Joseph A Raso
Telephone
Honorable Mayor & City Council 02/13/24
After a year of working with City Staff attempting to
protect tenants from the financial devastation caused by the “Tenant Protection Ordinance”, I have been awoken
to the fact that I am very naive. I come to you this
evening sad and totally discouraged for the following
reasons.
Reason One: I once truly believed our City Council
Council would take steps to correct the TPO’s flaws if
data supplied by City Staff revealed the financial burden which had placed on backs of our community’s homeless
and renters. I was wrong!
We have been working for over a year with Chula Vista
staff creating a path to relieve the financial burden placed on our community’s renters by the “Tenant Protection
Ordinance”. Although Staff supplied data has proved with out a doubt the devastation the TPO has brought upon our community’s Renters and Homeless, I have so far been
unable to get our City Council to simply care about the pain and suffering they are inflicting on Chula Vista renters.
Page of 1 9
Written Communication Received 2/8/2024
Item: Public Comment Name: Raso
Reason Two: Although we have four areas of agreement
with City Staff on the main flaws and possible remedy of the TPO, our City Council’s has shown complete lack of
interest in bringing relief to the constituents they purport to represent.
You have already been presented the four areas where
we all can agree: (See italics below)
1) What is causing the most harm to tenants are Clauses in the TPO threatening Landlords and Tenants who have
made inadvertent mistakes with $5,000.00 daily fines.
Clause 9.65.080C2 (“Civil penalties for violations of this chapter may be assessed at a rate not to exceed $5,000
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.”) and clause 9.65.060E (Reporting
Requirements. 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 Administrative Regulations.)
Translation: Tenant makes a mistake, Landlord get fined
$5,000.00. If
staff had no desire to levy fines for
inadvertent errors they would have not purposely
inserted the five words: “it is not required that…” in
clause 9.65.080C2 above.
Page of 2 9
2) Landlords of the *36,033 rental units (*Staff supplied data) must raise rents in order impound funds to pay the potential fines of those who have made inadvertent
errors.
3) During the entire first year of enforcement, staff has yet to be made aware of a single Landlord or Tenant being
subject to a fine which means there are virtually no “Bad Actors” in CV .
4) With so few “Bad Actors”, the financial harm placed on the backs of Tenants could very well exceed the potential benefits received by the “TPO’ s” constant threat of
$5,000.00 daily fines. Remember: It is the THREAT of a fine, not the fine itself, which forces many Landlords to raise rents.
Reason Three: It seems the City Council could not care less that a path has been created to bring Chula Vista’s TPO into State compliance without harming tenants:
Realizing there are so few bad actors, as demonstrated
in item three above, we have found a way to bring Chula Vista’s “Tenant Protection Ordinance” in compliance with California State mandates without unnecessarily harming renters. (See italics below)
Page of 3 9
The simple task of modifying the verbiage of the TPO in order to reduce a Landlord’s need to drastically raise rents can easily be accomplished with an addition of the following clause: “Notice to cure must first be given before an
administrative citation or civil penalty may be issued”.
Upon warning, the vast majority of individuals will gladly come into compliance, while the few unscrupulous Tenants and Landlords will attempt to circumvent the law.
An added bonus of such a notification procedure is that
a warning simplifies the process of identifying and levying fines against “Bad Actors”.
I believe our city attorney will con firm that it is possible to warn noncompliant individuals and still be in alignment with California’s new TPO mandates.
Reason Four: The City Council is probably unaware
that City Staff is not required receive Council’s direction when modifying The TPO’s Administrative Regulations:
City Staff is authorized to change rules at will regarding the enforcement of the “Tenant Protection Ordinance without consulting The City Council. Most tenants who voluntarily move away may be unaware they may required to complete
forms informing city staff the details of a relocation. See Clause 9.65.060E above. Such an absent of action their part Page of 4 9
forces landlords to substantially raise rents in preparation of potential $5,000.00 daily fines to follow.
Reason Five: City Council has shown a disregard for the welfare of their constituents and appears to have a
complete lack of concern that the TPO exasperates our
homeless situation.
On many occasions Staff as informed City Council of
the precarious financial situation of our rental community (See City Staff suppled data in italics below) . Over a year ago I warned you the present wording of the “Tenant
Protection Ordinance” would require Landlords to drastically raise rents thereby forcing hundreds of people from their homes and out on the streets. We can see a drastic increase in homelessness this year. Although there are many causes for homelessness in our community, most can agree, high rents is a huge contributing factor. I can state unequivocally The Tenant Protection Ordinance is what is forcing this Landlord to raise rents.
An Example of Waste: At the 01/23/24 City Council
meeting, $400,000.00 was thrown down a rat hole by giving $300,000.00 to encourage Landlords to rent to Homeless and $100,000.00 for dubious Homeless expenses. The goal of securing housing the Homeless would be more easily
Page of 5 9
achieved if you would stop forcing Landlords to raise rents as outlined above.
An Example of Council’s complete disregard of their
constituents wishes: On 01/23/24 City Council was
instrumental in destroying the ambiance of an established residential neighborhood by forcing the installation of a cell tower even though every resident who was aware of
Council’s proposal came out in opposition… and even tough a perfectly suited commercial site was available just two blocks away at 3rd Ave & “I” Streets,.
Reason Six: I am saddened that Allan Curry takes the
time out of his life to research important matters
concerning our community to no avail. He presents a
valid and valuable point of view to our City Council who couldn’t care less. I feel so sorry for Mr. Curry because he seems to be completely unaware that he is absolutely wasting his time.
City Staff Supplied Data Supporting Conclusions:
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)
Page of 6 9
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% = 119,268)
6) Approximate Average Monthly Chula Vista Rent:
$3,047.00 (See attached CV Staff provided “Relocation
Assistance” Pic below - 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 ($3047.00 x 10%. California AB-1482 5% plus inflation Max 10%)
9) Average number of months required for Landlord to
impound a 1 day fine: 16.41 ($5000.00 divided by $304.70) Page of 7 9
10) $10,979,255.00: The approximate total monthly
maximum rent increase levied on Chula Vista Renters if
Landlords are forced to impound funds to the pay daily fines:
(36,033 Rental Units multiplied by the 10% max allowed rent adjustment $304.70 = $10,979,255.00 )
11) 596 Homeless: Approximate number of Homeless
created if one half of one percent of Chula Vista renters are forced out of their homes by the rent increases caused by the Tenant Protection Ordinance: (CV Population 283,972 x 42% = 119,268 x .5% = 596)
Staff Supplied Relocation Assistance Graph:
Page of 8 9
If you feel I am inaccurate with these conclusions I pray your conscience would compel to call or E-mail so we can find some common ground to solve this problems outlined
herein. Although I am not holding my breath.
Thank You
Joseph A Raso
PS: Although I feel supplying information to you at
future Council meeting would be a complete waste of
time, I still posses a small glimmer of hope I can stir the conscience of at least one Council Member to care.
Page of 9 9