The Mountain View City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to create a $500,000 renter assistance program to stave off evictions amid mounting wage losses and economic hardship caused by the new coronavirus.
The emergency funding is seen by council members as a fast and effective way to keep struggling families housed as local health officials escalate the response to the virus, which causes COVID-19. Schools, entertainment venues and local businesses have temporarily shut down, leaving many residents without work and spurring fears that a wave of evictions may be imminent.
While council members were quick to approve the funds, they were reluctant to pursue a local moratorium on evictions -- at least not yet. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order Monday granting local agencies the ability to temporarily halt evictions through the end of May, but council members worried it would be difficult to quickly craft a comprehensive ordinance that protects all affected renters.
The council voted unanimously for staff to draft a memo weighing options for an eviction moratorium, but no future meeting has yet been called to discuss the topic.
The $500,000 relief fund was the first opportunity by the council to flex its new emergency powers, citing exigent circumstances in order to deliberate and vote on a topic that didn't appear on the March 17 agenda. The money will be repurposed from the city's affordable housing fund and will be available for renters who cannot afford to pay rent due to the public health crisis.
City Manager Kimbra McCarthy, just minutes after being sworn into office, told council members that a stream of residents have contacted the city with fears that they won't be able to pay rent due to income losses because of the coronavirus. Not only does it affect tenants who may lose their home, she said, but it also means smaller landlords face uncertainty if rent payments suddenly dry up.
The renter assistance is expected to operate through the Community Services Agency of Mountain View and Los Altos (CSA), which has a short-term rental relief program intended to prevent people from falling into homelessness due to an emergency -- such as a layoff, a medical issue or an expensive car repair. The city already partially funds the program, and injecting $500,000 into an already established program was seen as a swift way to respond to the crisis.
"This is the right thing to do immediately," said Councilman Chris Clark said. "If you don't pay rent, the eviction process can proceed pretty quickly and we have an existing partner and infrastructure set up to distribute these funds."
How far the funds will go, and whether it will be enough to help all needy residents, remains a mystery. The Santa Clara County Public Health Department ordered all county residents and businesses to shelter in place and only leave home for "essential" activities and services at least through April 10, but it's unclear whether school and business closures will continue into May and June. Early estimates by the city suggest the program could potentially serve between 50 and 100 households, according to Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg.
The question that dominated the council's discussion was whether a similar relief fund should be set up for homeowners struggling to keep up with mortgage payments and small businesses at risk of shuttering -- either because of dwindling customers or a forced shutdown by the county. Even prior to the shelter-in-place order, Mountain View businesses reported steep losses in foot traffic and purchases, in some cases prompting temporary closures.
The $500,000 in housing funds may not have the flexibility to be used for other purposes, but general fund money could be available for such programs, McCarthy said.
Councilwoman Alison Hicks said that she believes setting up a fund will pay off in the long run.
"If we start losing small businesses, it's hard to set them up again," Hicks said. "They are employers, they are taxpayers. It's the kind of thing where if we help them now, then later down the road we are all fiscally healthier."
Councilman Chris Clark said he worried that including more recipients runs the risk of drying up the funds much quicker, and that homeowners and businesses are likely paying far more money for rent and mortgages than apartment tenants. He said there will also likely be state or federal programs available to keep commercial renters afloat during the economic downturn, giving them alternatives to a city-run assistance fund.
Council members voted unanimously to have staff explore ways to extend emergency renter relief for mortgage payments and small businesses.
Mountain View city staff could not immediately answer questions about how residents can apply for renter relief, which will eventually be available to families making up to 120% of the Area Median Income -- or $157,700 for a family of four. Updates will be available at mountainview.gov/covid.
Eviction moratorium?
Over the last week, several Bay Area cities, including San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, have sought to halt evictions as the extraordinary measures taken to reduce the spread of the coronavirus have left many workers without pay. The sheriff's offices of San Francisco and Alameda counties have since announced that they will postpone any evictions until further notice.
