For some reason, I was only able to make comments on Item 4, when I actually intended them to be for this item, Item 5. I will only add that a well written and well understood rental agreement will remedy many of these issues, and there are ample ways for them to be enforced already. Further, writing ordinances based solely on anecdotes, or the real or perceived injustices visited upon some, a few, or a few more, does not make for good law. This proposal needs a full vetting from the City Attorney, as well as all the organizations which deal with these issues. If existing law cannot be improved upon, this is a waste of time.
After reading and debating the proposed ordinance, it does not appear to be an effective piece of legislation. I have no criticism of the effort in trying to level the playing field when confronted with bad actors. We all want to feel good about helping victimized people and justify our political station as champions of the people, but the way in which we’re trying to accomplish it doesn’t actually get it done.
First, it’s redundant. Under the “Tenant Harassment” section, almost every single lettered item references existing federal, state, and local laws that protect tenants from harassment. IN addition to these, we have the Tenant Protection Program, administrative procedures, and the Sacramento Cares program to mediate disagreements.
Second, it creates an undue burden on landlords to ensure they and all of their site employees are in compliance with the ordinance while simultaneously opening them up to potential abuse. It can easily be exploited by tenants who can falsely claim harassment in order to gain leverage in disputes. What if a maintenance supervisor has to lock a laundry room to stop a leak from becoming catastrophic and that inconveniences a resident who is looking to take advantage. That supervisor and the landlord are now subject to a civil suit and potentially minimum fines for them each as individuals. But, if the suit finds in favor of the defendant, the ordinance takes a step further into the due process of a civil case. In order to be reimbursed for their troubles defending a baseless claim, the ordinance requires the court to make additional findings on top of the baseless claim that it was without without merit AND that they acted in bad faith. It is entirely inappropriate for a local ordinance to supersede due process in a civil case.
Third, this doesn’t actually prevent anything from happening. Bad actors will still find ways to be bad. Bad tenants will still find ways to exploit, and this just gives them another tool in that pursuit rather than “protecting” anyone in the first place. It sounds good on paper but when you actually dig in to what it does, it’s truly just the placebo effect so a few politicians can use it to justify their existence.
I am a renter in 95820 zip code. I have been a tenant organizer for the last 5 years and currently am working with tenants at low income tax credit properties where section 8 vouchers are also accepted. I am working tenants at three different apt complexes located in South Sacramento throughout District 5 and 6. The last house meeting I went to the tenants were majority Black with a couple different families identifying as Asian and Latino. Nearly 25 tenants showed up without much effort on my behalf because they are THAT organized right now as a result of living in crisis everyday because they are experiencing discrimination, harassment, daily disruption in their family routines, their jobs are called over needing a signature on a piece of paper. Literally! Harassment is also another way to hide straight up discrimination. I support, but please address the budget for this and ensure money is available to track, process, respond, receive training (hire qualified staff), provide updates and reports, and take into consideration that there is a serious serious lack of tenant rights attorneys and fair housing attorneys available. Our law schools in Sacramento do not even provide a course specific to teaching about housing laws nor tenant rights. The current TPP is way way understaffed and I am currently waiting for a response about egregious utility charges every three months outside of my contract, after having followed up 3 times. Thank you so much for putting this on the calendar to hear.
As a tenant who deals with harassment from our landlord monthly, we ask that you pass this ordinance in support of all tenants in Sacramento. It takes a real effect on one's mental wellbeing everyday when a landlord over uses and abuses their power. From being threatened and blackmailed to privacy of one's dwelling. These are just some of what tenants like myself go through. We shouldn't have to be on edge everyday that we may lose our housing because of bad actors and their abusive issues. THIS is Why we are asking you to pass an Anti-Harassment Ordinance that holds Landlords accountable for acts such as:
Influencing a tenant to vacate a rental unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion;
-Abusing the owner’s right to access the tenant’s rental unit;
-Removing a tenant’s possessions without legal authority;
-Threatening violence against a tenant;
-Refusing to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment;
-Substantially interfering with a tenant’s right to quiet use;
-Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide basic services paid for, including water and electricity
-Attempting to coerce tenants to vacate with offers of payments coupled with threats;
-Invading a tenant’s right to privacy; and
-Refusing to do repairs for purposes of harassment.
