pages: CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf, 26
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2016-02-16 | 26 | Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft questioned how information could be reviewed. Mayor Spencer stated people could send emails or correspondence; she is concerned with how many staff members will have to be hired to run the program. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data will be more useful and reliable if it is systematically collected. Mayor Spencer stated her relocation fee concern is how would the City enforce the tenant moving out if the half paid up front: a stipulated judgement or an irrevocable notice of termination; something enforceable is needed; a landlord cannot be expected to pay money then not have the tenant leave on a date certain. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are repercussions for a tenant not leaving on a date certain, such as an unlawful detainer. Mayor Spencer stated an unlawful detainer takes a lot of money and time in court; stated maybe a requirement should be a part of the administrative regulation. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the first year of the program should be in good faith. Mayor Spencer stated a landlord paying relocation benefits should not also have to do an unlawful detainer to evict the tenant; inquired whether there is a solution; stated the landlord should pay the relocation fees as the tenant leaves, concurrently. Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are costs to securing a new residence. Mayor Spencer stated there needs to be something in place to make sure the tenant leaves on the date certain. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the RRAC should mediate eviction issues and the City should not codify a formula that says how much is paid whether it is time or money; working with the RRAC model is cleaner than trying to fit every case into a set of ordinance sections. Councilmember Daysog urged Council to continue the meeting to address the issues because the changes are too substantial. Councilmember Oddie stated paying 50% up front is fair; inquired if there is data of tenants that have defaulted after receiving 50% first. The Assistant City Attorney responded there is no concrete data; he is not aware there is a problem; stated the matter can be revisited in one year; tenant can also be weary of the landlord giving them the other 50%. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 16, 2016 | CityCouncil/2016-02-16.pdf |