Law and Legislation Committee/City Council (Special Meeting)[Amended 8/11/2023 at 10:40 a.m.]
Meeting Time: 08-15-23 11:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Law and Legislation Committee/City
Council (Special Meeting)[Amended
8/11/2023 at 10:40 a.m.]
08-15-23
11:00
19 22 6 14 2
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Law and Legislation Committee/City Council (Special Meeting)[Amended 8/11/2023 at 10:40 a.m.] 08-15-23 11:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
4. (Law and Legislation Committee) An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2022-0025 and Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy File ID:
2023-00946
7 1 6 0
5. (Law and Legislation Committee/City Council) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO) File ID: 2023-00737
5 1 4 0
6. (Law and Legislation Committee) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - City of Sacramento to Adopt and Ordinance Regarding Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions and to Increase Fines File ID: 2023-00866
1 1 0 0
7. (Law and Legislation Committee) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Sacramento Forward: A Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Housing and Homelessness File ID: 2023-01075 8 3 3 2
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL added to Item 5 - See Agenda Item Below 1 0 1 0 Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. (Law and Legislation Committee) An Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2022-0025 and Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy File ID: 2023-00946 Overall Sentiment
Louise Mehler
Location:
Submitted At: 10:06pm 08-14-23
Please require the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) to improve both the Use Report and the Use Policy before recommending their acceptance by City Council.
The report doesn’t even try to inform us about the ways SPD used military equipment during the past year. It lists total numbers of uses by category (not specific equipment type), but describes only a minuscule number of arbitrarily chosen events. It is completely useless as a basis for evaluating the need for equipment and whether the equipment is appropriate for the situations in which it was used.
Similarly, the policy does not present any information to support the authorization to obtain and use military-grade equipment. It just states without evidence that all the proposed equipment meets the criteria enumerated in AB 481.
Last year, SPD was directed to meet with the Sacramento Police Review Commission and work out mutually acceptable policies. It is my understanding that there was just one meeting and no progress.
In each instance, SPD has refused all civilian oversight or direction. They do not provide use report information on the work they’ve done, nor policy information on how they plan to work. They reject all the painstakingly crafted recommendations from the Review Commission. This is not acceptable.
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 11:05am 08-14-23
My name is Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako. I am a licensed psychologist in private practice, the Chair of Sacramento County’s Mental Health Board, and the President of the Sacramento Valley Psychological Association. I am writing to you as a community mental health advocate to urge you to require the Sacramento Police Department to update and refine their Military Equipment Use Policy as well as improve their annual report. Sacramento residents and victims of police violence have repeatedly declared they feel less safe with the presence of heavily armed law enforcement and this sentiment was repeated in every single community listening session held by Sacramento Police Department regarding their Military Equipment Use Policy. As studies also confirm, law enforcement officers' possession of military weapons have escalated situations rather than mitigated any harm, often resulting in serious preventable injuries - most notably during the George Floyd protests of 2020.
Although the policy itself complies with the most generous and loose interpretations of AB 481, I am deeply concerned about the harmful outcomes that will result from a policy that asks for additional funding with virtually no justification, does not require tighter restrictions, does not take into account the well-researched recommendations given by an expert commission, and is not inspected by an independent oversight body.
To address these concerns, I implore this Committee to do the following:
1. Reject all new military equipment requests and reinvest the $360,000+ funds into community-based violence prevention organizations and/or the Department of Community Response.
2. Remove all language in the MEU policy that allows the Sacramento Police Department to use military equipment for crowd control and add specific restrictions for when and where military equipment cannot be used.
3. Designate independent oversight of the Sacramento Police Department's Military Equipment Use to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, the Inspector General, and the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission.
4. Review and approve all MEU-related recommendations from the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission before approving any of the MEU policy updates or equipment requests made by the Sacramento Police Department.
I urge you to listen to community feedback and to consider that some of the money used to provide the Sacramento Police Department with weapons can be reinvested into community needs for mental health care, housing, drug treatment, health, employment, and reparations. By strengthening preventative care systems that create racial and health equity, insteading of continuing to cause harm, we can all enjoy a safe and healthy Sacramento.