Tenant anti-harassment ordinances set clear rules for tenants and landlords about what behavior is tenant harassment. By clearly specifying which acts are prohibited, landlords are put on notice of what behavior is unacceptable. If a landlord, in bad faith, chooses to engage in one of the prohibited activities, the tenant can take legal action against the landlord. Once these laws are on the books, many landlords change their behavior as a business decision and Harassment quickly becomes less profitable. Please support. Thank you.
TAHO is one step toward evening the playing field for tenants - in our case, the homeowners at Capital Estates Mobile Home Park. Worthy government efforts to support tenant rights are hampered by lack of enforcement capability. Corporate landlords with law firms on retainer hold all the power, eroding our civil rights one small but painful cut at a time. I've been told, "It's just business, Barbara," "We own the land!" and "Get out if you don't like it," while violating civil rights such as our right to assemble. Landowners seem to believe that feudalism is still alive. The corrupt practices are outrageous, including retribution and lies...even to the point of filing TRO's against those who speak out and then slandering those tenants in court. Please support your constituents in our basic need...housing.
We encourage you and other Sacramento Leaders to stand with tenants by passing a strong Anti-Harassment ordinance! Sacramento Landlords often harass tenants which can sometimes look like threats, violence, utility shutoffs, or locked doors. Other times, tenants face “hostile living environment” harassment which can be refusing to accept rent, refusing to do repairs, adding unlawful fees, or intimidating tenants in hopes of self-eviction.
Most of these acts are already illegal. However, tenants often face significant barriers to asserting their rights. This uneven playing field allows landlords to harass tenants as a business practice, knowing that even when a few tenants assert their rights, it will not significantly impact the landlord. That is why we are asking you to pass an Anti-Harassment Ordinance that holds Landlords accountable for acts such as:
Influencing a tenant to vacate a rental unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion;
-Abusing the owner’s right to access the tenant’s rental unit;
-Removing a tenant’s possessions without legal authority;
-Threatening violence against a tenant;
-Refusing to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment;
-Substantially interfering with a tenant’s right to quiet use;
-Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide basic services paid for, including water and electricity
-Attempting to coerce tenants to vacate with offers of payments coupled with threats;
-Invading a tenant’s right to privacy; and
-Refusing to do repairs for purposes of harassment.
Tenant anti-harassment ordinances set clear rules for tenants and landlords about what behavior is tenant harassment. By clearly specifying which acts are prohibited, landlords are put on notice of what behavior is unacceptable. If a landlord, in bad faith, chooses to engage in one of the prohibited activities, the tenant can take legal action against the landlord. Once these laws are on the books, many landlords change their behavior as a business decision and Harassment quickly becomes less profitable.
Insolidarity,
Jovana Fajardo, Director ACCE-Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
Tamie Dramer, Executive Director, Organize Sacramento
Vy Tran, California Organizer, Manufactured Housing (MH) Action
Dr. Flojaune Cofer, Senior Director of Policy, Public Health Advocates
I have been a resident of Capital Estates Mobile Home Park in South Sacramento since 2005. Prior to the employment of our current park manager in June 2021, this was a pleasant and comfortable place to live. Since then many homeowner-residents have experienced a barrage of harassment, including intimidation and retaliation for trying to protect their homeowner rights. We have lost amenities without a decrease in our rent, been forced to pay for repairs that are the park’s responsibility, been charged for utilities that are not included in our contracts, have been refused a signed rent receipt, been locked out of our clubhouse when trying to hold a community meeting, been screamed at and recorded with a phone while attempting to have a conversation with the manager, and so on.
