Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />MGR-Victor Gaitan <br />From:Jeff Schabowski <jeffschabowski@gmail.com> <br />Sent:Friday, April 24, 2026 4:16 PM <br />To:Housing rwc <br />Subject:Potential Scam Public Comment on RWC Tenant Protection Ordinance <br />Follow Up Flag:Follow up <br />Flag Status:Flagged <br />[Please Note!] Many scammers will use a gmail.com address to send fake invoices/bills/direct deposit changes. Please be cautious and <br />check with IT if you have any concerns <br />The proposed Tenant protection ordinance places small landlords in Redwood City in a very difficult situation. <br />We are fighting to survive in an increasingly restrictive environment and more and better opportunities <br />elsewhere. We believe in the City of Redwood City’s assistance in fighting the unfair State of California Tenant <br />Protection Ordinance (TPO) rather than proposing even more restrictive ordinances on top of the state’s <br />unfair policies. We ask that the City not support the State TPO and are opposed to the City’s expanding tenant <br />rights protections above and beyond the State TPOs. Doing so unfairly places the burden directly on property <br />owners who need to earn a competitive return on their properties in order to continue to afford to keep our <br />properties and properly maintain them. <br />It is my belief the residents of Redwood City support the City’s efforts pushing back on the State for the <br />unaffordable CalPERS and CalSTERS retirement plans with exponentially increasing unfunded liabilities which <br />already resulted in Redwood City paying one of the highest sales tax rates in the United States [1]. We also <br />support your efforts in attempting to recover vehicle license fee adjustments due to the City.[2] Why stop <br />there? Regarding rental properties it appears the City and State both want to drive small investors and those <br />who inherited properties completely out of town. <br />Redwood City’s proposal to extend relocation assistance requirements to four months where the State <br />mandate is one month is especially problematic. Please understand the State’s requirement of one-month <br />free rent for relocation is unreasonable as small landlords do not have the means to collect welfare on behalf <br />of our tenants, let alone pay welfare to our tenants. We are competing against large institutional investors <br />who seemingly have the resources to force out the small investors. Secondly, many of us acquire properties to <br />rent to our family members who cannot afford to rent elsewhere. In my case, my 88-year-old aunt became <br />widowed and wished to rent in a rental unit she owned. The existing tenants fought eviction by arguing the <br />eviction notice was not legal which resulted in six months of delays. Looking back, I wish we filed in court to be <br />judged by a jury of our peers to see what the public opinion is in California. I can not imagine anywhere else in <br />the world where landlords have less rights than in California. <br />Consider what has happened in Half Moon Bay which is expanding tenant protections above what the State <br />mandates. Small landlords either have been driven out of the community or have chosen not to rent out their <br />properties. Roughly 32% of the US population lives in rental housing. [3] In Half Moon Bay as of January 1, <br />2026, there are 586 registered rental units for a population of 10,200. That is one unit for every 17 <br />inhabitants. This is contributing to the housing shortage, not alleviating it. <br /> You don't often get email from jeffschabowski@gmail.com. Learn why this is important <br />8.A. - Page 84 of 85 <br />342