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 6:39pm 08-13-23
I support a review of this ordinance and of the use of military equipment by police. Spending on public safety is a major portion of the city budget; I support the council in developing a 'proportional' budget template that looks at all city spending in a balanced way, and uses generally the same proportions from year to year. Considering that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, I urge council to look for ways to strengthen relationships within our community so as to reduce the need for high-tech policing.
All such military equipment, as well as standard police guns and cars, are fossil fuel technologies that will eventually become obsolete. Now is not too soon to start planning for that time.
Annamarie Smith
Location:
Submitted At: 4:55pm 08-13-23
I am a voter in the City of Sacramento. I oppose militarized policing. I also find that the Sac PD has failed to comply with the City Council's directive issued on Sept. 13, 2022. Namely, the Sac PD is directed by City Council to report demographic information about suspects targeted when military equipment has been used over the reporting period. Its 2022-23 Use Report, pg. 10, is massively misleading. There, in the only place in the Report, there is some mention of demographic information. However, what the Sac PD is actually doing on pg. 10 is to give a cursory summary of an entirely different body of data, and a much more miniscule one at that. On pg 10 of the Use Report, there is a table that offers some demographic details about suspects, but not for the entire universe of the 844 instances in which military equipment was used. (see usage totals listed pg. 12 -15) Pg 10 offers a microscopic set of data, that of 86 "use of force" incidents. Within this tiny universe, there were 26 use of force incidents in which military equipment was used. (Of course, there were far more than 86 uses of force.
When questioned at a community meeting recently, the officers admitted that there were 86 "reportable use of force incidents.") In other words, full compliance with the City Council directive, which refers to "use" of military equipment, Sacramentans should receive 844 reports with demographic data about pertinent suspects; instead we get a few details about 26 deployments. This is a compliance rate of 3.1 percent compliance (26 divided by 844 is 0.0308) and we are owed the other 97 percent. This failure to comply suggests deep contempt for City Council, especially when we take into account the fact that Council even offered to pay for the costs pertaining to demographic reporting. When Black and Brown residents are hugely overrepresented among all suspects targeted by police and sheriff departments in operations where military equipment is used, (see e.g. the Findings in AB 481) there are sound reasons for this reporting, above and beyond the AB 481 threshold. I endorse the City Council's directive, and I note that the Sacramento Police Department's Review Commission recommends a similar demographic reporting. These data are not just missing from the Use Report 2022-23. In an egregious act of bad faith, the Sac PD substitutes a tiny subset of the data officially required in an obvious attempt to obscure its non-compliance. In light of this astonishing deployment of misinformation, I urge the Law and Leg Committee to treat this Use Report as radically insufficient, and to take the harshest corrective actions that are available to the Committee.
Tenley Borchman
Location:
Submitted At: 2:19pm 08-13-23
Dear Members of the Law and Legislation Committee,
I am writing in response to the Sacramento Police Department's annual military equipment use report. I urge you to require the Sacramento Police Department update their MEU policy and annual reporting. Separately, I urgently and sincerely request that this committee hold the Sacramento Police Department accountable for its continued violations of civil rights and liberties of community members it is esteemed to protect and serve.
The request for additional funding to augment the stash of militarized equipment available to Sacramento Police Department is not justified by common sense or in respect to statewide legislation, nor does it consider other recommendations and compels further unaccountability and oversight by a public service and public facing LEU.
To address these concerns, I ask the committee to do the following:
Reject all new military equipment requests and RE-INVEST funds into community based violence prevention organizations and/or the Department of Community Response.
Remove all language in the MEU policy that allows SacPD to use military equipment for crowd control and add specific restrictions for when and where military equipment cannot be used.
Designate independent oversight and CONTINUED ACCOUNTABILITY of the Police Department itself to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, the Inspector General, and the REVIEW COMMISSION.
Review and approve all MEU-related recommendations from Sacramento Community Police Review Commission before approving any of the MEU policy updates or equipment requests made by SacPD.
The historical denigration of civil rights of community members, Review Commission reports and findings, and conditional and basic application of AB 481 is a gross abdication of public service ethos and community betterment.
