Laserfiche WebLink
Allow sender | Block sender <br />From:James Winston <br />To:GRP-City Council <br />Subject:[Alert. Email sent from outside the United States.] Tenant protections Act <br />Date:Friday, October 10, 2025 4:55:43 PM <br />Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. <br />Some people who received this message don't often get email from james@millenniumflats.com. Learn why this isimportant <br />Dear Redwood City, <br />I recognize that you are well intended and would like to protect tenants in passing this <br />ordinance, but you are failing to understand how housing providers operate and failing to <br />understand the actual impacts of manipulating the landlord tenant market. <br />1. Relocation assistance- if you significantly increase the penalty a landlord has to pay when a <br />tenant with low income moves out, THEN A LANDLORD WILL AVOID RENTING TO <br />THESE PEOPLE DURING THE SELECTION PROCESS. So you are creating a scenario that <br />makes it harder for low income residents to rent an apartment. <br />2. Right to return - once again, sounds good in principle, but significant renovations take 1-6 <br />months, and the minimum lease term in Redwood City is 12 months. So where in Redwood <br />City could the tenant being relocated live for 6 months? And it’s never feasible for that same <br />relocated tenant to pay $500-$1000 per month more in rent for the same renovated apartment. <br />So, although this ordinance sounds nice, it’s completely impractical and irrelevant in the real <br />world. <br />(There is not enough housing in Redwood City and no matter how hard you try to manipulate <br />the market, you will only create market dislocations and not solutions). I would consider the <br />proposed ordinance to only create market dislocations and not get anyone closer to a solution. <br />What you need to ask yourself is how can we create 10x more housing than we have over the <br />next 20 years? This is what will solve the housing problem.