Written Communications
Item # le Name Raso
Joseph A Raso
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Telephone
Honorable Mayor & City Council December 5, 2023
I am here again outlining the financial hardship the "Tenant Protection Ordinance" places on Chula Vista renters.
You have already been presented with reams of City Staff supplied data which reveals the immense damage the "TO" does to our community.
The communication in front of you explains, in plain
language, how two clauses (9.65.060E and 9.65.080C2) within the "TPO" levies $5,000.00 daily fines on Landlords and/or tenants who make simple clerical errors.
Yesterday, City Staff member Stacie Kurz was thoughtful enough to set up a meeting with her and three additional staff members in hopes of addressing the flaws reveled in the TPO. I am sorry to report the meeting was not very productive.
Ms Kurz graciously pointed out that I am likely exempt
from most clauses from the "TPO". . There was another woman ! in attendance, who was not introduced, who seemed to be in charge. She was very driven and not at all receptive to input.
I thanked Ms. Kurz for the info regarding my exemption.
However, I don't she was aware having an exemption really
: :
•
doesn't matter. All fines levied on Landlords are passed on to tenants thru rent increase anyway.
I attempted to drive home the point that forcing Landlords to impound funds to secure future legal council is what causes many landlords to drastically raise rents. Staff could not care less!
I pleaded to have tenants, who terminate their lease and move out of the area, be exempt from filling out forms detailing the particulars of their move because most tenants will not bother with such paperwork. My request was denied!"Staff insists on having an option to require Tenant supply data at some point in the future.
I pointed out the harm $5,000.00 daily fines charged to renters and/or Landlords who have inadvertently committed clerical errors can be mitigated by the simple removal of the five words in clause 9.65.080C2. Staff strongly resisted any attempt to warn Tenants or Landlords who are in violation of the Ordinance.
So where are at? I predict at next week's 12/12/23 Council meeting, staff will present to you a revised "Tenant Protection Ordinance" which
a) contains clauses designed solely to make Staff's job easier.
b) will do nothing to protect the vast majority of Chula Vista renters.
:
c) will force Landlords, who fear making clerical errors, to continue drastically raising rents in order to pay
future massive fines.
Please don't be unduly influenced by staff. If you take the time to read the ordinance, you will realize the "TPO" exposes Chula Vista Tenants and Landlords to a huge liability.
The vast majority of Chula Vista Tenants and Landlords are honest conscientious individuals. There is no harm if a single "Bad Apple" receives a warning along with vast majority of honest residents.
Remember... the purpose of the "Tenant Protection
Ordinance is to protect Tenants, not make the job easier for City Staff.
I implore council, before fines are levied, to require staff to inform a Tenant or Landlord who may be violation of the It is ironic the very "Tenant Protection Ordinance' which was supposed to "protect" Tenants is causing the most harm to our rental community. Thank You.
JosEph A Raso
Received 1215/23
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
Honorable Mayor & City Council November 30, 2023
Two of Clauses within The "Tenant Protection Ordinance" (9.65.060E and 9.65.080C2) are financially devastating to Chula Vista renters. Additionally, the definition of "Substantial Remodel is deeply flawed and brings great harm to our
community as a whole.
Clause 9.65.060E instructs Owners and Tenants to follow a paperwork procedure when a tenant decides to move away. In reality, most Tenants who move from the area will not follow procedure. This results in $5,000.00 daily fines being levied on Landlords. See Clause below.
Clause 9.65.060E which states if a tenant terminates their lease and moves away, "Owners and Tenants shall provide City with information regarding termination of Tenancies at such
time(s) and with such details as shall be required by city in the attendant Administration Regulations."
We were informed by staff the problems created by the
glitches and poor wording of the "Tenant Protection Ordinance" would be addressed by the "Tenant Protection Ordinance
Administrative Regulations"
Unfortunately Staff's creation of the "Administrative
Regulations Tenant Protection Ordinance" as an attempt to "Clean Up" the glitches of the "Tenant Protection Ordinance" created areas which were in direct contradiction of the TPO itself. Example: Page 6 Section E of the "Administrative Regulations" states: "The Tenant Information Inquiry is not required to be completed by Tenant." which is a direct
contradiction to the previously mentioned Clause 9.65.060E requiring Tenants "...to provide City with information
regarding termination of Tenancies..."
This is a contradiction because if the City Council did not intend Tenants to inform staff of their termination of the lease, the word "Tenants" would not even be mentioned in Clause
9.65.060E.
Contradictions are addressed in page 4 section "C" of the "Administrative Regulations" which states:
"C. Governing Terms in the event of Conflict: To the extent of any conflict between these regulations and Chapter 9.65, the terms of Chapter 9.65 shall govern."
The above clause "C" of the "Administrative Regulations" brings us back full circle to which Landlords and Tenants are required to inform City Staff if Tenants terminate their lease and move away. Failure to do so results in huge fines.
