HHC MIN 1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I Rousing _1\•i a 11Y se ri S d that, the evening ' s meeting had been called as a r 1sp 1 s` l o'{.:j , • r •a ce ,s 1 by �' I i.ti ' .1d Jim Geiger , 13•� :Jackson Street, lie read to an {, .:. .. .t.il •;� � L.4.3 rA� .J V ^mot( `' t •-4A 1. .... Street .Y 1 � their ] C-_•t t;c'r of request , i.!}i1ci"i said that " a city -:i ni thLed eviction prof.: ced 1. 2_e on t,1iE i. r rented nc::".e had shown. Lbep! t•brit "there de 5_ni Le.).y is a problem in Other lRedwood City . • 'L l ' . .. c . . ( • y 1 a •r for . • 1 • C S1 //,j. lc•.1. Le��t'l ��Ci7� c.�ljlt. �. � ! ' .' ) la j a .F.•c.. .!_L1\_•.a ll,' ��i� �JY ��{_a r. c !�1: .1.•C•1J. low- income .f 4��1� .,...LL:�4J • l� 1. • •� 11 needs they cited included "the need for bus :1 d:i.ng codes for older }homes , and " some more efficient method of building code enforcement" so that :l andio ds owning older low-:i nccwle recital s would "not be allowed to let their properties depreciate until useless and ordered condemned by the city . " it seems a crime to us for the city to require ; much less allow , destruction of the few (low- income ) units that are left t to rent , " the Geigers wrote . A :later letter from the Redwood City lousinrt Group , also signed. by the Geigers , asked to be heard on "rehabilitation ;.L:1tation ; ev:i ct Lon.s , and relocation . " . Hansom se.id he wanted to make it clear that the Ci.ty had not been able to hear the Geigers when first they wrote because the Geigers had been in the process of talk :hit; the City and their landlord to court for relief and the City Attorney had said that it would not be appropriate for the City to hear from them . Orce the court case had been resolved , he said , the City Council had referred their request to the Housing Concerns Comm,i. t;tee . . ifiayor 1ccckiey said that; he thought that relocation wem a problem for all cities , not just Redwood C i t.j . and that he hadn ' t seen any definitive solution a.on to the prcoblc . lie said the Co.ru:.:i. itee wanted people ' s is test mo y and feelings and tha,t lic knew there was (211 to be learned rind froin people i.n ' r::z"S.ely involved . The Coin:iittc e was looks rig for recon; errdations and solutions , he said . THE JACKSON STRlEET Ciu._aa Dale de Loche , of ► 27 Jackson. Street , and one of the co-plaintiffs with the Geigers , told his story . The house that he and his wife lived in , like that of the Geigers in the front of the lot , had been condemned by the City . When his landlord gave him a thirty-day notice to vacate , both he and his wife were out of work . Relocation was indeed a problem, and the City ought to think twice before 1L dislocated . All this had started tic i th an anonymous phone call to the City complaining about substandard conditions . The City had ins}:cct;ed the houses , and the main fault with them seemed to be the lack of a concreT :Coundt iorl. . But since he was holding them only until he could build an apartment building on the lot, the landlord wanted to tear them down anyway . So he sent-, them a 30-day notice to get out- -and they went to Legal Aid . Their out of court settlement with the ) andlord and the City won them a 90-day extension and two mon th t s free rent . But the landlord will still demolish the houses , he said , though they are rehabil_i table . Fred Soderer asked how. much time the City Building Department allowed in situations of substandardness . From 30 to 90 days , said Building Official Charles Gyselbreclrt . Eileen Gray said that it was just a fluke that these houses had been brought to the Building Department ' s attention, and that many other houses must exist MIS?U` ES HOUSING CONCERNS COMMITTEE AUGUST 2 , 1972 PAGE 2 OF 8 •