22 Jan San Pablo Tenants, Officials Clash Again Over ‘Major Gaps’ in Renter Protections

(Screenshot captured by Samantha Kennedy / The CC Pulse)

By Samantha Kennedy

San Pablo tenant advocates and city officials are at it again. This time, renters could be getting a little more of the protections they asked for.

The San Pablo City Council on Tuesday was expected to accept a just cause eviction and anti-harassment ordinance, but some pleas from residents for additional protections were instead successfully pushed by council member Abel Pineda.

The move means the city will have to wait longer to solidify any of the protections into local law, though those originally proposed are already covered under state law. Additional protections, which have to be voted on at a later date, would include expanded relocation assistance for two months and anti-harassment language for mobile home space rentals.

“We have an opportunity to do more, to be better, to be greater. We always talk about being a small but mighty community; we have the opportunity to do just that,” said Pineda, who acknowledged that it was well-intentioned. “I know this [original proposed ordinance] isn’t right.”

Changes will not include rent control or stabilization-related language, as many renters have long advocated for. It’s also unlikely those policies would come back at the request of council members, but council member Patricia Ponce said there is a potential ballot measure that could be brought forward.

Mayor Elizabeth Pabon-Alvarado told residents at the meeting that whoever is talking to them about rent control is “not telling you the truth.”

“We’re not saying ‘no’ to you; we’re saying ‘yes’ to our city,” said Pabon-Alvarado.

Rhea Laughlin, executive director of Rising Juntos, said that the original proposed ordinance did not include tenant input and did not “meaningfully protect” renters.

“There are major gaps,” said Laughlin, pointing to its lack of a guaranteed right of return at the same rate, one month of relocation assistance, no protections for those who are seniors or low-income, and “weak” anti-harassment provisions. The right of return gives low-income tenants the opportunity to move into a unit in the new building if the one they live in is torn down and redeveloped.

Council member Arturo Cruz questioned concerns raised by advocates related to anti-harassment provisions. “If something is going on with the people you’re supposed to be helping,” Cruz asked organizations like the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and Rising Juntos, “then why aren’t you leading them [to where there’s] a solution?”

It’s not for lack of trying to reach a solution, but because local laws lack language that prohibit certain behavior, said Pineda.

The California Apartment Association also raised concerns of its own with just cause and right of return provisions. Jennifer Rizzo with the association said the proposed ordinance would eliminate the “balance” created by state laws that already address just cause evictions.

“By imposing just cause evictions from day one, this change would make it significantly harder for housing providers to address ongoing issues or safety concerns or compatibility problems that do not rise to the level of a legal violation,” said Rizzo.

Kieron Slaughter, the city’s economic development and housing manager, said the input received was not new and that there was ample opportunity to provide feedback on the proposals. “In the spirit of collaboration, nobody really got everything they wanted,” he said.

Pineda, sometimes with support from Ponce, typically clashes with other council members on renter protection issues. Presentations have also signaled that such policies are not favored by staff.

Council members committed to education for tenants in the city last summer but did not want to pursue rent control. Last month, officials also rejected a temporary rent freeze for mobile home tenants facing steep rent increases in favor of a grant program.