Respectfully,
Tenley Borchman
Diane Rosenblum
Location:
Submitted At: 11:30am 08-13-23
I am deeply concerned about the harmful outcomes that can result from the current military equipment use policy.
It does not require tight enough restrictions for such dangerous equipment and does not take into account effective alternatives to using military equipment.
RE: THE MILITARY EQUIP USE PLAN. AB481 requires SPD to identify an independent oversight entity. Internal Sac PD units listed in the plan are not appropriately independent. The CPRC recommendations suggest designating independent oversight to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the CPRC. Additionally, AB 481 requires that all costs are included. This plan does not include training and personnel costs. The department has not shown that the military equipment is cost effective (or the best alternative) for stated goals.
RE: THE MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE REPORT The intent of AB481 was to list any deployments visible to the community, not only uses of force or discharging the weapon. All deployments should be listed, not just chosen samples, and the info is required to be broken down by specific type of equipment used, where it took place, how many rounds were fired, the context of the incident and whom it was used against.
I urge you to not approve the MEU Plan and MEU Report this week and instead ask the PD to amend the plan to properly meet the requirements and intent of AB481 and the community expectations of mutual respect for rights and safety.
Max Hill
Location:
Submitted At: 2:23pm 08-12-23
Hello,
I am a resident living in the City of Sacramento and wish to provide the following comments regarding the upcoming Law and Legislation Committee on Tuesday, August 15th.
Subject – Law and Legislation Committee Oppose Item 5 & 7 I am a REALTOR®/housing provider/small business owner in Sacramento, and I strongly urge you to reject advancing the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance and the proposed Sacramento Forward plan.
Sacramento is facing a chronic shortage of housing. Neither of these proposals will ensure more affordable homes are built but rather will saddle housing providers with more regulations, red tape, and a costly bureaucratic process. As a REALTOR®, I understand the affordable housing challenges that exist in our city and region, which is why we need to look at solutions to create more housing for all income levels and diverse options that meet the needs of our residents. This is an extremely flawed policy that creates delays and significantly interferes in the market, home values, and impact a property owner's time-sensitive decision to sell based on personal costs related to education, health care, and major personal expenses.
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase policies create administrative processes that impact a property owner’s time- sensitive decision to sell based on personal costs related to education, health care, and major personal expenses. Recently, San Jose rejected a similar proposal, citing the cost and effectiveness of the program.
Mandates that overprescribe how rental housing is provided such as those included in the proposal to impose stricter just cause eviction, lower rent caps, anti-harassment, and COPA undermine the ability of housing providers to ensure they are offer quality homes to residents. Regulating the sale of rental units or providing taxpayer-funded attorneys to tenants in a dispute will not build more homes, will not make housing more affordable, and will not ensure the timely payment of rent.
Sacramento needs to continue its efforts on a comprehensive approach to addressing the identified need of building affordable housing and addressing homelessness such as supporting housing subsidies, promoting ADUs, and repurposing underutilized buildings to create housing.
I respectfully request the Law and Legislation Committee to reject items 5 and 7 on the August 15, 2023, agenda. _
Thank you for your consideration.
Agenda Item: eComments for 5. (Law and Legislation Committee/City Council) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO) File ID: 2023-00737 Overall Sentiment
Bruce Booher
Location:
Submitted At: 6:52pm 08-14-23
As a rental property owner for over 40 years, I know that existing City and State laws are very clear on what I can say, and what I can not say to my tenants. Additionally, the existing laws are very clear on what I can do, and no way can I hamper or interfere with the tenants ability to use their rental. This proposal is trying to falsely claim that when a property owner lawfully asks a tenant for the rent due, or lawfully asks a tenant to remedy a situation that violates the rental agreement, or lawfully tells the tenant that if rent isn't paid, or a violation corrected, the property owner has the option of taking the issue to court, somehow this is harassment or intimidation.
Sadly, this is in line with the new, and false claim that "words are violence". They are not, nor is expressing the property owners legal rights under the rental agreement to a tenant.
Bonnie Peterson
Location:
Submitted At: 1:39pm 08-14-23
I am a tenant in the City of Sacramento and I am writing to urge you to abandon the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance and the proposed Sacramento Forward plan. As a long term tenant in a unit currently covered under the City of Sacramento Rental Housing Inspection Program, I have seen how ineffective this poorly funded program is, with units going years without a full inspection and only landlord self-certifying compliance.
