In May, the San Mateo City Council voted 3-1 to grant a landlord’s appeal of a city staff decision to charge the landlord $12,000 to relocate the landlord’s tenants. The decision followed a city staff determination that the rented property was uninhabitable per the city’s red tag ordinance. Earlier this month, a Daily Journal guest perspective challenged the council’s decision. The author of the opinion piece suggested the council affirmed the landlord’s appeal “despite irrefutable evidence” supporting the tenants. That was not the case.
The city’s staff investigated the condition of the rented home, then decided to relocate the family and seek reimbursement for relocation costs from the landlord. The city erred in not contacting the landlord before taking this action.
The tenants were served with a 60-day notice to vacate in mid-November 2022. They stayed. The landlord sought to evict them, and the tenants retaliated by filing a claim with the city of San Mateo, which led to relocation at city expense.
Millbrae Councilmember Gina Papan presented the appeal, which was supported by Assemblymember Diane Papan. The council weighed the merits of the tenants’ claims against the voluminous amount of evidence presented on the landlord’s behalf. The council granted the landlord’s appeal … they got it right. The city manager would be well served by reviewing the actions of the city staff to ensure tenants’ rights and landlords’ rights are protected in future cases involving the red-tag ordinance.
Mr. Fowler - thanks for your letter. A question comes to mind… can the landlord file a civil suit against the renters for filing their frivolous claim? Providing a “voluminous amount of evidence” likely took a lot of time, and we all know, time is money. And then there are attorney costs. BTW, what were the names of the renters? The property owner was identified in the linked article but not the renters (unless I missed it this fine July 1 morning).
I'm not an attorney. While the landlord may have a legitmate cause for action, collecting any damages seems unlikely. However, a question left unanswered is whether the City staff acted improperly. If so, I'm guessing the staffers are indemnified by the City. In the end, red tag ordinances can serve a useful purpose, but they have to be fairly and carefully applied. That being said, IMO the San Mateo city manager should thoroughly review this case and determine where the City could have done better. It's important to protect tenants AND landlords.
I already feel sorry for the landlord who took these folks in as renters. This shows again that renters are not always right and can manipulate the system. There are still hundreds of landlords who were not able to evict and the renters took advantage of that by not paying the rent for months. BTW, where is Rudy who brought this issue up to begin with? Will he apologize or clarify his intentions? Don't hold your breath.
I share your view that some tenants will manipulate the system.
I goofed. My initial reaction to this story tended to side with the tenants... that was my error. I have since apologized to the landlord, and this LTE is my mea culpa. However, the bigger picture here is that the reputation of landlords exploiting vulnerable tenants cannot be assumed in landlord/tenant disputes. When the positions of both sides are thoughtfully examined... the landlord might be the exploited party.
Thank you, Mr. Fowler, for your clear reporting of the facts for this case. Those who resort to name calling (slumlord, slumlord supporter, and slumlord attorney) won’t stop but, we can speak up like you have to ensure the truth prevails. The evidence in this case was overwhelmingly in favor of the landlord, as she battled the false accusations of the tenants. Thank you to the City Council members who followed the facts and voted for the landlord’s appeal. Your courage and leadership are enormously appreciated. This mean a lot in the days where tenants are seen as victims and landlords as evil.
No... thank YOU for suggesting that I check out the evidence presented to the City Council. I initially learned toward the narrative that painted an unflattering picture of the landlord. After looking at the evidence presented by Millbrae Council member Gina Papan, I reversed course.
The City staff erred and the City Council did the right thing by approving the landlords appeal of the City staff's decision to charge the landlord for relocation expenses. The San Mateo City Council has taken some hits in the press over the past several months... looks like they are going the right direction now.
Say Ray how's the view from Redwood City? I live abouot a half a mile from the afflicted property and know and respect the owner. However as the deteriorated roof, central heating and insufficient hot water were all out to the tenant's control, I found it hard to embrace a full throated approval of the decision. That's in spite of the Papan sisters full court press. I worked in the past on trying to establish some sort of equal playing field allowing tenants the ability to redress the sorts of conflicts we saw here. I still think considering the massive advantage historically of having the CAA (California Apartment Association) and SAMCAR ( San Mateo County Association of Realtors) pop in with literally millions of dollars to defeat any and all local efforts to create a mechanism for monitoring rent stabilization and other tenant protections keeps just about all power in the landlord's hands. This while pretending they're in favor of the 'free market' etc. when nothing of the sort exists in reality.
Thanks for jumping into the fray. I respect your opinions and agree that the CAA and SAMCAR are all about keeping rents as high as possible.
At first blush, this matter looks like a red tag ordinance violation pure and simple, but that perspective excludes a variety of violations committed by the tenants. There was no enforcement of several code violations involving habitability and safety that could be attributed solely to the tenants. The roofing issue was being addressed by the landlord last fall with plans to replace the entire roof not just patch the roof in a few places. The landlord’s contractor examined the hot water heater, and it was working properly. Based on photographic evidence, the portion of the ceiling hanging down appears to have been pulled away from sheathing installed by the landlord as a temporary roofing repair. As a result, when the Council considered the totality of the circumstances, it is not surprising some on the Council concluded the tenants caused habitability and safety problems.
Much was made of the City Staff not contacting the landlord during the Code Enforcement investigation. The landlord visited City Hall days after the tenants’ complaint was filed to provide information that would later prove critical to the Council ultimately approving the landlord’s appeal. She was rebuffed. Her legal counsel asked to be contacted when Code Enforcement would be inspecting the property. City staffers showed up a day or two later… no contact. Before the City staff issued a notice the landlord, she approached staffers on her property, and they would not discuss the complaint with her.
