My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
10A Action 2019 0520
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2019
>
Packet 2019 0520
>
10A Action 2019 0520
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2019 5:52:20 PM
Creation date
5/14/2019 5:51:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
5/20/2019
Retention
PERM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
126
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
1 <br />Sargent, Maryann <br />From: <br />Sent:Tuesday, April 30, 2019 6:29 PM <br />To:Cutter, Pauline; Lopez, Corina; Cox, Deborah; Hernandez, Ed; Aguilar Jr, Victor; Lee, Benny; <br />Ballew, Pete; Liao, Thomas; Sargent, Maryann <br />Cc:Doug Johnson; Matt Davies; Brock Kaveny; Bob Guilford; Diana Nielsen; Jim Nielsen; Sharon <br />Nichols; atwasp@hotmail.com; winfordfrady@gmail.com <br />Subject:Proposed Mobilehome Rent Stabilization Ordinance <br />Dear Honorable Mayor Cutter, Vice Mayor and Council Members, <br /> <br />On behalf of the Park Owners, we had an opportunity to meet with Tom Liao and Maryann Sargent on Thursday, April 25th to <br />discuss alternative options to the proposed San Leandro rent control ordinance. As I have expressed, Brandenburg, Staedler and <br />Moore is not in favor of a rent control ordinance. We have been historically successful with our Rent Stabilization Agreements <br />that we have negotiated in the past with our Residents and even the City (when they used to be involved). That being said, it <br />appears those successes have been replicated in a similar fashion with the San Dimas Mobilehome Accord. <br /> <br />In reviewing over the proposed San Leandro rent control ordinance and the San Dimas Accord, we would like to highlight some <br />items that we believe could lead to a successful outcome for the City, Residents and Park Owners. We want to emphasize that <br />not every Tenant or Owner is going to agree to the terms presented (initial or final) but the Park Owners are continually open to <br />finding a sound solution. What we should be focusing on is the long‐term viability and sustainability of our RV and mobilehome <br />communities. If the City’s true intention is to protect affordable housing, we’re hopeful you will genuinely take into <br />consideration the business owners’ perspective as well. <br /> <br /> Rent: The way it is presented in the San Leandro rent control ordinance is: “the lesser of CPI or 4% of the rent charged in <br />the preceding year.” We don’t believe this allows Park Owners to appropriately or adequately balance a budget to <br />maintain or improve the community. We suggest changing the language to, “the space rent payable for use or <br />occupancy of any mobilehome space shall not be increased more than the greater of 4% or 100% CPI.” When utilizing <br />CPI, we suggest using a local reading published by the Bureau such as San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward. <br /> Special Circumstances Household: We would like to see this language removed or revised. As currently presented in <br />the San Leandro Rent Control Ordinance, it appears that as long as a Resident meets one of the 4 criteria in the section <br />they would be exempt from capital expenditure pass throughs. We understand the City’s intention of protecting <br />vulnerable classes, but age and health are not applicable criteria in the regards to being financially capable of paying <br />rent. If the City is interested in keeping language for special circumstances households, then we believe it should be <br />financially means based. <br />o Additionally, given the language in this section, this could open Park Owners up to potential discrimination <br />lawsuits since we would be required to request personal health information. <br /> Vacancy Decontrol: We are in agreement with the full vacancy decontrol. <br /> Pass through: We agree that these pass throughs are beneficial to all parties the Residents, Park Owners and the City. It <br />allows the park to improve on systems that are aging while also providing the Residents with a quality community to call <br />home. Allowing Tenants to vote on what can be passed through would be problematic and will likely lead to further <br />deterioration of the community. <br /> <br />We believe an Accord is the best direction for the City. It holds Park Owners responsible for their actions, it protects the <br />Residents by giving them transparent and predictable expectations and it assists with protecting the City by limiting their legal <br />liability. In addition, bringing the Residents and Park Owners together to create an Accord could assist with building stronger <br />relationships. We all understand the challenges facing the real estate industry, but it is in all our interests to work together to <br />find a favorable long‐term solution. <br /> <br />We also recognize that this is a large task that has ripple effects far into the future. This is one of many reasons why we want to <br />be so involved in assisting the City with finding a fair solution for everyone. I hope you find my email helpful and if you need any <br />further clarification I am always available.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.