Additionally, while I have enjoyed rent stabilization measures on both a City and State level, unsurprisingly there has been a direct correlation in the lack of investment in maintenance of my unit and the favorable rents.
I am also concerned that tenant opportunity to purchase policies will create a situation where tenants are encouraged to purchase poorly maintained and fully depreciated rental properties because they are provided first right of refusal, rather than fully assessing the affordability and condition of a home. Many older units, including my own, do not rent for enough to truly fund upgrades and replacement of major systems over time. A home offered to sale to a tenant at an elevated pre-market price, that will need new electrical, roofing, plumbing, or pest repairs is not a tenant assistance program. It is predatory and will predictably lead to tenants stretching to purchase a property they cannot afford to maintain, or drawing out the opportunity to purchase process before realizing that they cannot afford necessary upgrades and repairs to maintain minimum habitability. While availability of homes to purchase is an issue, a much greater one is actual affordability of units on the market.
I would much rather see the City invest their time and money in enforcing the current Rental Housing Inspection program, enforcing often flaunted short term rental ordinances (and conditional use permits), providing tenant financial and legal assistance to ensure current local and state protections are being followed, and developing affordable housing options, then to spin their wheels building additional bureaucracy with minimal enforcement.
How many affordable units or housing subsidies could be funded by redirecting this effort to solving the real problems of lack of inventory, affordability, and housing stock quality? I appreciate the council’s work, but respectfully request the Law and Legislation Committee to reject items 5 and 7 on the August 15, 2023 agenda and focus efforts on concrete changes that will increase long term rental housing. _
Bill Motmans
Location:
Submitted At: 9:39am 08-14-23
The only "evidence" submitted is an unsupported staff report which speaks of tenants experiencing "extraordinary levels of harassment" and "threats of violence", etc. Where is the documentation that such "harassment" and "threats of violence" exist? Also submitted was a two year old article about unverified experiences of tenants in the Bay Area. Even if true, what does that have to do with Sacramento? By passing laws which make it even more difficult for small time landlords to keep rent manageable, as well as to retain good tenants long term, you would be contributing the to landlords costs to continue to be compliant, which will be passed on to the tenant? How is that helping the tenant?
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 3:46pm 08-13-23
This proposal seems generally desirable to me. The private business sector often complains about burdensome regulations. Remind them that if all businesses were fair and never exploitive or vindictive, there would be no need for such regulations.
That said, not all tenants are angels. I suspect that businesses already enjoy substantial protections from abuse.
Tangentially, I recall that the city passed an empty-building ordinance shortly after the mortgage meltdown of 2008, requiring an inventory of such buildings citywide. I hope it is still in effect, and that it can apply to residential units that are rented thru AirBNB and similar arrangements.
Max Hill
Location:
Submitted At: 2:24pm 08-12-23
Hello,
I am a resident living in the City of Sacramento and wish to provide the following comments regarding the upcoming Law and Legislation Committee on Tuesday, August 15th.
Subject – Law and Legislation Committee Oppose Item 5 & 7 I am a REALTOR®/housing provider/small business owner in Sacramento, and I strongly urge you to reject advancing the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance and the proposed Sacramento Forward plan.
Sacramento is facing a chronic shortage of housing. Neither of these proposals will ensure more affordable homes are built but rather will saddle housing providers with more regulations, red tape, and a costly bureaucratic process. As a REALTOR®, I understand the affordable housing challenges that exist in our city and region, which is why we need to look at solutions to create more housing for all income levels and diverse options that meet the needs of our residents. This is an extremely flawed policy that creates delays and significantly interferes in the market, home values, and impact a property owner's time-sensitive decision to sell based on personal costs related to education, health care, and major personal expenses.
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase policies create administrative processes that impact a property owner’s time- sensitive decision to sell based on personal costs related to education, health care, and major personal expenses. Recently, San Jose rejected a similar proposal, citing the cost and effectiveness of the program.