Fortunately this harm becomes mute with the suggested
modification below of Clause 9.65.080C2.
Clause 9.65.080C2 devastates Tenants by levying
$5,000.00 daily fines (which of course must be passed on to tenants) when Landlords and/or Tenants make simple paper work errors with no opportunity granted to correct those errors.
See Clause below.
Clause 9.65.080C2 . ...Civil penalties for violations of this chapter may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $ 5,000.00 per violation per day. When a violation occurs it is not required that a warning or notice to cure must first be given before an administrative citation or civil penalty may be issued." Well meaning Landlords and Tenants should receive a
warning if a clerical error has been made. The simple
elimination of the five words underlined above would correct the matter and provide a means for Landlord to reduce rents by hundreds of dollars.
I have talked to numerous City Staff Members. Staffers
insist that it is not their intention to dispense fines for mistakes.
However, considering substantial fines can be levied for simple paperwork errors, prudent Landlords will not rely on the "Hope" they will be immune from huge fines. A prudent Landlord must be prepared for that possibility by raising rents.
If Conscientious Owners and/or Tenants are informed of
their violation, they will gladly come into compliance, while unscrupulous Owners and/or Tenants will attempt to find a way to circumvent the law. This simplifies the process of identifying and levying fines against "Bad Actors".
"Substantial Remodel"
The definition of the term "Substantial Remodel" is also deeply flawed. • Landlords are subject to $5,000.00 daily fines if the proposed improvement of the property does not adhere to every point of the definition below.
"Substantial Remodel means improvements to a Residential Rental Unit meeting all of the following criteria:
1. Any structural, electrical, plumbing or mechanical system is being replaced or substantially modified; and
2.The cost of the improvements (excluding insurance proceeds, land costs, and architecturallengineering fees) is equal to or greater than $ 40 per square foot of the Residential Rental Unit; and
3. A permit is required from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos is required in accordance with applicable federal, State, County, or City laws and cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the Tenant in place; and
4. It is necessary for the Residential Rental Unit to be vacant for more than sixty 60) days in order to complete
improvements.
Cosmetic improvements alone, including, but not limited to, painting, decorating, flooring replacement, counter
replacement, and minor repairs, or other work that can be
performed safely without having the Residential Rental Unit vacated, do not constitute a Substantial Remodel.
The "Problem" with the present wording of "Substantial
Remodel" is that Landlords will basically be prohibited from improving antiquated and rundown properties.
My wife, Mary, & I have recently substantially remodeled three condominiums in Chula Vista. We transformed these 1960's outdated units into beautiful modern homes. I am proud to say, upon completion, these units were rented at $600.00 below identical units in the same complex. If this ordinance had passed before we completed these projects, we would have been prohibited by law from improving these properties. Although the improvements were quite substantial we would have been subject to a $5,000.00 daily fine because the work completed did not comply with every aspect of the definition of "Substantial Remodel"
Many properties on the West Side of Chula Vista are old and in much need of repairs. Discouraging property
improvements in this area of our city not only degrades our community but also encourages the establishment of slums.
Suggested Modification:
The entire definition of "Substantial Remodel" should
simply be replaced with "Any improvement which cannot be safely completed without tenant vacating the premises."
Additional Clause Discouraging Remodels:
If the City Attorney considers the remodel to be a public nuisance and an "interference with a Tenant's peaceful
enjoyment" of the rental, Landlord is subject to six months imprisonment as stated below.
Clause 9.65.080C4b "Criminal Violation. An Owner who
interferes or facilitates interference with a Tenant's peaceful enjoyment, use, possession or occupancy of a Residential Rental Unit by... (b) maintenance... is punishable by
imprisonment for a period of not more than six months. " Obviously requiring a Tenant vacate a premises in order to perform maintenance is by definition an "interference with a Tenant's peaceful enjoyment of a rental" resulting in Landlord being subject to six months in prison. No Landlord would dare modernize a rundown property at the risk of facing a six month jail term.
Tenant Protection Act Harms More Than Helps:
When passing the "Tenant Protection Act", our previous
City Council failed to realize is that many of our rental neighbors are barely hanging on financially. Those who passed this law did not take into account...
...The average monthly Chula Vista rent now tops *$3,047.00. (*U.S. Dept of Housing & Urban Development April 2022)
...42%: Percentage of CV housing units are rentals. (Data compiled by City Staff)...
...Of these households 46% pay more than 50% of their income towards housing costs. (Data compiled by City Staff).
Realizing Landlords are forced to recoup added expenses thru an increase in rents, the implementation of this ordinance, as written, absolutely devastates the elderly and homeless our community which has already endured the most severe
hardships society can present.
