In the summer of 2016, the San Mateo City Council was in the midst of discussing tenant protections after a proposal to have a rent increase moratorium. That moratorium was in reaction to a sudden increase in rents and some city officials’ desire to do something about it.
The discussion was leading toward relocation assistance for tenants whose rents went up a high amount at one time — say about 10 percent. However, the movement was taken over by a ballot initiative for full-blown rent control. That measure failed by a large margin after an incredibly contentious campaign, to put it mildly.
Rather than hitting reset and taking up the conversation again, the discussion about tenant protections stagnated as everyone went back to their corners. Yet the underlying concern remained.
Sides remain entrenched as the lines are essentially do nothing or do everything. The cauldron of compromise that is the City Council was not being used to its capacity.
Now, nearly three years later, there is a renewed discussion on providing the most basic protection for tenants — officially known as Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units but colloquially known as a red-tag ordinance. A similar ordinance passed at the county level for unincorporated areas in 2017 with nary a peep as it simply seeks to ensure that tenants have the ability to stay in safe housing, and if the unit is no longer habitable, the property owner pays for relocation expenses. The city’s proposed ordinance is slightly different for several reasons — mainly because of emerging concerns, “what ifs” and analysis paralysis.
Recommended for you
This was also brought up as a city priority in 2018 and brought up again during the 2019 council goal setting session. In 2018, it was phrased: Evaluate adopting a red tag ordinance. In 2019, it was phrased: Revisit any unresolved recommendations related to rental protections and affordable housing. So, it’s not as if this issue should be a surprise, or shocking in its intent. To be honest, this is base level stuff nowhere near the levels suggested during the November Measure Q campaign. However, there was concern earlier this year that a review board necessitated by some legal cases might appear to be somewhat similar to a rent control board. Even though it wouldn’t be, it freaked some people out and caused the discussion to prolong. The council decided it would be the review board. Still, any time a discussion like this prolongs, it invites more analysis and concern.
The base goal is establishing an ordinance that keeps tenants safe and healthy in their homes while also protecting landlords from frivolous claims. If that is reached, and it should be relatively easily, then it should be an ordinance to move forward. The issue is that the conversation is getting away from that central goal and delves into the “what abouts” along with the “what ifs” that the zealots shake in our faces. What if this leads to rent control? What if this doesn’t do enough? What if there are unintended consequences? Enough of that.
San Mateo has long been a city that can. It had inclusionary zoning and other creative housing programs to help first-time home buyers and other residents years before other cities did. Now it seems to be stuck in a paroxysm of incapacity over what should be a thoughtful yet relatively easy decision rooted in a goal upon which the council already agreed.
We are talking about code enforcement issues and ensuring that all residents have a safe place to live. Landlords who properly maintain their property should have little to worry about aside from exploitation by bottom-feeding attorneys or others — which should be addressed in this ordinance. This matter is expected to return to the council in May, and we should hope it passes with these issues in mind.
However, the histrionics on the extreme sides of the issue have caused unnecessary delay. It’s time for the council to synthesize the concerns, work together with respect, come up with a workable solution that adheres to the base goal and lead us through the zealots toward practical change.
Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.
I think this is a waste of time. Worst case the tenant can sue in small claims court or plenty of pro bono lawyers would take this case. Move on counsel. Find another way to for revenue. The big landlords have in house lawyers, and most landlords know how to work the system. This will affect the little old lady or man who inherited a rental property.
We have a big fat flashing yellow caution light on this ill conceived proposal. Our Honest Housing Heroes are correctly concerned about the needlessly lose language of the 30 page litigious, mean spirited draft proposal.
The housing providers have asked for a clear definition of tenant household. clear definition of substandard, and clear definition of retaliation.
San Mateo Code Enforcement made it clear that only two red tag concerns have arisen in the past 3 years from 17,500 rental units. Neither of those situations were due to provider neglect.
One apartment unit had a plumbing problem in a bathroom on which an unlicensed tradesman did a poor job. The other issue concerned one apartment with a sewer line break.
Code Enforcement did a good job of managing those two issues. The tenants were temporarily relocated, repairs made, and they returned home. We already have strong code enforcement rules and penalties.
The City is right to take the time to get this proposal right. In the meantime, concerned housing providers are holding their units off of the rental market.
Our Honest Housing Heroes need protection of their livelihoods and retirements. The greatest advocates for tenants - the housing customers - are the housing providers. A yellow caution light on this proposal, which would remove good housing from the market.
The only people who should have any problem at all with this are slumlords who do not want to honor the responsibilities which accompany their property rights. Other than slumlords, I would think that every single housing provider would want this protection against frivolous claims.
"However, the histrionics on the extreme sides of the issue have caused unnecessary delay. It’s time for the council to synthesize the concerns, work together with respect, come up with a workable solution that adheres to the base goal and lead us through the zealots toward practical change."
With emphasis on: "...synthesize concerns..." Regrettably, the SM City Council appears to moving towards a one-sided solution.
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!
(8) comments
Hello from the future! 2023. Merc News article very interesting. SMDJ hopefully will cover story in depth.
I think this is a waste of time. Worst case the tenant can sue in small claims court or plenty of pro bono lawyers would take this case. Move on counsel. Find another way to for revenue. The big landlords have in house lawyers, and most landlords know how to work the system. This will affect the little old lady or man who inherited a rental property.
We have a big fat flashing yellow caution light on this ill conceived proposal. Our Honest Housing Heroes are correctly concerned about the needlessly lose language of the 30 page litigious, mean spirited draft proposal.
The housing providers have asked for a clear definition of tenant household. clear definition of substandard, and clear definition of retaliation.
San Mateo Code Enforcement made it clear that only two red tag concerns have arisen in the past 3 years from 17,500 rental units. Neither of those situations were due to provider neglect.
One apartment unit had a plumbing problem in a bathroom on which an unlicensed tradesman did a poor job. The other issue concerned one apartment with a sewer line break.
Code Enforcement did a good job of managing those two issues. The tenants were temporarily relocated, repairs made, and they returned home. We already have strong code enforcement rules and penalties.
The City is right to take the time to get this proposal right. In the meantime, concerned housing providers are holding their units off of the rental market.
Our Honest Housing Heroes need protection of their livelihoods and retirements. The greatest advocates for tenants - the housing customers - are the housing providers. A yellow caution light on this proposal, which would remove good housing from the market.
Where did you get 17,500? Your 'Honest Housing Heroes' have fought tooth and nail against any sort of registry or directory. Bad faith on their part.
The only people who should have any problem at all with this are slumlords who do not want to honor the responsibilities which accompany their property rights. Other than slumlords, I would think that every single housing provider would want this protection against frivolous claims.
"However, the histrionics on the extreme sides of the issue have caused unnecessary delay. It’s time for the council to synthesize the concerns, work together with respect, come up with a workable solution that adheres to the base goal and lead us through the zealots toward practical change."
With emphasis on: "...synthesize concerns..." Regrettably, the SM City Council appears to moving towards a one-sided solution.
I agree.
San Mateo can do this. It will help protect people who haven't any leverage. Mr. Mays gets it correct here.
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.