Mandates that overprescribe how rental housing is provided such as those included in the proposal to impose stricter just cause eviction, lower rent caps, anti-harassment, and COPA undermine the ability of housing providers to ensure they are offer quality homes to residents. Regulating the sale of rental units or providing taxpayer-funded attorneys to tenants in a dispute will not build more homes, will not make housing more affordable, and will not ensure the timely payment of rent.
Sacramento needs to continue its efforts on a comprehensive approach to addressing the identified need of building affordable housing and addressing homelessness such as supporting housing subsidies, promoting ADUs, and repurposing underutilized buildings to create housing.
I respectfully request the Law and Legislation Committee to reject items 5 and 7 on the August 15, 2023, agenda. _
Thank you for your consideration.
Agenda Item: eComments for 6. (Law and Legislation Committee) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - City of Sacramento to Adopt and Ordinance Regarding Sideshows, Street Races, and Reckless Driving Exhibitions and to Increase Fines File ID: 2023-00866
Overall Sentiment
Bill Motmans
Location:
Submitted At: 9:52am 08-14-23
It is abundantly clear that sideshows are dangerous, and that lives and property are increasingly at risk. It is appropriate and refreshing to see the council examine issues which pose serious threats to citywide communities.
Agenda Item: eComments for 7. (Law and Legislation Committee) Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration - Sacramento Forward: A Comprehensive Approach to Addressing Housing and Homelessness File ID: 2023- 01075
Overall Sentiment
Dan Hwang
Location:
Submitted At: 1:09am 08-15-23
This proposal will severely restrict investment in housing by disincentivizing landlords from investing in maintaining and upgrading their properties. Think about it, by capping rent increases at CPI/inflation, why should a landlord even want to invest in a property when costs of repair, insurance, and maintenance have easily outpaced inflation. For example, Insurance costs have doubled this year.
Even the max California allowed rent increase of over 9% this year doesn’t cover the increased insurance cost.
Imagine capping rent increases at 4% - ridiculous and unfair! Furthermore, the idea of restricting a property owner from increasing rent to market rate on a newly vacant unit is even more unfair. Why would a property owner upgrade a property if they can’t recoup their investment?? Rents already have started to go down in Sac given all the new apartment supply. The market is working.
Jeffrey Michael
Location:
Submitted At: 9:47pm 08-14-23
I am an applied public policy economist who has followed research on housing markets, and I also have significant experience with the Sacramento housing market over the past 15 years as a homeowner, small landlord (2 units), and tenant. I hope you and city staff find these comments useful as you try to work towards better outcomes in the City’s housing market.
I indicated neutral because I support some parts of the proposal and oppose others. I also suggest some revisions to some elements that I believe would limit some unintended consequences. In some cases, I would suggest delayed action as you observe.
Elements I Support: (numbered as in the proposal)
4. “Sacramento Opportunity to Purchase Act.” This is a creative and interesting proposal.
5. Pursue a 2024 ballot measure for funding. This places financial support for affordable housing programs on the general public where it belongs, rather than fees and regulations that place the financial burden on market-rate housing which can be counter-productive by reducing the overall supply of housing.
3.d.1 Reduce the percentage of allowable annual rent increases from 5%+CPI to annual CPI or wage increases is something I can support IF it does not apply to new tenancies.
Elements That I Might Support If Revised And Better Justified: Recommended Revisions.
3.a. “Just Cause” eviction protections at 30 days is too short, suggest 6 months at minimum. There is an unintended consequence here of damaging a market for 1-6 month rentals, often furnished, which serve new residents, travel-nurses and others in housing transitions. This measure will really discourage the production of backyard ADUs, and could limit housing available for traveling health-care professionals and those in housing transition. No evidence is provided for why the current 1 year 1-day rule is failing to protect tenants and needs to be shortened, and changes should be incremental in the absence of such evidence.
3.c. “Right to counsel” seems like a potentially costly entitlement, and could might encourage the use of legal actions when there are less costly remedies. I appreciate the need for low-cost or no-cost legal assistance, and perhaps this should be revised to increase funding towards that if current services are inadequate.