In my fifty one years as a Landlord, I can not recall a single ordinance adopted by our City Council which has done more harm to our rental community than Tenant Protection Ordinance. "Substantial Remodel Definition and the risk of
Imprisonment NOT a 'Deal Breaker' "
The present definition of "Substantial Remodel" and the threat of imprisonment basically prohibits modernization of Chula Vista's westside residential properties. Although, harmful to the community as a whole, these clauses and definitions of the TPO do not necessarily devastate our community's renters. The TPO's 2030 "Sundown Clause" lifts this prohibition in the not too distant future. Our community can certainly "ride out" pause in modernization for this short period of time.
However, not requiring staff to inform Landlord and/or
tenants of errors in procedures ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATES
tenants by forcing Landlords drastically raise rents.
:
This harm to renters can be mitigated by the simple
removal of the five underlined words "it is not required that" in clause 9.65.080C2. Such an action renders the entire "Tenant Protection Ordinance tolerable.
In Closing:
Do I personally fear being forced to pay a $5,000.00 daily fine? Am I concerned that I could be thrown in jail for attempting to fix up our properties? OF COURSE NOT! I have been advised by many professionals that competent legal representation would mitigate any attempt by the city to levy $5,000.00 daily fines for violations of the clauses previously outlined.
However, it is the mere threat of $5,000.00 daily fines which is forcing me and hundreds of Landlords to substantially raise rents. It is this unprecedented rise in rents, caused by the present wording of the TPO, which devastates renters.
It is ironic the very "Tenant Protection Ordinance' which was supposed to "protect" Tenants is causing the most harm to our rental community.
Thank You
JosEph A Raso
.
Data requested by the previous City Council and supplied by City Staff supporting the positions previously outlined:
1) Chula Vista Population: 283,972
(Chula Vista - U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts)
• 2) Average number of individuals in each household: 3.31 (Chula Vista - U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts)
3) Percentage Chula Vista housing which are rentals. 42% (Data compiled by City Staff)
4) Number of Chula Vista Rental Units: 36,033
(Population of Chula Vista (283,072) divided by the average number of people residing in each Residence (3.31) equals 85,792 multiplied the percentage of residences which are rentals (42%) equals the approximate number of Chula Vista rental units. (36,033)
5) Approximate number of Chula Vista renters: 119,268 (CV Population 283,972 x .42%)
6) Approximate Average Monthly Chula Vista Rent: $3,047.00 (See attached CV Staff provided "Relocation Assistance" Pic - Average of Line 2nd from bottom)
7) With no right to cure, amount of daily fine levied if Landlord or Tenant inadvertently makes a paperwork error when Tenant terminates lease and moves: $5,000.00
(Clauses 9.65.060 E and 9.65.080 C2 of "Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance" )
:
8) Maxim average monthly rent increase allowed ... $304.70 Rate calculated for rents effective 01/01/23.
($3047.00 x 10%. Calif AB-1482 5% plus inflation Max 10%) 9) Average number of months required for Landlord to recoup a one day fine: 16.41
($5000.00 divided by $304.70)
10) Approximate total monthly maximum rent increase levied on Chula Vista Renters if Landlords are forced to impound funds to the pay daily fines.. $10,979,255.00
(36,033 Rental Units multiplied by $304.70)
Assumption Drawn From City Staff Supplied Data Items 1
thru 10 above and *The United States Office of Management and Budget:
With rents at an all time high, Credit Card debt at historic levels (*recently surpassing One Trillion Dollars), and savings at an all time low (*US bank withdraws exceeded deposits by 179
Billion Dollars 3rd quarter 2023), pushing a $10,979,255.00 monthly rent increase on the Chula Vista residents who can least afford is devastating. If less than one half of one percent of Chula Vista renters are "Pushed Over The Edge" and are forced to live on the streets, almost 600 of our neighbors will be left homeless. (119,268 times .005 equals 594)
Relocation Assistance
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Small Greater of: (1) 2 months contracted rent or 3 Area Fair Market Rent (April 2022)
months elderly/disabled; or (2) 2 months SAFMR
San Diego County, CA Advisory Small Area FMRs By Unit Bedrooms or 3 months elderty/disabled ZIP Code Efficienc f 3
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
91902 $1,850 $2,040 $2,620
$3,640 54,450 Exhibit 2
91910 $1,430 $1,580 $2,030 Comparison of Survey Data vs. SAFMR $2,820 $3,450
$1,440 $1,600 $2,050 $2,850 Stras
$3,490
= $2,110 $2,3A0 $3,000 $4,170
$5,100
$2,360 $2,610 $3,350 $4.650 $5,700
91915 $2,360 $2,620 $3.350 54.650
$5,700
City Average | $1,925 $2,130
$2,733 $3,797 $4,648
Regional
Average $1,628 $1.802 $2,311
$3,210 $3,927