For Councilman Lucas Ramirez, it makes sense for Mountain View to follow suit. The city needs to take immediately action to slow the spread of the virus, he said, and rolling out the emergency rental assistance program may not be quick enough to save families from being removed from their homes. Homeless residents are among the must vulnerable, he said, and are in a position to spread the virus.
Ramirez suggested an emergency measure such as a 30-day suspension on evictions of tenants unable to pay rent, which he described as "buying time" for the city to get rental assistance to needy tenants.
"An urgency ordinance temporarily suspending evictions for nonpayment could go a long way in providing the financial security that folks need while we ramp up these programs," he said.
Other council members were more reluctant. Councilwoman Lisa Matichak said the $500,000 in renter relief funds was faster and simpler than an eviction moratorium, and could solve the problem. She also worried it would become a drain on staff resources.
Councilman John McAlister said halting evictions may help renters but doesn't do anything for landlords, while cutting checks to pay for rent satisfies both parties.
"If we have a moratorium, how is that going to help the person who owns the property if they are deprived of their funds?" McAlister asked. "By doing what we're doing now, everyone is taken care of. The moratorium is not a high priority because everyone is getting their funding."
Hicks said she believes the memo from staff will give council members the information they need to decide whether a moratorium is the right path forward, and that having the option available will be valuable in the event that conditions worsen or the shelter-in-place order goes on into June or July. She said it's clear to her, in talking to family members in Italy under a total lockdown due to coronavirus, that it's important to have a "Plan B."
"In Italy a lot of people are thinking about things that they wish they had done in the past, and to me a memo ... it's not that difficult to do," she said. "I would hate that we look back at this moment and say we wish we had done it."
-
Comments
Old Mountain View
on Mar 18, 2020 at 3:00 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 3:00 pm
How good that our City Council decided to provide rent relief to those who might be in danger of losing their homes! I hope that the Community Services Agency (CSA) has a good process for verifying those who have a true need as compared to some who might want to profit from this generous and needed help.
another community
on Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 3:28 pm
Pay the money directly to the landlords so they can pay their notes, too.
Castro City
on Mar 18, 2020 at 5:23 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 5:23 pm
The City Council violated state law in taking this action.
IT WAS NOT IN THE AGENDA PUBLISHED BY THE CITY
This was done in secret because it wanted to avoid any debate and at the same time take advantage of the fact the the Citizens were ordered to stay home. Otherwise, there would have been as much as 100 people in attendence.
This shows again that the City Council cannot be trusted for anything.
The action might be able to be challenged in court and made void.
Robyn,
I happen to agree regarding 2 things , both mortgages and rents should be on holiday until the crisis is over.
But I disagree that you expect the City to pay for mortgages that were more costly than they should have been.
My current landlord way overspent to purchase a property that was clearly not worth $5 million, and the City cannot subsidize this bad judgement.
Sylvan Park
on Mar 18, 2020 at 5:45 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 5:45 pm
I did not watch the meeting on tv. I assume the rent issue was added as an emergency item which can be done under the Brown Act. The same day (March 17) the San Jose City Council had on its agenda a proposed urgency ordinance that would temporarily outlaw many 3-day notices to pay rent or quit directed to residential tenants. I have not seen the result reported. Meanwhile, $500,000 is the monthly rent for about 150 rental units - a bit short of the 15,000 potentially affected. A drop in the bucket of rent due.
Castro City
on Mar 18, 2020 at 6:22 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 6:22 pm
In response to Gary
Yesterday the agenda found here (Web Link contained the following text:
“5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than 1.5 minutes. STATE LAW PROHIBITS THE COUNCIL FROM ACTING ON NONAGENDA ITEMS.
But the actions yesterdays was not on the agenda, the agenda only included the following:
“7.1 Ratification of the Existence of a Local Emergency
Adopt a Resolution Ratifying the Existence of a Local Emergency, to be read in title only, further reading waived.”
