|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View has local regulations in place to protect residents from unreasonable rent hikes and evictions, but there is no explicit language preventing harassment and retaliation from landlords.
That could change soon, as the Rental Housing Committee looks to implement stronger protections for tenants so they can exercise their rights without fear of retaliatory harassment.
“This is something that we have heard from enough people that I think that it is a concern in the community,” said Committee member Alex Brown at a study session Thursday evening.
An anti-harassment and retaliation policy would only apply to tenants covered by the city’s rent stabilization ordinances for apartments and mobile homes. But it still could have a big impact, particularly for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents, according to the staff report presented to the committee on March 27.
Tenants have reportedly experienced threats, coercion, fraud and intimidation from landlords, property managers and park owners. According to the staff report, these tactics have been used for various purposes: to disrupt, reduce and terminate housing services; to avoid making necessary repairs and maintenance; to force tenants into new lease agreements; and to pursue eviction.
The Rental Housing Committee strongly backed a proposal to craft a policy that would offer more protections for tenants, on par with what many other cities already are doing.
“About three-quarters of the California rent stabilized jurisdictions cited by staff … have some form of anti-harassment and retaliation policy, and I think we should too,” said Committee member Robert Cox.
Landlords could have financial incentives to remove a tenant from a rent-controlled apartment if it’s lower than the market-rate price, Cox said, noting that it was important to have anti-harassment and retaliation policies in place to prevent this from happening. It also should be a consideration for all people, and not just protected classes, he added.
Under state and federal fair housing laws, tenants can make claims of discrimination and harassment if they are a member of a protected category based on race, ethnicity, age or familial status. Still, they have to prove intentionality, which is a high bar, the staff report said.
Gladys, a Mountain View resident who spoke at the meeting, described tactics of harassment and retaliation that she and other tenants have experienced by their landlord, after alerting the city that they did not have heat or hot water in their apartment complex.
“Incompetent vendors have been sent to make repairs,” Gladys said, describing the situation. “Some vendors have even intimidated us, telling us we made a mistake by filing the petitions because our landlord has often been sued but never loses.”
One vendor came to the building at 9:30 p.m. on a Saturday, hammering and cutting wood until 3 a.m. They refused to stop even when tenants complained about the noise, Gladys said.
“I’m sure the landlord is not the only bad actor in the city, and it’s unfair that when we assert our rights, we’re mistreated and forced to put up with these situations. Fears of intimidation may lead us to not speak up,” she said.
Anil Babbar, a California Apartment Association representative, had a different perspective, urging the committee to not pursue an anti-harassment and retaliation policy and describing it as unnecessary.
“The state has many existing protections against harassment and retaliation, preventing the need for local jurisdictions from enacting parallel legislation,” he said.
Babbar also argued that there have been very few cases of discrimination and harassment brought to Project Sentinel, a nonprofit that investigates complaints about housing discrimination. It handles about 10 cases a year for the city of Mountain View.
“With so few cases, the need to enact parallel rules is negated,” Babbar said, encouraging the city to put its resources towards educating tenants about state laws instead.
The committee, however, expressed unanimous support for a policy that would define harassment and retaliation, as well as lay out noticing requirements, penalties and remedies.
Committee members also indicated support for a citywide ordinance to protect residents not covered by rent-stabilization laws, although this would need to be enacted by the City Council.
“I think that we can get it started and just make sure that it’s extendable, and that anything that we do can be extended to other units at the direction of City Council if they chose to enact an ordinance,” Committee member Brown said.
