1. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Adding Chapter 5.156 to the Sacramento City Code Relating to a Residential Rental Mediation Program File ID: 2019-00181
I am a tenant in midtown Sacramento, and at first I was encouraged to hear my city council taking up mediation as a response to the rental housing crisis. However, as this proposal is written now, I must register my strong opposition. Landlords have resources tenants do not, and when it comes to any legal proceeding, the outcome is often a product of the quality of counsel retained. Also, the results of mediation would be non-binding, and landlords would not be obligated to accept the mediation. In addition, similar experiments in other cities have yielded nothing in the way of protection for tenants (http://workingeastbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Memo-from-RTR-Assessing-Rent-Mediation-Program-final.pdf). Finally, the fact this program would only apply to complexes of 5+ units is absurd. Thousands of Sacramentans wouldn't be covered at all. I urge you to take up rent control and just cause eviction rather than waste time and energy on ineffective half-measures like this.
Rent mediation still leaves tenants without any real power in the tenant-landlord relationship. This is a waste of city resources that should go toward rent control and just-cause eviction. This tries to appease concerns about Sacramento housing while actually giving a win to the wealthy instead of helping tenants in a difficult housing market. Address the issue at hand and pursue rent control and just-cause eviction rather than simply pretending you are addressing the issue to appease concerned citizens.
A non-binding rent mediation will do very little to alleviate the precariousness of tenants in Sacramento it is costly and the experiences of cities like Concord show that it does not improve outcomes for rent burdened tenants. This is a waste of city resources that could go towards real rent control and just cause eviction protections. Also, the stipulation that this program only applies to multifamily units of 5 or more dwellings is a major flaw given the structure of the Sacramento rental market - 37% of our rental stock is single family homes, duplexes, triplexes or quads, and the residents of these 29,000 units would be left with no protections against rising rents or no-fault evictions. I urge you to consider the facts at hand and pursue permanent just cause eviction and rent control protections for tenants, rather than waste valuable city resources on this ineffective plan.
We're all asking for rent control stronger just cause eviction regulations, and you guys are trying to give us a piecemeal solution that essentially allows you to save face while giving landlords a win. We don't want a mediation act, we want rent control and stronger just cause eviction regulations. Plain and simple.
Rental mediation does not work and disproportionately favors the landlord and not the renter. When we favor the landlord, as a society, we put more and more people at risk for homelessness. We need rent control and protections for renters, not landlords. If you are ever confused about whether or not that is true, ask yourself what does not happen if we protect renters: homelessness and slum like living conditions. And what happens if we do not protect landlords? They make slightly less money off of the economically vulnerable. If you agree that homelessness is an issue in our community you must oppose this measure in favor of real regulations and change. Similar measures have been passed in other communities and they are ineffective and a waste of community resources.
I support the position to have Just Cause Eviction Protection. I am a renter and have been for the last four years. All too often I have heard stories from friends and acquaintances who have dealt with housing struggles in Sacramento. From the insane rent hike to unjust evictions, it is not fair to working class folks who do not have the means to afford upscale market rate apartments. Just Cause would allow tenants to have some rights to keep their homes and stay in their communities. It's time city council stopped aiding the needs of developers and instead looked toward helping the community that elected them. Please consider supporting this ordinance to protect renters!
Daniel Kane, Director/Founder/Owner: Kanes Concepts / I.D.R.-Implements for Defense Research
about 5 years ago
I currently rent a RM, sim. 2 a studio & there r other tenants(environment can b negative for the high rent price $750.00 in comparison 2 other studio's in decent neighborhoods).I usually keep rental tidy &gone taking care of matters or keeping appoint.,put funds into rental of my own as T.V. mount,& when I'm @ my rental-watch movies,music vid. &play video games-furnishings r mine & I can show such by some type of receipt.When moved in rent was $700.00 &went up due 2 my electronics I was told.There's on site caretaker of property who 2 my understanding does cleaning,yard work & safeguards property &makes sure tenants r safe-I stated there's a negative environment that I saw comparable rental units 4 way less.Was mugged not 2 far frm site & have P.T.Stress.D./Anxiety condition & was recovering frm a fract. foot,he plead "No Contest"(Guilty)& after my statement gained CPO &he agreed 2pay me $ as well,has a violent record now(X-Ref. # 5169536).For myself note:CA Constitution Art.1,Sect.1.
