An ordinance that would prevent evictions during the coronavirus pandemic was delayed for a week by council on Tuesday night with the majority of members acknowledging support, but believing that they should get more stakeholder input.
With the outbreak of COVID-19, precautions recommended by health authorities have meant many people will be sheltering in place or may experience sudden and unexpected income loss with further impacts anticipated over the coming weeks. These will leave many tenants vulnerable to eviction.
The ordinance would prohibit landlords from evicting a resident due to non-payment if the tenant is unable to pay rent due to impacts from COVID-19. The ordinance would not relieve the tenant “of liability for the unpaid rent, which the landlord may seek after expiration of the local emergency and the tenant must pay within six months of the expiration of the local emergency.”
City Manager Mike Webb explained that this is not the norm, and the urgency ordinance was literally posted an hour before the meeting.
He explained, “We’re trying to put something forward for consideration as soon as possible… Nothing compels you to act to tonight.”
He said that the council could easily consider this on March 24, the date of the regularly scheduled council meeting, saying they could “take it up at that time.”
City Attorney Inder Khalsa said that this is something that would not be enforced by city staff, but rather “it does provide additional defenses to tenants who are facing evictions.” This would be a tool used by tenants to counteract eviction proceedings.
She also noted, “The urgency of this is sort of a question mark… ultimately it is unlikely that this ordinance would come into play for weeks if not months because the courts are increasingly shutting down and they’re not hearing unlawful detainer actions.”
Mike Webb added, “(This) is really to prevent the predatory type of evictions.”
Mayor Brett Lee noted he was “cautious” about trying to vote on something like this on this evening.
“Davis is somewhat unique in that over half the residential units are rentals,” he said. He wanted feedback from community members before proceeding. He cited ASUCD and the California Apartment Owners Association.
“Most people have a sense of what it means to rent an apartment because we’ve all experienced that,” he said. But most have not entered into a commercial lease. “That makes me hesitant to enacting something like this. I’m supportive of the principle—I think we all are.”
Councilmember Dan Carson said that he concurs with the mayor.
He warned that we could have a larger homeless problem if the worst case scenario of a 20 percent unemployment rate occurs.
“We need to be really careful,” he said. “Giving a chance to hear from folks who are paying close attention to these matters will only make this ordinance stronger.”
Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida said not everyone who has to stay home is going to lose wages.
“It’s really important to protect those that are most vulnerable,” she said. “This is an important thing to have in place. I just want to make sure it’s as carefully crafted as it can be.”
Will Arnold said he was comfortable with the direction he senses from his colleagues, noting he would have been willing to support it at the present meeting.
“I think our city attorney is correct that most of these bills won’t come through until the end of the month, which means that the difference between March 17 and March 24 is somewhat irrelevant in this regard,” he said.
Councilmember Arnold added, “If you’re going to ask folks to shelter in place, it’s imperative that they have a place to shelter.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
.
I believe this was good process. Allowing public input, and considering that public input is a necessary part of our democracy.
It does extend the period of uncertainty at least a week. While I expect that there will not be any landlords who attempt to make a quicky eviction in that additional week of uncertainty, the City should publicize a telephone hotline where tenants who receive an eviction notice can call for mediation assistance with their landlord dispute.
The point that Inder made is they literally can’t because even if they attempt the process, there are no court hearings
This wasn’t even a big US issue March 1 when last rent was paid, so really not an issue until April 1.
At least Davis isn’t going San Francisco. There, a supervisor is pressuring a condo to let ‘homeless’ reside in their 50 unsold units. That’s a great idea, what could possibly go wrong? And I’m sure the other tenants in the building will be pleased as punch.
That’s a statewide thing you know
And as everyone knows once they’re in the units it will be no problem getting them to leave when the crises is over.
And I’m sure they’ll do a great job cleaning and sanitizing the place for the next tenant!
This policy will lead to a big boost in developers building units to help with the housing shortage said no one ever.
No one. Ever.
. . . except horses with a plastic, spiral, rainbow-painted cone glued on their forehead by housing progressives.
The relative balance between property owners and tenants should clearly support this measure. Landlords have sufficient capital to sustain property ownership even when the unit is vacant. There is little difference if a tenant resides there without paying rent for a period of time. On the other hand, half of America doesn’t have enough cash reserves to last more than a few months, and tenants probably make up most of these households.
A lot of people don’t have enough money for next month
Probably not an accurate claim, regarding some. The claim certainly demonstrates an “attitude”, though. I wonder how many tenants think that way?
I didn’t catch that at first, RO. Yeah, not all landlords are in the same boat, any more than all tenants are in the same boat as far as financial reserves. How could that conclusion be drawn? It’s not like people magically became complete 100% owners when they acquire a property for rental – the bank gives it up slowly. Often, they are a month or two away from foreclosure with property taxes, insurance and maintenance always nipping at their heels.
