspections and then force the landlords to make the required repairs? There are also situations where the renters trash the place and then complain that the dwelling needs repairs. How to deal with that? Not all renters are decent and not all landlords are slumlords Most landlords barely get by, I know that from personal experience. And what would stop the renter from making repairs him/herself? Is there a personal responsibility question as well?
on the corner of bermuda and delaware ther is an aprtment building that sounds to me a replica of the violations mentioned in this article the tenants are family friends that have kittens for adoption. i have been waiting for a chance to talk to the building inspectors of San Mateo consolidated . they have been evicted the hot water sounds just like this house . i am going to mention this to our long time fire friends I met one building inspector when I got my hair done...maybe SMCFD can help...sometimes i use the i know somebody help i can find.
Thanks Rudy for speaking for those who don't have a voice. There are doubtless some very good landlords (I currently have one), but there are also those who prey on people. We had one who stuck a for sale sign in the yard, without speaking to us, 5 months after we moved in, thus explaining why our lease had only been for 6 months even though we made very clear we were looking for a long term situation. Then they stole our deposit.
The landlord you write about was collecting rent on an uninhabitable property, taking advantage of people who have very little already. Its how the rich get richer. Thanks for bringing some light to it.
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(12) comments
Good morning, Rudy
Thanks for telling this story, and you are correct when you say, "This cannot stand." Coincidentally, there is an LTE in today's Daily Journal about the San Mateo City Council granting this same landlord's appeal.
The proceedings are matter of public record. Who is the landlord and which city council members voted to grant the appeal?
I sat through this meeting and had a slightly different perspective. Ultimately the family was granted relocation assistance over $12K.The issue is whether the landlord had to reimburse the City. It is not weakening the ordinance, but rather the ordinance like any governmental intervention is not perfect. City Staff issued the payment before being in contact with the landlord representative, thus the landlord was denied due process.
I hope that Rudy gets to read your reply and can make a correction to his chicken-little allegation. There is always another side of the story and it still puzzles me why he had to mention that this was happening to a Latino family. Does it matter what the family's ethnicity is or is that part of what we now call entrenched racism?
Hi, Dirk
If Rudy's summary of the rationale given by the three council members who sided with the landlord is accurate, the reasons sound a little sketchy.
I agree that it was unnecessary to mention ethnicity. I would hope advocates would speak up for someone needing help regardless of ethnicity, race or national origin.
Thanks for posting this valuable information. Due process and fairness are still important to some people. I remember a journalism professor who said "truth is the sum of the facts, not some of the facts." Rudy should be ashamed if he left this out on purpose.
Rudy is generally quite fair in his reporting and has done research before the column is posted. He is very biased and still believes that every Latino needs his protection because they downtrodden and helpless. Clearly not residing in the Latino world that many of us live in.
The landlord was not denied due process. Due process in this situation for the owner is the right to appeal the relocation assistance payment order. In this case, the landlord got what they would consider a great outcome. The people of San Mateo got slapped in the face because the Council said that these types
of conditions are not the responsibility of the buildings owner, which is ludicrous on its face. The unhealthy and overcrowded conditions that exist in San Mateo will now only become more common and get worse, because the people who are subject to these conditions will only be more afraid to report these conditions, since the result is that they will be left homeless with no compensation to help them make the move. It should now be very obvious to many people who live in this country that quite a few of the people who run for public office, should not actually hold public office because they do not know how to conduct the business of the people for the people. This decision will only lead to further deteriorating, unsafe and unhealthy properties with no remedy in sight. People need to register to vote, they should vet candidates very thoroughly on the issues that matter and are under the purview of the office which they seek. Lastly, we must always consider that people who do gain any public office soon want to seek higher office and we must make sure (at the earliest opportunity) to ascertain that they are of the character which will serve all of the people in the best way possible. Politics as usual must end, and the people’s needs must be met.
Mr. Bonilla - where do you draw the line. I am sure that there are thousands of less than desirable places to live in this County but is it the responsibility of County Government to correct that situation? Perhaps through home inspections and then force the landlords to make the required repairs? There are also situations where the renters trash the place and then complain that the dwelling needs repairs. How to deal with that? Not all renters are decent and not all landlords are slumlords Most landlords barely get by, I know that from personal experience. And what would stop the renter from making repairs him/herself? Is there a personal responsibility question as well?
Sounds like guilty until you prove innocent.
Rick
It sounds like you believe elected officials mus be held accountable and that "Politics as usual must end..."
OK. The proceedings are matter of public record. Who is the landlord and which city council members voted to grant the appeal?
on the corner of bermuda and delaware ther is an aprtment building that sounds to me a replica of the violations mentioned in this article the tenants are family friends that have kittens for adoption. i have been waiting for a chance to talk to the building inspectors of San Mateo consolidated . they have been evicted the hot water sounds just like this house . i am going to mention this to our long time fire friends I met one building inspector when I got my hair done...maybe SMCFD can help...sometimes i use the i know somebody help i can find.
Thanks Rudy for speaking for those who don't have a voice. There are doubtless some very good landlords (I currently have one), but there are also those who prey on people. We had one who stuck a for sale sign in the yard, without speaking to us, 5 months after we moved in, thus explaining why our lease had only been for 6 months even though we made very clear we were looking for a long term situation. Then they stole our deposit.
The landlord you write about was collecting rent on an uninhabitable property, taking advantage of people who have very little already. Its how the rich get richer. Thanks for bringing some light to it.
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.