The Council Report had no mention of any discussion regarding either funding rental assistance nor any issues regarding housing in the City of Mountain View, only that it was recognizing the Local Emergency status ONLY.
FINALLY the City Council Agenda stated this :
“8. COUNCIL, STAFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN ON ANY QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME.”
THUS THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT EVEN FOLLOW THEIR OWN STATEMENTS, RULES, OR LAWS EXPRESSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Sylvan Park
on Mar 18, 2020 at 8:50 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 8:50 pm
See CA Government Code section 54954.2(b) - consideration of emergency items not on the agenda. That is part of the Brown Act.
Castro City
on Mar 18, 2020 at 9:29 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 9:29 pm
In response to Gary you did discuss the California Government Code section 54954.2(b) and it does say:
“(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below. Prior to discussing any item pursuant to this subdivision, the legislative body shall publicly identify the item.”
That looks good, but it goes on to say:
“(1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5.”
Again looks good but it goes on to say:
“(2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).”
Still looks good but it goes on to say:
“(3) THE ITEM WAS POSTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (A) FOR A PRIOR MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OCCURRING NOT MORE THAN FIVE CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE ACTION IS TAKEN ON THE ITEM, AND AT THE PRIOR MEETING THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING AT WHICH ACTION IS BEING TAKEN.”
THIS IS WHERE THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW IS IN TROUBLE. THIS APPEARS TO NEVER BEEN POSTED AT ANY TIME. THE CITY WOULD HAVE HAD TO POST THE INFORMATION AS EARLY AS 5 DAYS PRIOR TO, OR IT WAS A CONTINUING DISCUSSION FROM A PRIOR MEETING FOR THE MEETING ON MARCH 17. IN FACT IT LOOKS LIKE NO MENTION HAS BEEN MADE AT ALL THIS YEAR.
Gary, it looks like the City Attorney forgot to comply with EVERY part of this law. Thus it does still look like the City Council made a serious mistake here.
Castro City
on Mar 18, 2020 at 10:00 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 10:00 pm
Gary I also read this from a report titled “Have You Noticed? Noticing and Agenda Descriptions Under the Brown Act, Thursday, October 6, 2016 General Session; 2:45 – 4:00 p.m. Martin D. Koczanowicz, City Attorney, Grover Beach, King City and Tulare: Found here (Web Link
“Exceptions:
Council, after publicly identifying an item during the meeting, can take action on an item that was not agendized if such item was listed on an agenda for a meeting that took place less than five days before and was continued to the meeting at which the action is being taken (§54954.2(b)(3)).”
This rule is NOT SATISFIED in this situation. Also:
“Council can, in an emergency situation (an emergency situation exists if the legislative body determines a work stoppage, crippling disaster, or other activity severely impairs public health, safety or both), deliberate and take action on an item that was not an agenda § 54954.2(b)(1).”
The work stoppage is not complete, essential functioning is still fully staffed and working. And it is not related to the act the City Council took on March 17.
Well, since we all are now in a shelter at home situation, and that appears to control the public health issue. In theory that should prevent the Virus from being a threat to the city, and the HOUSING issue is not related to it.
It is not necessarily a “crippling disaster” because all the infrastructure is still operating in the city, and all essential functioning is not “impaired” at least at this time. Thus the city is not “crippled”.