At this time I am unsure that the proposed Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO) covers residents of mobile home parks although we do own our homes, but pay rent for our spaces that our homes sit on. The laws that are supposed to protect us in the Mobilehome Residency Laws can only be enforced through the courts which are costly for our moderately low-income residents, making it almost impossible to fight for our legal rights through the courts and compete with the wealthy owners who take advantage of the less fortunate.
I am requesting that the Mobile home parks in Sacramento be included in this proposed ordinance and that the City members vote to pass the TAHO for our protection against the park owners and management.
Dottie Grace
I currently live in the Capital Estates Mobil Home Park in Sacramento. I have also been a landlady when I was younger, in both San Diego and San Francisco. I hear some people say that we don't need another ordinance or law because there are already enough and if a tenant is unhappy or feel harassed, they can go to court. Individual people can go to court but without a lawyer, most people will get torn to shreds and lose on a legal technicalities even if justice might have been on the tenants side with good legal advice. I have been told that no lawyer will take a case without a significant retainer and $400-500 per hour. That is harder for a tenant or small group of tenants to meet than it is to get on a rocket to the moon. Having your case accepted by Legal Aid is also almost impossible because they are as backed up and have limited resources and often do no litigate maters. When a landlord says that tenants can always use what is available, that isn't real. Right now there are the MRL, Mobilehome Residency Laws and it covers most issues. But the landlord can and does break little things in the rental agreement and law enforcement doesn't care or have the resources to correct anything that is not "life threatening". The California department, HCD. Housing and Community Development will only take a case if there is a Health or safety problem. Rights on paper without and easily accessible enforcement mechanism are useless. I've been told, "get a lawyer". I tried. I've been told I don't need a lawyer to go to court. If we get a tenant anti harassment ordinance, I will have the necessary tool to be on equal footing with the landlord. I urge you to pass the ordinance because tenants aren't able to use the legal system as it is now. With your help, tenants can feel like adults with rights again.
For some reason, I was only able to make comments on Item 4, when I actually intended them to be for this item, Item 5. I will only add that a well written and well understood rental agreement will remedy many of these issues, and there are ample ways for them to be enforced already. Further, writing ordinances based solely on anecdotes, or the real or perceived injustices visited upon some, a few, or a few more, does not make for good law. This proposal needs a full vetting from the City Attorney, as well as all the organizations which deal with these issues. If existing law cannot be improved upon, this is a waste of time.
After reading and debating the proposed ordinance, it does not appear to be an effective piece of legislation. I have no criticism of the effort in trying to level the playing field when confronted with bad actors. We all want to feel good about helping victimized people and justify our political station as champions of the people, but the way in which we’re trying to accomplish it doesn’t actually get it done.
First, it’s redundant. Under the “Tenant Harassment” section, almost every single lettered item references existing federal, state, and local laws that protect tenants from harassment. IN addition to these, we have the Tenant Protection Program, administrative procedures, and the Sacramento Cares program to mediate disagreements.
Second, it creates an undue burden on landlords to ensure they and all of their site employees are in compliance with the ordinance while simultaneously opening them up to potential abuse. It can easily be exploited by tenants who can falsely claim harassment in order to gain leverage in disputes. What if a maintenance supervisor has to lock a laundry room to stop a leak from becoming catastrophic and that inconveniences a resident who is looking to take advantage. That supervisor and the landlord are now subject to a civil suit and potentially minimum fines for them each as individuals. But, if the suit finds in favor of the defendant, the ordinance takes a step further into the due process of a civil case. In order to be reimbursed for their troubles defending a baseless claim, the ordinance requires the court to make additional findings on top of the baseless claim that it was without without merit AND that they acted in bad faith. It is entirely inappropriate for a local ordinance to supersede due process in a civil case.
Third, this doesn’t actually prevent anything from happening. Bad actors will still find ways to be bad. Bad tenants will still find ways to exploit, and this just gives them another tool in that pursuit rather than “protecting” anyone in the first place. It sounds good on paper but when you actually dig in to what it does, it’s truly just the placebo effect so a few politicians can use it to justify their existence.
