pages: CityCouncil/2020-03-17.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-03-17 | 7 | issue; stated that he would like to give staff direction to consider whether related emergency ordinances can be looked into in a timely manner so as not to cause delay with implementation; it is possible there will be daily orders from Governor Newsom; expressed support for clarification on Section 8. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to see a mechanism by which percentage loss of income stemming from the COVID-19 virus results in a pro-rata reduction in rent; should someone lose 20% of their income during the moratorium period, a mechanism should be put in place that allows for collection of 80% of the previous rent during the life of the moratorium; he believes that the ordinance language does not contain a mechanism to deal with rent and income reductions; expressed support for a loss of income not resulting in eviction; stated a loss of income still requires the obligation of communication between the landlord and tenant; he has drafted language to include the mechanism; should rent reductions occur as a result of the ordinance, there should also be a process by which parts of unpaid rent is paid back over a period of time; outlined an article from the San Francisco Examiner; stated the ordinance is silent about repayment of rent, a process that gets tenants speaking to their landlords, and landlords accommodating tenants to come upon mutually agreed upon rent reduction; noted should someone be able to demonstrate a loss of income by 15%, the language included should depict a rent reduction of 15%; expressed support for a mechanism to be in place indicating: a) a rent adjustment discussion with landlord, b) an agreement between landlord and tenant, and c) should no agreement be met, the operative parts of the ordinance takes effect; stated the crisis impacts both tenants and small landlords; the ordinance can be strengthened; both San Francisco and San Jose have 30-day moratoriums with the possibility of extending; Alameda is jumping to 60- days; Section 1 Subsection 3 needs to clarify the timeframe to state during the course of COVID-19 crisis; the ordinance needs to have a clear sunset; the term tenants must be defined; expressed support for adopting a mechanism that gets tenants and landlords to talk to each other and arrive at a mutually agreed upon rent reduction resulting from a loss of income and for a payback element to be included in the language. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that a 60-day moratorium has its own sunset; the Council will either reconsider or sunset at the end of 60 days; the she is unsure of where things will be at the end of 60 days; noted San Jose and San Francisco will possibly extend their provisions; stated that she believes utilities have all agreed not to shut off during the COVID-19 outbreak; this is a healthcare crisis and people should not be without utilities; Councilmember Daysog has raised good points worth reviewing; any items approved should not be difficult to administer; expressed concern for pro-rata formulas; many landlords are not present to conduct dialogue, which may cause complications. The City Attorney stated the ordinance will sunset 60 days from today; the ordinance does allow for the City Manager to extend under two conditions: 1) the State must be in a COVID-19 declared emergency by the Governor, or 2) the City Council is unable to meet to authorize an extension; should both circumstances be true, the City Manager can offer extensions; the 60-day limit is less than the Governor's current timeframe, which extends to May 31st and allows the City to pause and review at the 60-day mark; Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 March 17, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-03-17.pdf |