Finally, is the act taken based on other activity severely impairs public health, safety or both? If this is the case then housing costs in Mountain View or the Threat of Eviction is NOW considered an activity qualifying as an impairment of public health? If that is the case, then why didn’t the City do something to control the prices of housing as far back as 2015? Obviously it did then if t does now. The same goes for activities that severely impairs public safety. Why didn’t the City Council Act in 2015 the same way it is doing now? This really doesn’t add up. This document does say:
“Council can take action on an item not on the agenda if Council determines that there exists an immediate need to take action and the need to take action WAS NOT KNOWN WHEN THE AGENDA WAS POSTED. § 54954.2(b)(2). This exception is used most frequently to “add” an item to the agenda during the meeting. Staff must be able to provide the Council, with the required information to make the necessary findings. Usually the item ends up being considered as there exists a deadline for the Council’s action that may not have been known at the time of agenda posting. Financial benefit to the City constitutes a need (i.e. grant application deadline or opportunity to realize some savings through an agreement with another jurisdiction or group of jurisdictions which came to staff’s attention). Also often approval of a letter in support or opposition that needs to be filed by a certain date causes this section to be invoked. THE SUPPORTING FACTS NEED TO BE CLEARLY ENUMERATED AND CIRCUMSTANCES IDENTIFIED, BEFORE COUNCIL VOTES TO PLACE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ALSO THE REASON WHY THE ITEM CANNOT WAIT TILL THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING SHOULD BE CLEARLY STATED.”
But the main City Council website page prior to the meeting did declare that an eviction moratorium was supposed to be considered, BUT IT WAS NOT IN THE AGENDA. SO IT WAS KNOWN TO BE A PART OF THE AGENDA, BUT IT WAS PURPOSELY NOT ENTERED INTO IT.
The City Attorney should be aware of this.
Sylvan Park
on Mar 18, 2020 at 11:07 pm
on Mar 18, 2020 at 11:07 pm
The March 17 City Council meeting was re-played on Channel 26 this evening. Staff had presented to the Council an additional item handled after 7.1. It was the token $500,000 funding for CSA to help (maybe 50-150) tenants that cannot pay rent because of losing income in the Covid-19 crisis. Councilmember Lucas Ramirez, whose day job is at city hall in San Jose, raised a related possibility: adopting an urgency ordinance limiting 3-day notices to pay rent or quit - the matter on the San Jose City Council's agenda. The Council determined that there was a late-breaking emergency under section 54954.2(b) as to the $500,000 give away. But too few councilmembers wanted to discuss the 3-day notice issue and no such ordinance had been prepared by the city attorney. What the Council did vote for was a future memo addressing the 3-day notice issue as well as what might be done for homeowners who claim they cannot pay the mortgage and small businesses - like ice cream parlors - that may lose business. The memo is also to update the Council on use of the token funds they had just voted to appropriate. The next City Council meeting currently scheduled is April 14. Special meetings can also be called on 24-hours notice and you now know that the Brown Act permits the addition of matters to an agenda even after the meeting has begun.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2020 at 8:33 am
on Mar 19, 2020 at 8:33 am
Gary,
Thank you for your posts. I always enjoy reading comments from people who can provide information in a calm and civil matter. I hate when people need to use CAPS to try to FORCE their superfluous point across.
Business man,
Based on the fact that I see your comments on 99% of the articles I am sure this shelter in place will only increase your activity. If you really feel that City Council is violating state laws to the point you need to spend hours arguing with internet strangers maybe you should go talk to a lawyer (or a therapist)to pursue whatever goals you have? Because I am sure spending all day writing essay size comments on every article may not get you there.
Everyone else stay safe and sane during this time.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2020 at 8:35 am
on Mar 19, 2020 at 8:35 am
Oh and I forgot to add:
"BuT iT WaS nOt In ThE aGeNdA"
I will be waiting for your next essay.
Castro City
on Mar 19, 2020 at 10:54 am
on Mar 19, 2020 at 10:54 am
In response to A annoying dude you said:
“Gary,
Thank you for your posts. I always enjoy reading comments from people who can provide information in a calm and civil matter. I hate when people need to use CAPS to try to FORCE their superfluous point across.”