Financial Considerations – Recommend low or no fees for small landlords: This element suggests that the City will just impose fees (presumably on landlords) to offset the City’s staff costs of implementing the ordinance which would be consistent with other practice. Landlords and property managers will also have significant compliance costs for such a complex ordinance, even before paying the City’s costs with fees. Understanding and complying with these rules is especially difficult for small landlords, and will encourage rental housing to be controlled by large investors or shift small landlords towards large corporate management companies. Thus, I suggest reduced or waived compliance fees for small landlords based on the number of units they own and/or self- manage.
Elements I Oppose:
3.d.part 2. While I support rent increase limits one existing tenants, rent should not be controlled for new tenancies, and instead should be allowed to reset at market rates. Limits on rent at new tenancies will encourage landlords to increase rent by the maximum allowable amount on existing tenancies every year, raising costs for those the ordinance is trying to protect from displacement. In addition, rent controls at new tenancy greatly disincentive maintenance, investment and repair of the housing stock, as much maintenance and investment in units occurs when units turnover with landlords motivated by the ability to charge market rent to a new tenant.
Landlords are not going to replace old appliances, freshly paint units, replace carpets or do anything more than the bare minimum health and safety repairs if rents are restricted at turnover.
2. Inclusionary housing requirements. These policies risk unintended consequences by increasing the cost of market-rate development and thus reducing the overall supply of housing. The Keyser-Marston Associates report cited as support for this proposal does not provide compelling empirical evidence, and they do not cite any of the research on inclusionary zoning policies and the potential negative effects on private development. Inclusionary zoning does have a potential social benefit in that it promotes mixed-income neighborhoods as opposed to concentrated low-income housing, but this social-benefit should be financed more broadly and not through higher market-rate production costs.
Finally, I will note that the past few years have seen a tremendous increase in multi-family housing development in the City, and many of these units have yet to hit the market as planning and construction takes years. Given the increase in supply, and some evidence of rent increases abating as a result, one might conclude that current housing policies are working and to be cautious in implementing the more aggressive measures that could discourage new investment.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Dr. Jeffrey Michael
Sacramento, CA
Mike Jaske
Location:
Submitted At: 8:45pm 08-14-23
SacACT provides supportive comments on the Councilmember proposal.
See the attached file.
Bruce Booher
Location:
Submitted At: 7:10pm 08-14-23
This proposal should be called " A comprehensive approach to eliminate private investing in rental housing".
Nobody in their right mind would spend their own money, assume all the risk and liability of property ownership, just to give over almost complete control of their personal property over to the City. For over 40 years I've been a very responsible rental property owner, have maintained my properties and kept rents lower than the market rate.
I never would have invested here, and am now sorry I ever did.
Socialist governments often nationalize private industry. This proposal is much more cleaver and devious. The City gets all the power and control of the property, but the property owner is stuck with all the risk, costs, liability and management of the property. This proposal has no connection to, nor does it do anything to make housing more affordable. It does nothing but create a way for the City to take even more control of the private rental business.
Bill Motmans
Location:
Submitted At: 5:49pm 08-14-23
The Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP) has been a bust. It was pitched to residents as as way to address problem properties and owners and property managers who fail to comply with local ordinances, with pointed efforts to address chronic problem properties. Instead, the program has been used to hire more "contract" inspectors who, when confronted with the approximate 10% of problem properties, with histories of non-compliance, fail to do anything at all. Requiring owners to report evictions to the city smacks of Big Brother.
Does the City want to inject themselves into every aspect of commerce in the city? This legislation is unneeded, and will have a chilling effect on progress for tenants.
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 6:25pm 08-13-23
i enthusiastically support this proposal.
please see the attached comment.
Kate Lenox
Location:
Submitted At: 4:55pm 08-11-23
Item 7
I support the SacForward proposal for a comprehensive city strategy to prevent homelessness. I remember when both the city and county eliminated the affordable housing requirement for new development at the height of the recession. The years of little or no new housing built that included affordable units has helped bring us to this crisis.
We can't continue doing the same things and expecting different results. It's time to try something new that considers the needs of city residents that live on the margins between housed and homeless.
