Larson et al challenged these modifications in a civil law suit alleging that the expanded definition of a decrease in housing services violated the judicial powers clause of the Cal. Const. art. VI, sec. 1) and infringed on free speech rights, and that the additional mandatory, tenant-only cost and attorney fees provision violated equal protection rights.
The court struck the words "with ulterior motive or without honest intent" in the beginning phrase of the ordinance, upheld the decrease in housing services definition, and invalidated the cost and attorney fee provision. The plaintiff appealed the adverse part of the ruling. Pursuant to the appeal, the court ruled that if harassment was found under 37.01B(a)(4) through (15), that the Rent Board could not order rent reductions since, to do so, would impinge on the judicial power of the courts and allow the Rent Board to award damages for emotional distress. The court also struck 37.10B(a)(7) and 37.10B(c)(6).
In November 2014, Oakland's City Council passed a Tenant Protection Ordinance, in part, due to the "imbalance of bargaining power between landlords and tenants, which has resulted in many tenants, especially those not in rent controlled units, being unwilling or unable to assert their legal rights, which is detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of Oakland because the stability, security and quality of housing opportunities are reduced." The Rent Board requires landlords to issue a RAP (rental assistance program) notice to new tenants of rent-controlled residences and a TPO (tenant protection ordinance) notice is also supposed to be posted in the common area of residential rental units.
In both jurisdictions, should a tenant allege harassment by the landlord, their remedy is in civil court. The rent boards do not have the authority to decide a harassment issue but they can -- and do - define tenant harassment through their municipal code. Below is a cross-comparison of the Oakland and San Francisco tenant harassment ordinances. And, while certain sections were struck down by the courts in San Francisco, Oakland's similar wording has not yet faced a challenge, at least to this writer's knowledge.
OAKLAND
|
SAN
FRANCISCO
|
TPO applies to all rental units where there is a lease agreement
except nonprofit owned rental housing, rental units in a hospital, skilled
nursing facility, or health facility, rental unit in a residential property
that is a triplex and where one of the units is occupied by the owner, a
rental unit in a newly constructed building
|
|
No owner or owner’s agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee
shall do any of the following in BAD FAITH
|
No landlord, and no agent, contractor, subcontractor, or employee of
the landlord shall do any of the following in BAD FAITH
|
Fail to perform repairs or threaten to do so
|
Fail to perform repairs and maintenance required by contract and/or
law
|
Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
|
Fail to exercise due diligence in completing repairs and maintenance
|
Abuse the owner’s right of access into a rental housing unit
|
Abuse the owner’s right of access into a rental housing unit
|
Remove tenant’s personal property, furnishings, or other items
without the prior written consent of the tenant unless when done pursuant to
Cal. Civ. Code sec. 1980 et seq.
|
|
Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental housing
through fraud, intimidation, or coercion which includes threatening to report
a tenant to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
|
Influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental housing
through fraud, intimidation, or coercion
|
Offer payments to a tenant to vacate more than once in six (6) months
after tenant has notified the owner in writing about their desire not to receive further offers of payment to vacate
|
|
Attempt to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to
vacate which are accompanied by threats or intimidation
|
Attempt to coerce a tenant to vacate with offer(s) of payments to
vacate which are accompanied by threats or intimidation
|
Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm
|
Threaten the tenant, by word or gesture, with physical harm
|
Substantially and directly interfere with a tenant’s right to quiet
use and enjoyment of the rental unit
|
Interfere with a tenant’s right to quiet use and enjoyment of the
rental unit pursuant to California law
|
Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent
payment (with one exception)
|
Refuse to accept or acknowledge receipt of a tenant’s lawful rent
payment
|
Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30-days unless a written receipt
for payment has been provided to the tenant (with an exception)
|
Refuse to cash a rent check for over 30-days
|
Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy
|
Interfere with a tenant’s right to privacy
|
Request information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy (see
exceptions)
|
Request information that violates a tenant’s right to privacy (see
exceptions)
|
Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to
substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet
of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that
cause, or are likely to cause, or are intended to cause a tenant to vacate
the rental unit or waive any rights related to that unit
|
Other repeated acts or omissions of such significance as to
substantially interfere with or disturb the comfort, repose, peace or quiet
of any person lawfully entitled to occupancy of such dwelling unit and that
cause, or are likely to cause, or are intended to cause a tenant to vacate
the rental unit or waive any rights related to that unit
|
Remove a housing service for the purpose of causing a tenant to
vacate the rental unit such as a parking space or garage
|
Interrupt, terminate or fail to provide housing services required by
contract or law
|
No comments:
Post a Comment