Pretty much, all…
I’m concerned about the businesses in this town. Not the corporations, the local ones. A lot of them were on the edge already. Will landlords see the reality of the situation, and work with their struggling tenants over the next few months, both businesses and residential? There is just plain going to be a lot less money out there for a long, long time.
Look at the benefits though of empty Davis storefronts. Parking will no longer be an issue and the climate alarmists will be happy with less emissions caused by a crashing economy.
Reminds me of a day I went for a walk with a young lassie along the Santa Cruz boardwalk, on a day it was closed. When we returned from the beach, I could see in the distance but a single car, my own, on the entire waterfront. As we approached, a small pink dot became visible — closer, a $40 parking ticket, payable to the City of Santa Cruz.
[Moderator: This is your 7th, and thus final, post on this thread.
Thank you for your participation.]
Because of the Coronavirus, we get 8
That’s exactly why the city is stepping up with the ordinance
No need to worry. Those spots will soon be occupied by all of the start-ups which are being “prevented” from locating in Davis – according to some.
Different kinds of business
So what? If necessary, accommodate them in the zoning.
Perfect place for them, in a commercial district (close to UCD). Perhaps “motivated” landlords, as well.
So you’re hoping to lose eateries and small shops in the downtown in favor of high tech business in hopes of finding an excuse to forestall ARC?
I don’t think anyone is hoping for that, but it’s looking like reality more and more everyday.
I was just curious.
Yes Ron, it’s all unicorns, windmills and gliders.
If there’s empty storefronts (and/or underutilized commercial spaces), this would not “displace” existing businesses. If anything, it would strengthen the existing commercial core – including eateries and small shops.
It’s painfully obvious that folks like you are looking for an “excuse” to support ARC. I wouldn’t recommend that the city put all of its eggs in that basket, especially since there’s a good chance it will be rejected.
If there was actual demand for such commercial space, you’d see businesses pursuing those existing empty and underutilized spaces.
Depends on how you view existing businesses. Right now there is an eatery or something there. That goes away. It’s replaced by a different kind of business. We need both businesses. Simply trading one for another does not solve our need. (Not to mention a good deal of the type of businesses we are looking at for ARC are considerably larger than existing space).
Again, if there’s storefronts/buildings remaining empty (including those preceding the coronavirus), that indicates a lack of demand. Last time I checked, the old Davis housewares building was for sale. What other storefronts/locations are empty, at this time?
And of course, this doesn’t address those spaces (such as University Mall, Hibbert’s, etc.) that are being semi-residentialized, instead of pursuing more dense commercial activity.
Most, if not all cities in the Bay Area have not “annexed” one inch of land, for decades. Despite that fact, one planning commissioner noted (during the recent workshop) that there’s a significant amount of vacant commercial sites, there.
Arguing about ARC is so last week. Part of this crisis will remain as a new normal. Hopefully two things that will die include:
1) The stupid art of handshaking.
2) The stupid tradition of having everyone in the company commute to a common building.
Time to end stupid things.
Yours,
Alan C. Miller
Perhaps one good thing to come out of this will be an increase in telecommuting, in the future. Many businesses (and government agencies) have been unreasonably reluctant to allow this, prior to this point.
Seems that they want to “see” you working, regardless of results.
Prior to the coronavirurs, there were too many mofos driving around – for no apparent reason. (This commenter “excluded” from that conclusion, of course!)
Let’s see… telecommuting means using the internet… of course, the internet is ‘virus-free’… yeah, right…
One could stay healthy and a hacker steal all your funds… real safe…
Probably can’t count the number of times that on-site employees (and entire businesses) have the same type of technical/computer problems.
Including online thefts and data breaches – only some of which you hear about.
Regardless, I suspect the resistance is largely “cultural”, rather than “technical”.
[Moderator: This is your 7th, and thus final, post on this thread.
Thank you for your participation.]
Its one thing if people can’t make the rent in an emergency. The Feds $1000 only gets you a months rent for a room in Davis so food and utilities will be another issue. I’m sure with our landlord in chief its likely some accommodation will be figured into the bailout. Remember when Jimmy Carter was President the price of peanuts didn’t go down.
But what if your tenant is trashing the place or constantly disturbing the neighbors. Imagine a mini-dorm next door with sequestered 20 year olds partying 24/7 and self medicating with beer or meth and eviction is off the table.
Yes there is a basic tenet (or tenant)… “to every solution, there is a problem”…
” Imagine a mini-dorm next door with sequestered 20 year olds partying 24/7 and self medicating with beer”
Goodness, I miss my twenties.
I note, JH, you misquoted RG, leaving out the “meth”.
Hmmmmmmm . . .