Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3. Relocation Assistance & "Special Circumstance" Liability Mandating three months of HUD Fair <br />Market Rent is an extreme burden on small owners already providing below-market housing. <br />Furthermore, the draft is dangerously ambiguous regarding "Special Circumstances" (seniors, disabled, <br />families). <br /> Housing providers should not be tasked with "vetting" a tenant’s medical or financial status. This <br />creates a massive liability for Fair Housing lawsuits and invades tenant privacy. <br />4. Minimum Lease Term Overreach The requirement to offer a mandatory one-year lease is an <br />unnecessary intrusion into private negotiations. Landlords already strive for long-term tenancies to avoid <br />high turnover costs (painting, repairs, vacancy, time to re-rent). The City should allow the length of lease <br />terms to remain a negotiable item between the landlord and tenant based on individual needs. <br />5. Administrative Burden & 3-Day Filing Timeline The requirement to provide the City with copies of <br />"No-Fault" notices within 3 days is impractical for self-managing owners. This timeline is far too short, <br />especially when considering weekends or holidays. Furthermore, we question the use of taxpayer funds <br />to create an administrative infrastructure for tracking private business notices—a process that adds <br />complexity without adding value to the landlord-tenant relationship. <br />The proposed Redwood City Tenant Protection Ordinance creates a "Legal Double-Jeopardy" by layering <br />restrictive local mandates on top of existing state laws, transforming property management and rental <br />management into a defensive, risk-mitigation exercise. This extreme complexity—manifesting in 50+ <br />page leases that overwhelm both parties—effectively penalizes benevolent "mom-and-pop" landlords <br />who have historically maintained stable tenancies and suppressed rent increases for years at a time. <br />Conclusion Redwood City’s small landlords provide a vital service, but these burdensome, "one-size- <br />fits-all" regulations are making it impossible to remain in the market. When "mom-and-pop" owners are <br />forced out by overreach, they are replaced by large corporate ent ities that will immediately bring all rents <br />to market maximums. I urge the City to reduce these stringent requirements and adopt more balanced, <br />simplified regulations that support the providers who work hard to maintain fair housing offerings in the <br />community. <br />Respectfully, <br />Denise A. <br /> <br />8.A. - Page 83 of 85 <br />341