Joseph A Raso
Telephone
Honorable Mayor & City Council December 12, 2023 It appears we now finally have an opportunity to mitigate the harm brought on our community by the present wording of the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”.
Pro Tenant Landlord:
I consider myself a Pro Tenant Landlord. Being handy with a hammer, I have created reasonably priced residences for Chula Vista tenants for over a half century. I have become obsessed with “holding the line” on rents while providing beautiful places for people to call home. However, I have never experienced anything which creates more pressure on Landlords to raise rents or causes more financial hardship to Chula Vista renters then the “Tenant Protection Ordinance.”
Clauses Which Devastate Tenants:
Although there are many items within the ordinance which are harmful to our community, the combination of the following two clauses is financially devastating to Chula Vista renters.
Page of 1 10
Item 8.1 - Written Communications - Raso - Rcvd. 12/8/2023
Clause 9.65.080C2 States: “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.” Clause 9.65.060E 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.”
December 4th, 2023 Meeting With Staff:
In my 12/04/23 meeting with Stacy Kurz and other staff
members I suggested many improvements.
1) I requested, before fines are levied, well meaning Landlords and Tenants receive a warning if a clerical error has been made.
Staff strongly resisted any attempt to warn anyone who
is in violation of the Ordinance.
Staff maintains it is not their intention to dispense fines for mistakes, however, they insist on retaining the option to levy fines on a Landlord’s or Tenant’s who make errors. Considering substantial fines can be levied for simple paperwork errors, Page of 210
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.
2) I explained the simple elimination of the five words underlined in Clause 9.65.080C2 above would correct the matter and provide a means for Landlord to reduce rents by hundreds of dollars.
3) I was unsuccessful in getting staff to realize 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.
Warnings simplifies the process of identifying and levying fines against “Bad Actors”.
4) Additionally, in the 12/04/23 staff meeting 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. My logic is that most tenants will not bother with such paperwork. My request was denied! Staff insisted on retaining the option to levy fines on Tenants in the future thru
“Administrative Regulations”.
5) I pointed out in the meeting only Tenants are harmed by $5,000.00 daily fines. Staff failed to realize Landlords must operate in the black, therefore all fines received by Property Owners must be passed on to tenants thru rent increases.
Page of 310
6) 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.
7) I also failed to get staff to realize 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.
8) Additionally staff failed to recognize that quite often Tenants are forced to relocate on short notice for various reasons.
Although there are pages of Lease Termination qualifiers in the TPO for which Landlords must adhere, Tenants are given
virtually no rights to terminate a lease.
Here Is Where We Are At!:
I predict at some future 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) creates more harm then benefits for 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.
Page of 410
d) will force tenants to remain tied to a lease even when circumstances force them to relocate.
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.
Although staff insists they will ignore many clauses within the TPO by only fining the most egregious offenders, I can guarantee, in the future, when money is tight and given the authority, fines will be coming.
Remember… the purpose of the “Tenant Protection
Ordinance” is to protect Tenants, not make the job easier for City Staff.
At the very least, I implore City Council require staff to warn Landlords and Tenants of violations and give them an opportunity to correct errors before fines are levied.
It is ironic the very “Tenant Protection Ordinance” which was supposed to “protect” Tenants is the very catalyst causing the most harm to our rental community. Thank You.
Joseph A Raso
PS: Regarding items in the TPO which are harmful to the community, don’t even get me started on the TPO’s flawed definition of “Substantial Remodel”. Landlords are subject to Page of 510
$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 architectural/engineering 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.
Page of 610
The “Problem” with the present wording of “Substantial
Remodel” is that most 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”.
Staff informed me, because the tenant was allowed to move back in, $5,000.00 daily fines would probably not have been imposed. However, most legal professionals agree fines would still be imposed because a termination is termination no mater if the tenant is allowed to move back in or not.
Additionally, 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.
Page of 710
City Staff Supplied Supporting Data:
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” ) Page of 810
8) Maxim average monthly rent increase allowed . . $304.70 ($3047.00 x 10%. California 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)
Considering:
a) Chula Vista rents are at an all time high.
b) American Credit Card Debit recently exceeded one
Trillion Dollars.
c) Third Quarter Withdrawals from US Banks exceeded
deposits by 179 Billion Dollars.
d) 596 is the Number of individuals who will be force out of their homes if only 1/2 of 1% of Chula Vista
residents are “pushed over the edge” by the increased
financial burden placed on tenants because of poor
wording of the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”
(119,268 Renters x .005 = 596)
Page of 910
Page of 1010