I am a renter in 95820 zip code. I have been a tenant organizer for the last 5 years and currently am working with tenants at low income tax credit properties where section 8 vouchers are also accepted. I am working tenants at three different apt complexes located in South Sacramento throughout District 5 and 6. The last house meeting I went to the tenants were majority Black with a couple different families identifying as Asian and Latino. Nearly 25 tenants showed up without much effort on my behalf because they are THAT organized right now as a result of living in crisis everyday because they are experiencing discrimination, harassment, daily disruption in their family routines, their jobs are called over needing a signature on a piece of paper. Literally! Harassment is also another way to hide straight up discrimination. I support, but please address the budget for this and ensure money is available to track, process, respond, receive training (hire qualified staff), provide updates and reports, and take into consideration that there is a serious serious lack of tenant rights attorneys and fair housing attorneys available. Our law schools in Sacramento do not even provide a course specific to teaching about housing laws nor tenant rights. The current TPP is way way understaffed and I am currently waiting for a response about egregious utility charges every three months outside of my contract, after having followed up 3 times. Thank you so much for putting this on the calendar to hear.
As a tenant who deals with harassment from our landlord monthly, we ask that you pass this ordinance in support of all tenants in Sacramento. It takes a real effect on one's mental wellbeing everyday when a landlord over uses and abuses their power. From being threatened and blackmailed to privacy of one's dwelling. These are just some of what tenants like myself go through. We shouldn't have to be on edge everyday that we may lose our housing because of bad actors and their abusive issues. THIS is Why we are asking you to pass an Anti-Harassment Ordinance that holds Landlords accountable for acts such as:
Influencing a tenant to vacate a rental unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion;
-Abusing the owner’s right to access the tenant’s rental unit;
-Removing a tenant’s possessions without legal authority;
-Threatening violence against a tenant;
-Refusing to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment;
-Substantially interfering with a tenant’s right to quiet use;
-Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide basic services paid for, including water and electricity
-Attempting to coerce tenants to vacate with offers of payments coupled with threats;
-Invading a tenant’s right to privacy; and
-Refusing to do repairs for purposes of harassment.
Tenant anti-harassment ordinances set clear rules for tenants and landlords about what behavior is tenant harassment. By clearly specifying which acts are prohibited, landlords are put on notice of what behavior is unacceptable. If a landlord, in bad faith, chooses to engage in one of the prohibited activities, the tenant can take legal action against the landlord. Once these laws are on the books, many landlords change their behavior as a business decision and Harassment quickly becomes less profitable. Please support. Thank you.
Sincerely
I. Toney
TAHO is one step toward evening the playing field for tenants - in our case, the homeowners at Capital Estates Mobile Home Park. Worthy government efforts to support tenant rights are hampered by lack of enforcement capability. Corporate landlords with law firms on retainer hold all the power, eroding our civil rights one small but painful cut at a time. I've been told, "It's just business, Barbara," "We own the land!" and "Get out if you don't like it," while violating civil rights such as our right to assemble. Landowners seem to believe that feudalism is still alive. The corrupt practices are outrageous, including retribution and lies...even to the point of filing TRO's against those who speak out and then slandering those tenants in court. Please support your constituents in our basic need...housing.
We encourage you and other Sacramento Leaders to stand with tenants by passing a strong Anti-Harassment ordinance! Sacramento Landlords often harass tenants which can sometimes look like threats, violence, utility shutoffs, or locked doors. Other times, tenants face “hostile living environment” harassment which can be refusing to accept rent, refusing to do repairs, adding unlawful fees, or intimidating tenants in hopes of self-eviction.