Facing eviction, the tenants know they will need to relocate. By filing what the landlord considers a retaliatory complaint, the tenants stood a good chance either the City or the landlord would pay their relocation costs. Should the landlord pay? The City Council answered that question. In the end, the Council weighed the evidence… much of which predates the filing of the tenants’ complaint but was not included in the City staff’s findings… and the Council came to the correct decision IMO.
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!
(9) comments
Mr. Fowler - thanks for your letter. A question comes to mind… can the landlord file a civil suit against the renters for filing their frivolous claim? Providing a “voluminous amount of evidence” likely took a lot of time, and we all know, time is money. And then there are attorney costs. BTW, what were the names of the renters? The property owner was identified in the linked article but not the renters (unless I missed it this fine July 1 morning).
Good morning, Terence
I'm not an attorney. While the landlord may have a legitmate cause for action, collecting any damages seems unlikely. However, a question left unanswered is whether the City staff acted improperly. If so, I'm guessing the staffers are indemnified by the City. In the end, red tag ordinances can serve a useful purpose, but they have to be fairly and carefully applied. That being said, IMO the San Mateo city manager should thoroughly review this case and determine where the City could have done better. It's important to protect tenants AND landlords.
I already feel sorry for the landlord who took these folks in as renters. This shows again that renters are not always right and can manipulate the system. There are still hundreds of landlords who were not able to evict and the renters took advantage of that by not paying the rent for months. BTW, where is Rudy who brought this issue up to begin with? Will he apologize or clarify his intentions? Don't hold your breath.
Hello, Dirk
I share your view that some tenants will manipulate the system.
I goofed. My initial reaction to this story tended to side with the tenants... that was my error. I have since apologized to the landlord, and this LTE is my mea culpa. However, the bigger picture here is that the reputation of landlords exploiting vulnerable tenants cannot be assumed in landlord/tenant disputes. When the positions of both sides are thoughtfully examined... the landlord might be the exploited party.
Thank you, Mr. Fowler, for your clear reporting of the facts for this case. Those who resort to name calling (slumlord, slumlord supporter, and slumlord attorney) won’t stop but, we can speak up like you have to ensure the truth prevails. The evidence in this case was overwhelmingly in favor of the landlord, as she battled the false accusations of the tenants. Thank you to the City Council members who followed the facts and voted for the landlord’s appeal. Your courage and leadership are enormously appreciated. This mean a lot in the days where tenants are seen as victims and landlords as evil.
Good morning, Connie
No... thank YOU for suggesting that I check out the evidence presented to the City Council. I initially learned toward the narrative that painted an unflattering picture of the landlord. After looking at the evidence presented by Millbrae Council member Gina Papan, I reversed course.
The City staff erred and the City Council did the right thing by approving the landlords appeal of the City staff's decision to charge the landlord for relocation expenses. The San Mateo City Council has taken some hits in the press over the past several months... looks like they are going the right direction now.
Say Ray how's the view from Redwood City? I live abouot a half a mile from the afflicted property and know and respect the owner. However as the deteriorated roof, central heating and insufficient hot water were all out to the tenant's control, I found it hard to embrace a full throated approval of the decision. That's in spite of the Papan sisters full court press. I worked in the past on trying to establish some sort of equal playing field allowing tenants the ability to redress the sorts of conflicts we saw here. I still think considering the massive advantage historically of having the CAA (California Apartment Association) and SAMCAR ( San Mateo County Association of Realtors) pop in with literally millions of dollars to defeat any and all local efforts to create a mechanism for monitoring rent stabilization and other tenant protections keeps just about all power in the landlord's hands. This while pretending they're in favor of the 'free market' etc. when nothing of the sort exists in reality.
Them's my local opinions.
Hi, Mike
Thanks for jumping into the fray. I respect your opinions and agree that the CAA and SAMCAR are all about keeping rents as high as possible.
At first blush, this matter looks like a red tag ordinance violation pure and simple, but that perspective excludes a variety of violations committed by the tenants. There was no enforcement of several code violations involving habitability and safety that could be attributed solely to the tenants. The roofing issue was being addressed by the landlord last fall with plans to replace the entire roof not just patch the roof in a few places. The landlord’s contractor examined the hot water heater, and it was working properly. Based on photographic evidence, the portion of the ceiling hanging down appears to have been pulled away from sheathing installed by the landlord as a temporary roofing repair. As a result, when the Council considered the totality of the circumstances, it is not surprising some on the Council concluded the tenants caused habitability and safety problems.
Much was made of the City Staff not contacting the landlord during the Code Enforcement investigation. The landlord visited City Hall days after the tenants’ complaint was filed to provide information that would later prove critical to the Council ultimately approving the landlord’s appeal. She was rebuffed. Her legal counsel asked to be contacted when Code Enforcement would be inspecting the property. City staffers showed up a day or two later… no contact. Before the City staff issued a notice the landlord, she approached staffers on her property, and they would not discuss the complaint with her.
Facing eviction, the tenants know they will need to relocate. By filing what the landlord considers a retaliatory complaint, the tenants stood a good chance either the City or the landlord would pay their relocation costs. Should the landlord pay? The City Council answered that question. In the end, the Council weighed the evidence… much of which predates the filing of the tenants’ complaint but was not included in the City staff’s findings… and the Council came to the correct decision IMO.
Wait until the State of California drives all landlords out of business and tenants have to rely on the State to fix their water heater.
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.