|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
An ordinance that would provide more relocation benefits for tenants who are displaced from their homes failed to get past the Mountain View City Council last week. Instead, the council chose to delay voting on the proposed updates after receiving pushback from landlords.
In a 5-2 vote, the City Council approved a motion to continue discussing amendments to a local ordinance that requires property owners to pay for relocation expenses for income-eligible households that are forced to move because of redevelopment, or are taken off the rental market. The continuance stipulated that the council would take the matter up again by Dec. 16. At that future meeting, the council can still make changes to the amendments.
Council members Lucas Ramirez and Pat Showalter cast the dissenting votes at the Oct. 28 meeting. Both told the Voice afterwards that they did not want to defer voting on the amendments.
In 2010, Mountain View adopted a Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance, the first of its kind in the region. Since then, the city has expanded the ordinance’s coverage to include more households. City staff are now proposing adding six amendments to the ordinance, largely to conform with Senate Bill 330, a state housing law that aims to reduce tenant displacement.
At the Oct. 28 meeting, the City Council supported staff’s recommendations to make changes to the ordinance to align with SB 330, like clarifying when tenants would need to vacate a property that is being redeveloped.
“Those aren’t really significant changes that we are really undergoing. It’s more of a localizing protection,” Council member Emily Ann Ramos said.
The city also is proposing other kinds of updates to help protect tenants from displacement. Currently, a landlord does not have to pay relocation benefits if the city “red-tags” a home that has fallen into disrepair. The amended ordinance would require relocation benefits in these situations, unless damage was caused by a natural disaster like a fire, flood or earthquake.
The ordinance update also would increase relocation benefits for low-income households by roughly $9,400, adjusted annually for inflation. Currently, displaced households receive three months of rent for a comparable unit in Mountain View. So, a household that receives about $12,000, which is based on three months comparable rent, would receive roughly $21,000, according to the council report.
Most council members backed the proposed amendments with suggested tweaks, like setting a monetary cap on moving expenses so that it was not open-ended. However, some also expressed concerns that the city did not engage in a robust enough outreach process to receive feedback from community members about the proposed changes.
Council member John McAlister voiced the most dissatisfaction, saying he would not support the amendments without the city holding more discussions with landlords directly impacted by the changes.
“If I was out there and six new amendments came along and I hadn’t had any input and I’m the one that’s going to be paying the cost, I would be very upset,” McAlister said. “The landlord community is our partners. … They supply the housing, so I think we do owe them some due diligence.”
Several public commenters representing landlords and developers expressed their disapproval as well, citing concerns about mounting costs and a lack of community outreach.
“Property owners were not given an opportunity to present or participate in shaping these ordinances. One meeting a year and a half ago doesn’t suffice as outreach,” said Anil Babbar of the California Apartment Association, an organization that represents the rental housing industry. “We want to be able to be at the table and understand the issue better.”
Ramos proposed that the community input could be incorporated within the administrative procedures of the ordinance, as some of the other details were being worked out.
“That’s where we can invite the different stakeholders, whether it be the CAA, tenant groups, small landlords,” she said. “I think that could actually be a powerful place where we can adjust, where it properly addresses all the issues.”
But other council members pushed back, saying they would prefer to have more dialogue with property owners as well as more clarity on the details of the ordinance updates prior to taking a vote on it.
“It does definitely feel like some sausage making,” Mayor Ellen Kamei said, referring to the council discussion.
Ultimately, the council majority voted in favor of bringing the proposed amendments back at a future meeting, after incorporating council suggestions, including soliciting more community feedback.
Council member Lucas Ramirez, while not agreeing with the continuance, acknowledged that the city could have gotten more community input on the amendments.
“It might be good to have a formal stakeholder engagement and outreach policy. I think it’s a best practice,” Ramirez said. “When we don’t do it, or if we don’t do it adequately, then we end up with more challenging meetings than we really need.”
Correction: This story has been updated to clarify that the proposed amendment to increase relocation benefits for low-income households varies depending on comparable rent and unit size.
Ramos sees to be overreaching here in her attempt to get property owners to pay for as much as possible on as much as possible.
$21000 is an insane amount of relocation assistance. I just moved my daughter 4 miles and costs 6000 to move AND pack. Perhaps they should get some moving quotes.
The $21k includes 3 months of rent at $4k/mo since they can’t live there anymore and need to find somewhere else. The relocation assistance also isn’t only for hiring movers, but for things like security deposits and first month rent which might be hard to come up with in short notice.
Also, a landlord is better off letting their building fall into disrepair to avoid this cost. Just do the bare minimum and then evict and demolish.
Higher relocation assistance fees for when a building becomes uninhabitable would encourage a landlord to not let their building get to that point. Landlords can’t evict without just cause either, and it’s generally not a cheap or quick process.