Timothy Murphy
Location:
Submitted At: 4:05pm 08-11-23
August 11, 2023
The Honorable Katie Valenzuela, Chair
Sacramento City Council Law & Legislation Committee
915 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Sacramento Forward
Dear Councilmember Valenzuela:
Founded in 1901 and serving more than 1,100 member companies, the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange (SRBX) is the construction industry’s oldest and largest association in the Sacramento region. The Exchange’s members include area contractors and subcontractors, suppliers, and industry support organizations. With members operating in the multifamily housing space, SRBX is keenly interested in housing policy, as it impacts economic investment in housing within the Sacramento Region.
I have reviewed the staff report and wish to provide input on elements of Sacramento Forward. The proposal contains many proposals that impact the construction industry. Given the magnitude of new policies proscribed in the proposal, a broad stakeholder group should be convened before this measure proceeds forward to ensure all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide and hear information from industry experts on the potential impacts of this measure, whether efforts in other jurisdictions have been successful, and if collaborative solutions can be developed.
For example, in establishing an inclusionary housing requirement, SRBX is on record with the City in previous efforts that while the intention behind inclusionary housing requirements is to increase affordable housing stock, there are several ways in which these policies have demonstrated instead, the inadvertent discouragement of construction of new housing. For example:
• Requiring developers to provide a percentage of affordable units can significantly increase their costs in design, construction, and ongoing maintenance. As a result, developers may find it less financially viable to proceed with new projects, especially in areas where profit margins are already thin. • Corporations, REITS, and other investment groups frequently bring forward multi-family projects. Since inclusionary housing requirements reduce the potential profit margins of development, this can lead to developers being less motivated to invest in new projects, particularly in high-demand areas where land and construction costs are already high.
• Inclusionary housing policies disrupt the housing market's traditional supply and demand dynamics. Mandating a certain percentage of affordable units decreases the supply of market-rate units, leading to increased competition among buyers or renters for the remaining market-rate units, potentially driving up prices. • Implementing inclusionary housing requirements can introduce additional bureaucratic hurdles and delays in the development approval process. Developers may face uncertainties about how these policies will be enforced and how the affordable units will be distributed. These factors can deter developers from pursuing new projects.
In light of the challenges behind this single element alone, SRBX would recommend that the Law and Legislation Committee postpone the Sacramento Forward agenda item indefinitely and work with industry and stakeholders to find collaborative solutions that can advance affordable housing and homelessness in the City of Sacramento.
Sincerely,
Timothy Murphy, CEO
cc: The Honorable Eric Guerra
The Honorable Rick Jennings
The Honorable Lisa Kaplan
Agenda Item: eComments for SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL added to Item 5 - See Agenda Item Below Overall Sentiment
Hassan Saeedi
Location:
Submitted At: 10:12am 08-14-23
I am a REALTOR®/housing provider/small business owner in Sacramento, and I strongly urge you to reject advancing the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance and the proposed Sacramento Forward plan.
Sacramento is facing a chronic shortage of housing. Neither of these proposals will ensure more affordable homes are built but will saddle housing providers with more regulations, red tape, and a costly bureaucratic process. As a REALTOR®, I understand the affordable housing challenges that exist in our city and region, which is why we need to look at solutions to create more housing for all income levels and diverse options that meet the needs of our residents.
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase policies create administrative processes that impact a property owner’s time- sensitive decision to sell based on personal costs related to education, health care, and significant personal expenses. Recently, San Jose rejected a similar proposal, citing the cost and effectiveness of the program.
Mandates that overprescribe how rental housing is provided such as those included in the proposal to impose stricter just cause eviction, lower rent caps, anti-harassment, and COPA undermine the ability of housing providers to ensure they offer quality homes to residents. Regulating the sale of rental units or providing taxpayer- funded attorneys to tenants in a dispute will not build more homes, will not make housing more affordable, and will not ensure the timely payment of rent.
Sacramento needs to continue its efforts on a comprehensive approach to addressing the identified need of building affordable housing and addressing homelessness such as supporting housing subsidies, promoting ADUs, and repurposing underutilized buildings to create housing.
I respectfully request the Law and Legislation Committee to reject items 5 and 7 on the August 15, 2023, agenda. _
Thank you for being so considerate.