I appreciate Gary’s point of view no matter what. I agree with him that this situation is a lot more serious than what the City Council offered, we are looking at a shelter in place that may last until August. So the funding is greatly underestimated and underfunded. You said:
“Business man,
Based on the fact that I see your comments on 99% of the articles I am sure this shelter in place will only increase your activity. If you really feel that City Council is violating state laws to the point you need to spend hours arguing with internet strangers maybe you should go talk to a lawyer (or a therapist)to pursue whatever goals you have? Because I am sure spending all day writing essay size comments on every article may not get you there.
Everyone else stay safe and sane during this time.”
What can I say about this? This was nothing regarding being on topic, just trying to agitate people in general. When you have something to offer, please do? You said:
“Oh and I forgot to add:
"BuT iT WaS nOt In ThE aGeNdA"
I will be waiting for your next essay.”
I am using proper net etiquette in my writing given that there is no boldface, underlining or italics allowed on this forum. If there were, I would not use the ALL CAPS option.
The facts are I brought up serious issues that the City of Mountain View fail to properly practice. Right now the current situation demands us to work on the current crisis. We can address the issue I brought up after this crisis is over.
Castro City
on Mar 19, 2020 at 1:42 pm
on Mar 19, 2020 at 1:42 pm
Just FYI
Donald Trump has ordered HUD to cease all evictions and foreclosures The news is found here (Web Link
Sounds like a good idea to me. This also applies to all HUD involved homes bought with mortgages.
WHY DOES JOHN MCALLISTER NOT THINK SO?
If anyone in the City is getting any Section 8 housing under HUD, or has their mortgage insured by HUD, then the ENTIRE City is entitled to the same treatment.
Time for the City Council to enact another EMERGENCY order, don't you think?
Jackson Park
on Mar 19, 2020 at 9:02 pm
on Mar 19, 2020 at 9:02 pm
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
Sylvan Park
on Mar 19, 2020 at 9:16 pm
on Mar 19, 2020 at 9:16 pm
I mentioned Vitamin D elsewhere. But what about the newest "cure" from the Trump camp? An old anti-malaria drug - especially when combined with a particular antibiotic. Maybe it saves you from Covid-19 by killing you straightaway! But what is the real reporting?
Rengstorff Park
on Mar 22, 2020 at 10:45 pm
on Mar 22, 2020 at 10:45 pm
How is someone going to be able to apply or qualify?
Sylvan Park
on Mar 23, 2020 at 6:29 pm
on Mar 23, 2020 at 6:29 pm
@bea. To try to get some of the limited funds (which might be just loaned) check online in a few days with both the City and its chosen private organization: Community Services Agency of Mountain View. Fewer than 100 households will likely be helped by this $500,000 (unless and until it is repaid and offered to new borrowers). For the moment, landlords will likely balk at serving 3-day notices to pay rent or leave. But post your experiences on this article.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2020 at 8:37 am
on Mar 30, 2020 at 8:37 am
Gary,
HERE IS A REALTY CHECK:
Another update:
Johnson and Johnson is saying it will have a vaccine to "start" human testing in September found here (Web Link)
That means it is safe to say we will be in the shelter in place order beyond September.
What are we supposed to do until then?
The State better get on track to protect homeowners and renters at least till the end of the year AT MINIMUM.
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2020 at 8:39 am
on Mar 30, 2020 at 8:39 am
GARY,
Sorry for duplicate, web link wasn't copied
HERE IS YOUR REALITY CHECK:
Johnson and Johnson is saying it will have a vaccine to "start" human testing in September found here (Web Link
That means it is safe to say we will be in the shelter in place order beyond September.
What are we supposed to do until then?
The State better get on track to protect homeowners and renters at least till the end of the year AT MINIMUM.
Gary, it looks like we are going to be stuck at home for at least 6 months more.
