4. Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Request for City of Sacramento to Take a Formal Position of Support on SB 407 (Weiner) Foster Care Placement: Resources, With a Letter to the Author File ID: 2023-00388
According to documents submitted for consideration, among other indignities, tenants in Sacramento are experiencing "extraordinary levels of harassment, including intimidation and coercion" abridging their "rights to access rental units . . ." Extraordinary levels? Where is the evidence to support such an assertion? Further, existing local, state, and federal law all address these issues, as well as all the others raised in the TAHO. Apparently, in support of the ordinance, an almost two-year old article from the East Bay Times tells of bad experiences tenants have had---in Richmond! Sacramento needs to enforce existing laws and get out of the business of passing poorly articulated ordinances, which will do nothing to create a better rental environment for tenants.
It appears to me that almost all, if not all, of the types of conduct designated as landlord harassment in the proposed ordinance are already prohibited by state landlord-tenant and habitability laws that create rights to sue landlords for remedies including money damages. If I am correct, why is the Law and Legislation Committee wasting time and resources on this duplicative city ordinance when we have real problems in this city that need to be addressed? I ask that the members of the committee direct the City Attorney to provide the committee with a research memorandum specifying which conduct designated by the proposed ordinance as harassment is already prohibited and penalized by state law or other city/county ordinances. This will allow the committee to determine if the proposed ordinance is necessary.
According to documents submitted for consideration, among other indignities, tenants in Sacramento are experiencing "extraordinary levels of harassment, including intimidation and coercion" abridging their "rights to access rental units . . ." Extraordinary levels? Where is the evidence to support such an assertion? Further, existing local, state, and federal law all address these issues, as well as all the others raised in the TAHO. Apparently, in support of the ordinance, an almost two-year old article from the East Bay Times tells of bad experiences tenants have had---in Richmond! Sacramento needs to enforce existing laws and get out of the business of passing poorly articulated ordinances, which will do nothing to create a better rental environment for tenants.
It appears to me that almost all, if not all, of the types of conduct designated as landlord harassment in the proposed ordinance are already prohibited by state landlord-tenant and habitability laws that create rights to sue landlords for remedies including money damages. If I am correct, why is the Law and Legislation Committee wasting time and resources on this duplicative city ordinance when we have real problems in this city that need to be addressed? I ask that the members of the committee direct the City Attorney to provide the committee with a research memorandum specifying which conduct designated by the proposed ordinance as harassment is already prohibited and penalized by state law or other city/county ordinances. This will allow the committee to determine if the proposed ordinance is necessary.
Brian Powers, Dist. 7 Resident