Most of these acts are already illegal. However, tenants often face significant barriers to asserting their rights. This uneven playing field allows landlords to harass tenants as a business practice, knowing that even when a few tenants assert their rights, it will not significantly impact the landlord. That is why we are asking you to pass an Anti-Harassment Ordinance that holds Landlords accountable for acts such as:
Influencing a tenant to vacate a rental unit through fraud, intimidation, or coercion;
-Abusing the owner’s right to access the tenant’s rental unit;
-Removing a tenant’s possessions without legal authority;
-Threatening violence against a tenant;
-Refusing to acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent payment;
-Substantially interfering with a tenant’s right to quiet use;
-Interrupting, terminating, or failing to provide basic services paid for, including water and electricity
-Attempting to coerce tenants to vacate with offers of payments coupled with threats;
-Invading a tenant’s right to privacy; and
-Refusing to do repairs for purposes of harassment.
Tenant anti-harassment ordinances set clear rules for tenants and landlords about what behavior is tenant harassment. By clearly specifying which acts are prohibited, landlords are put on notice of what behavior is unacceptable. If a landlord, in bad faith, chooses to engage in one of the prohibited activities, the tenant can take legal action against the landlord. Once these laws are on the books, many landlords change their behavior as a business decision and Harassment quickly becomes less profitable.
Insolidarity,
Jovana Fajardo, Director ACCE-Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
Tamie Dramer, Executive Director, Organize Sacramento
Vy Tran, California Organizer, Manufactured Housing (MH) Action
Dr. Flojaune Cofer, Senior Director of Policy, Public Health Advocates
I have been a resident of Capital Estates Mobile Home Park in South Sacramento since 2005. Prior to the employment of our current park manager in June 2021, this was a pleasant and comfortable place to live. Since then many homeowner-residents have experienced a barrage of harassment, including intimidation and retaliation for trying to protect their homeowner rights. We have lost amenities without a decrease in our rent, been forced to pay for repairs that are the park’s responsibility, been charged for utilities that are not included in our contracts, have been refused a signed rent receipt, been locked out of our clubhouse when trying to hold a community meeting, been screamed at and recorded with a phone while attempting to have a conversation with the manager, and so on.
At this time I am unsure that the proposed Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO) covers residents of mobile home parks although we do own our homes, but pay rent for our spaces that our homes sit on. The laws that are supposed to protect us in the Mobilehome Residency Laws can only be enforced through the courts which are costly for our moderately low-income residents, making it almost impossible to fight for our legal rights through the courts and compete with the wealthy owners who take advantage of the less fortunate.
I am requesting that the Mobile home parks in Sacramento be included in this proposed ordinance and that the City members vote to pass the TAHO for our protection against the park owners and management.
Dottie Grace
I currently live in the Capital Estates Mobil Home Park in Sacramento. I have also been a landlady when I was younger, in both San Diego and San Francisco. I hear some people say that we don't need another ordinance or law because there are already enough and if a tenant is unhappy or feel harassed, they can go to court. Individual people can go to court but without a lawyer, most people will get torn to shreds and lose on a legal technicalities even if justice might have been on the tenants side with good legal advice. I have been told that no lawyer will take a case without a significant retainer and $400-500 per hour. That is harder for a tenant or small group of tenants to meet than it is to get on a rocket to the moon. Having your case accepted by Legal Aid is also almost impossible because they are as backed up and have limited resources and often do no litigate maters. When a landlord says that tenants can always use what is available, that isn't real. Right now there are the MRL, Mobilehome Residency Laws and it covers most issues. But the landlord can and does break little things in the rental agreement and law enforcement doesn't care or have the resources to correct anything that is not "life threatening". The California department, HCD. Housing and Community Development will only take a case if there is a Health or safety problem. Rights on paper without and easily accessible enforcement mechanism are useless. I've been told, "get a lawyer". I tried. I've been told I don't need a lawyer to go to court. If we get a tenant anti harassment ordinance, I will have the necessary tool to be on equal footing with the landlord. I urge you to pass the ordinance because tenants aren't able to use the legal system as it is now. With your help, tenants can feel like adults with rights again.