Sylvan Park
on Mar 30, 2020 at 11:21 am
on Mar 30, 2020 at 11:21 am
@ The Business Man. Did you watch President Trump's Sunday news conference? Among other things, he said that up to 2.2 million Americans would have died without steps his administration has taken and is taking. The implication is that everyone should be grateful for any fewer than 2.2 million deaths. One of President Trump's collaborators then suggested that fatalities might be as low as 100,000 to 200,000. You don't seem grateful. As to direct financial assistance, don't expect much. You are not a big corporation. But the protections against evictions will likely be extended - at least in California - as the virus continues to spread, sicken and kill. You might have the wrong guys as President and Vice President. A President "for the People" would have demanded and spent a fortune guarding against this kind of fully predictable pandemic as an aspect of national defense. Same for Congress. Viruses not only jump species; they can be made in labs. A biological weapons program is far cheaper than a nuclear one. So while this virus may have jumped from bats, the threat of diseases - including viruses - is made more onerous by their potential manufacture.
Castro City
on Mar 30, 2020 at 1:05 pm
on Mar 30, 2020 at 1:05 pm
In response to Gary you said:
“@ The Business Man. Did you watch President Trump's Sunday news conference? Among other things, he said that up to 2.2 million Americans would have died without steps his administration has taken and is taking. The implication is that everyone should be grateful for any fewer than 2.2 million deaths. One of President Trump's collaborators then suggested that fatalities might be as low as 100,000 to 200,000. You don't seem grateful.”
Should one be grateful when 3 weeks ago he said we had only 15 cases and in a couple of weeks it would be ZERO?
Should I be grateful when he tries to put the blame on his poor response since January 30 on everyone else? The story is that he dismantled the biological threat program of the CDC years ago?
Should I be grateful for him falsely claiming a malaria drug will treat this disease, when his own staff has no medical proof of it?
No Donald Trump has no idea what he is talking about. And the only thing that controlled this disease were Gorvernors and Counties that ACTUALLY SAVED LIVES and NOT THE PRESIDENT. He wanted us to lift the shelter in place in 2 weeks if you don’t remember. No he is trying to “sell” to the people he has it under control. HE doesn’t, WE do under shelter in place orders that occurred BEFORE he would even consider them.
NO I AM NO GRATEFUL TO THE PRESIDENT FOR HIS POOR JOB IN UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM.
You said:
“As to direct financial assistance, don't expect much. You are not a big corporation. But the protections against evictions will likely be extended - at least in California - as the virus continues to spread, sicken and kill.”
Finally you recognize the extreme problem we have with the VIRUS whisc still is in no way under REAL control yet. You said:
“You might have the wrong guys as President and Vice President. A President "for the People" would have demanded and spent a fortune guarding against this kind of fully predictable pandemic as an aspect of national defense. Same for Congress.”
But as we all know the President demanded that program to be underfunded and the REPUBLICAN house and senate at the time DID EXACTLY THAT. Again, this is not a record of being preapared. And when the House did turn, the Senate would block any attempt to increase funding back to the program. All you have to do is some homework. The bottom line was that our “just-in-time” model of healthcare is caught with no clothes on at all in this case. But you have Health Insurances and fFor Profit hospital lobbiests to thank for this. You said:
“Viruses not only jump species; they can be made in labs. A biological weapons program is far cheaper than a nuclear one.”
So are you implying this is a biological weapon? WOW no that is a good leap. Now granted it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE that it did happen that way. But it may be the basis to prove that the private sector cannot solve many problems efficiently when it is driven to minimize research and inventories in order to increase profits. You said:
“So while this virus may have jumped from bats, the threat of diseases - including viruses - is made more onerous by their potential manufacture.”
EVOLUTION is a NATURAL MANUFACTURER, and this problem has existed and will always exist as long as VIRUSES mutate and cross species. That is an UNAVOIDABLE threat, and we must be ever DILIGENT to its existence. Money doesn’t solve the problem.
So Far DONALD TRUMP has done nothing but make the problem more difficult for the country. Do I have to “cut and paste” all the quotes he stated to minimize the risk until it was so bad he had to change his messages?
Gary, when are you going to admit that I have been accurate regarding this subject since day one?