We already can't afford to live in Sacramento especially on SSI. This is going to make the homeless population rise.
I am a tenant in midtown Sacramento, and at first I was encouraged to hear my city council taking up mediation as a response to the rental housing crisis. However, as this proposal is written now, I must register my strong opposition. Landlords have resources tenants do not, and when it comes to any legal proceeding, the outcome is often a product of the quality of counsel retained. Also, the results of mediation would be non-binding, and landlords would not be obligated to accept the mediation. In addition, similar experiments in other cities have yielded nothing in the way of protection for tenants (http://workingeastbay.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Memo-from-RTR-Assessing-Rent-Mediation-Program-final.pdf). Finally, the fact this program would only apply to complexes of 5+ units is absurd. Thousands of Sacramentans wouldn't be covered at all. I urge you to take up rent control and just cause eviction rather than waste time and energy on ineffective half-measures like this.
Rent mediation still leaves tenants without any real power in the tenant-landlord relationship. This is a waste of city resources that should go toward rent control and just-cause eviction. This tries to appease concerns about Sacramento housing while actually giving a win to the wealthy instead of helping tenants in a difficult housing market. Address the issue at hand and pursue rent control and just-cause eviction rather than simply pretending you are addressing the issue to appease concerned citizens.
A non-binding rent mediation will do very little to alleviate the precariousness of tenants in Sacramento it is costly and the experiences of cities like Concord show that it does not improve outcomes for rent burdened tenants. This is a waste of city resources that could go towards real rent control and just cause eviction protections. Also, the stipulation that this program only applies to multifamily units of 5 or more dwellings is a major flaw given the structure of the Sacramento rental market - 37% of our rental stock is single family homes, duplexes, triplexes or quads, and the residents of these 29,000 units would be left with no protections against rising rents or no-fault evictions. I urge you to consider the facts at hand and pursue permanent just cause eviction and rent control protections for tenants, rather than waste valuable city resources on this ineffective plan.
We're all asking for rent control stronger just cause eviction regulations, and you guys are trying to give us a piecemeal solution that essentially allows you to save face while giving landlords a win. We don't want a mediation act, we want rent control and stronger just cause eviction regulations. Plain and simple.
Rental mediation does not work and disproportionately favors the landlord and not the renter. When we favor the landlord, as a society, we put more and more people at risk for homelessness. We need rent control and protections for renters, not landlords. If you are ever confused about whether or not that is true, ask yourself what does not happen if we protect renters: homelessness and slum like living conditions. And what happens if we do not protect landlords? They make slightly less money off of the economically vulnerable. If you agree that homelessness is an issue in our community you must oppose this measure in favor of real regulations and change. Similar measures have been passed in other communities and they are ineffective and a waste of community resources.
I support the position to have Just Cause Eviction Protection. I am a renter and have been for the last four years. All too often I have heard stories from friends and acquaintances who have dealt with housing struggles in Sacramento. From the insane rent hike to unjust evictions, it is not fair to working class folks who do not have the means to afford upscale market rate apartments. Just Cause would allow tenants to have some rights to keep their homes and stay in their communities. It's time city council stopped aiding the needs of developers and instead looked toward helping the community that elected them. Please consider supporting this ordinance to protect renters!
I currently rent a RM, sim. 2 a studio & there r other tenants(environment can b negative for the high rent price $750.00 in comparison 2 other studio's in decent neighborhoods).I usually keep rental tidy &gone taking care of matters or keeping appoint.,put funds into rental of my own as T.V. mount,& when I'm @ my rental-watch movies,music vid. &play video games-furnishings r mine & I can show such by some type of receipt.When moved in rent was $700.00 &went up due 2 my electronics I was told.There's on site caretaker of property who 2 my understanding does cleaning,yard work & safeguards property &makes sure tenants r safe-I stated there's a negative environment that I saw comparable rental units 4 way less.Was mugged not 2 far frm site & have P.T.Stress.D./Anxiety condition & was recovering frm a fract. foot,he plead "No Contest"(Guilty)& after my statement gained CPO &he agreed 2pay me $ as well,has a violent record now(X-Ref. # 5169536).For myself note:CA Constitution Art.1,Sect.1.