Recommendation to direct City Attorney to modify the Tenant Anti-Harassment ordinance passed November 2, 2020 to reflect the following: Addition of “in bad faith” to line one of Section 8.101.030.
Item 75, which is related. Item 75 recommendation to direct City Attorney to modify the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance passed November 2nd, 2020, with the addition of In Bad Faith. Okay. I have Councilman Pryce. You. Mr. Mayor, can I maybe start with having Rich Anthony? I'm not sure if he's on the call, but if he can maybe explain what the bad faith component does and what other cities that have meant. Policies have bad faith language. And before he does that, I just want to I want to thank all the tenants for calling in. And I realize sometimes we're not in a position to really hear what another person is saying, especially if we think they're not with us on something. But I just I'm not sure how much I can underscore this. So if anyone is listening and willing to hear this modification isn't at all about taking away any tenants rights. Tenants can sue for every single one of those perceived violations. The bad faith element. What that does, and that's included my understanding this in every city that has a tenant harassment ordinance, even cities like Oakland that a lot of times we look to for direction on landlord tenant policies includes a bad faith element. It's there because it sets forth an objective standard to really go after the bad actors, which is what everybody wants. And I think that's a fair process. And so if Mr. Anthony, if you can just kind of expand on that and I realize we're not going to. Really hear what another person is saying, especially if we think they're not. With us on something. But I just I'm not sure how much I can underscore there. So anyone is listening and willing. Someone has a live mic. Can you please mute yourself? This is Deputy City Attorney Anthony. I assume that with that live mike being turned off, the floor is mine. Thank you. Councilmember Price. So so as you well, let me make one minor correction and that is I can't recall exactly which jurisdiction in the state this is true of, but there are at least one, maybe two others that do not include a bad faith requirement. However, most of them do, as you noted, Oakland, West Hollywood and Santa monica, among others that come to mind, do require that the tenant prove bad faith on the part of the landlord in order to find a landlord, in order for a court to find a landlord guilty of tenant harassment. I think the addition of of bad faith, of the bad faith requirement is pretty straightforward. I've heard some of the speakers say that that would make it more difficult, at least in some instances, to for a tenant to prove that they are being harassed. And I think that's that's true. On the other side of the coin, of course, is that it would provide landlords who are acting in good faith but may make a mistake in the way they characterize eviction moratoriums or the law or in if they are forgetful about cashing a check. Both of those things, you know, would constitute harassment. And I think the addition of the word bad faith and the reason why other jurisdictions have included it is probably to ensure that landlords, when they make mistakes but are acting in good faith, are not the subject of a lawsuit from a tenant. So with that, I'm happy to answer any further questions. I think you were item was pretty much pretty straightforward. Councilmember Press. Q And I have no additional comments. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and just go a Councilman Austin, did you have any and are you seconded if you have any comments or. I have no comments. I just I think this is. Straightforward language that obviously has been adopted in cities that we would look to for similar policies. San Francisco. Berkeley, Oakland. Santa monica. I think this policy, teen harassment policy, provides a great protections and increased protections for tenants in our city. I don't think that that language would take away from that in any way. It just would add some clarity. And and then the thing, as I understand back bad faith, it's willful intent to to violate laws. And so if a bad landlord is bad acting in bad faith that they're they're mistreating their tenants, they would be acting in bad faith. So I don't see a problem with the language. Okay. Thank you. Before we go on, we're going to do public comment and then we'll we'll start with Councilman Richardson. Public comment, Madam Court. Our first commenter is Christine Buss. Hi. This is Christine, Boss. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I serve as the government affairs manager for the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm speaking today on behalf of our 678 members, representatives and community stakeholders. We support the revision for tonight, including a bad faith requirement into the harassment policy. It will provide a balanced approach to the tenant landlord relations and other cities in California are including this as well, including Oakland, San Francisco, West Hollywood and Santa monica. This will allow for an objective and fair assessment of allegations made under the ordinance. So thank you. And we support this revision. Thank you. Our next speaker is Darla McAllister. Good evening, Mayor. Ma'am. Yes. Please continue. Okay. Council members. My name is Darla McAllister. I am a housing provider and undamaged apartments in the second, third and sixth districts. I have a very good relationship with all my tenants, some for over 20 years. I support I am 75 and I'm asking you to support the ordinance by adding that language as it provides a fair and balanced approach to the harassment policy. Three other major cities have it in their ordinance. This is important to our industry and to the relationships that we have built with our tenants. And B, I have a very visible apartment building in your district helping many otherwise at risk tenants. I work very hard building good relationships and keeping rents way below market. Please understand how critical this issue is. Without that language, we will be impacted with sometimes false accusations that do not have to be substantiated. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Hendler. Good evening. Mayor and City Council. I just want to let you know that I agree with adding in the bad faith language and I hope the Council will support it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Elaine Hutchinson. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and Vice Mayor Andrews and members of the City Council. My name is Elaine Hutchison and I have been a housing provider and manager in all districts of the city here in Long Beach. I am here this evening in support of item 75. Thank you for this evening. This opportunity to address the Council on this item. Adding The Bad Faith Cause allows housing for housing providers fair protection when the entire ordinance is considered and is, as has been stated in keeping with other California cities, which also have this clause. I thank you specifically, Vice Mayor Andrews, for your support, and I appreciate the support of the Council for this item. Thank you for your consideration. I urge your vote to approve this item. Thank you very much. And your next speaker is Fred Sutton. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Hello, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Fred Sutton, calling on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Thank you. Council members Price Supernova and Andrews for bringing this item forward. The harassment ordinance that was just voted on was done an urgency. There was zero stakeholder feedback and zero input from housing providers without reasonable amendments. This ordinance will remain deeply flawed. Frankly, there should be more amendments. Adding This small faith clause helps ensure housing providers do not fall victim to frivolous lawsuits or predatory dwelling tactics. As an original ordinance, there should have been a different process. Councilmember Andrews. You owe it to all residents to ensure the laws are fair, balanced and protective of all of your residences. We urge you to please support item 75 A Common Sense and Reasonable Amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Janet Leigh. Janet Leigh. Our next speaker is Keith Kennedy. Oh, sorry. Janet Leigh. Hi, this is Janet Leigh. This is Janet doing? Hi. My name is Janet Lee. Mayor, Vice Mayor Andrew's Council. I ask that you support adding the bad faith clause to item 75. The way the ordinance is written, a tenant can make any accusation and it would be deemed to be true. My request is that you add the bad faith element to the ordinance. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Keith Kennedy. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. My name is Keith Kennedy of the Small Property Owners Alliance, also known as BOA and I support Item 75 as it provides a fair and balanced approach for harassment policy. Three other major cities in California included in their ordinance. It's critical to the health of our industry to include the bad faith clause. Without the bad faith clause, housing providers will be unfairly targeted with frivolous harassment accusations that would not have to be substantiated during a pandemic. This will make things very difficult for people to rent housing, be very difficult for landlords to be able to successfully run their businesses. We ask that you include the bad faith clause in your in your vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kristi Pabst. Hello. Good evening. Mayor and City Council. My name is Christie Peltz and I have been a housing provider and property manager for over 35 years. Tonight, all I'm asking is for your your support to add three words to the harassment policy that Vice Mayor De Andrews brought forward back in November 2nd. It is really very simple. Please add bad faith language into the ordinance to give protection to our 7500 landlord. So tenants cannot take advantage and file frivolous lawsuit lawsuits. We need factual information on this issue because a lot of tenants I have over 3000 tenants that we manage property. That we have landlords, that we manage property and it is imperative that. If they bring an accusation that it is factual, will you support the addition of the bad faith language support by the 75? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Murchison. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I'm asking that you support item 75 tonight on the amendment of the harassment ordinance with the adding of bad faith language. There's not one group that's been severely impacted by the pandemic. We've all been impacted. It's not just tenants. It's also housing providers. It's everybody. Some of the mom and pops that are out there in Long Beach that you all know, they've been here for years providing quality housing, are very concerned about laws that are open ended and don't require any proof by adding bad faith. Much like three very large cities in California has already been mentioned San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. You're giving a fair and balanced approach with tenants and landlords, and that's what you want to do when you're making policy is give a fair and balanced approach. I'm asking you, support 75. We need protection for all. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ray Miller. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Hello. Okay. My name is Ray NAYLOR of Long Beach and I support agenda item 75. It brings balance and fairness to harassment policy. There are. There's provision in there similar ordinances. Mr. Andrews I recall your address to a group of small property owners in 2019, and I thought you had a good understanding of housing providers relationship. But it is important, Mr. Andrews, that you understand this modification to. Three. The curtain ornament. The current ordinance enables parties to present unsubstantiated accusations. The providers with their guest's best interests in mind. Council members, I urge your vote on the agenda item. This concludes my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rich Ratcliffe. Good evening, council members and mayor and mayor. My name is Richard Kalis and I'm a housing provider in the third district. I support the insertion of the bad faith language into the harassment ordinance and urge your support. The reason is simple doing so is fair to both sides, leaving tenants with the right to simply make unsubstantiated claims that can adversely affect women or. Is simply not right. Someone before me regarding item 73 said If you're a good landlord, this does not apply to you. While the reverse is also true, if you are a good tenant, 75 does not apply to you. The bad faith language is fair and provides an equal playing field for both landlords and tenants. Someone also said, please leave it as it is so we remain protected. Adding fairness language does not limit their protection. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sylvana Rayola. Good evening. My name is Silvana Viola. I live in District three and I have been an active real estate agent for 59 years a property owner, a housing provider and a property manager. I support. The harassment policy based May or the Andrew. Proposed by inserting the bad faith. Language into. The ordinance. Please Support Item 75. Landlord Tenant legislation should be fair and equitable to both housing providers and tenants. Both parties should. Be held to honest communications and fair dealings with one another. The interests of both are best served by by adding. Language, encouraging. Parties to act. Honorably and to dissuade either party from taking advantage of the other in bad peace. Fairness eliminates hostility and encourages housing providers and tenants both to resolve problems without aggressive legal involvement. A well-written ordinance will. Foster. A respectful, open, honest dialog and. Resolution of conflicts. I appreciate the support of the Council and making the suggested changes supporting 75 by adding the bad faith language. Which will protect both tenants and housing providers in life. Please vote in support of 75. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Walker. Steve Warshaw. Honorable Mayor and council members. My name is Steve Warshaw. I've lived in Long Beach since 1969, and I've been a housing provider in the cities since the mid-seventies. I strongly support the insertion of bad language in this ordinance. Several other speakers have pointed out the reasons why. The most important one, I think, is it provides protection for good landlords against false accusations. I strongly support the insertion of this language and I implore you to please vote in favor of item 75. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Wendy Henning. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Wendy Henning and I have been a housing provider and manager for over 40 years. I would like all of your support regarding the harassment policy that Vice Mayor De Andrews. Brought. Forward on. November the second. By adding the bad faith clause to the ordinance. Adding the bad faith clause to the ordinance. Allows housing. Providers their protection against any tenants that might want to take advantage of the system by not providing factual evidence that a housing provider may have acted. In. Bad faith. It's only fair and correct that housing providers should be protected as well. I thank you specifically, Vice Mayor Anderson, who brought the policy forward. And I would appreciate the support of a council with the change I suggested. I thank you all for your consider and I truly wish you a very happy holiday. Coming. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you for the speakers. The speakers we just heard, as well as speakers from the last item, I know that we have a limit of 20, so folks may have wanted to speak on this one. Ended up on that one. So thank you. I've paid attention to this. I know that there's been some back and forth whether to have it's an interesting policy or not, whether to include bad faith, language or not. I think there's there's a way, I think, to accomplish what we want to accomplish, which is expand dignity for for tenants, but also to make sure that we have clarity, balance and fairness about the process. You know, find some middle ground. So so I know that, you know, there are some some areas here where I think removing bad faith from the from the beginning, where it applies to all of the enumerated prohibited acts, but really placing them where they are placing the bad faith language, where it adds clarity. I think it's more helpful, for example, in a number of these they already have elements of bad faith is required insofar as they have references to abuse, intimidation or threats. I'm not sure how you can engage in abuse, intimidation or threats in good faith, though it's already implied in some of those. So I want to I want to ask a question, offer a friendly amendment to the councilmember price. Are you open to are you open to shifting where you have the bad faith language to apply to some areas where we have where I think it needs that clarity. Are you open to that? If so, I'll outline, I think, four places to identify and I think makes that absolutely. And I agree with you that there are several of the enumerated provisions that have some sort of mental state encompassed in the language, like threatening physical harm and things of that nature. Great. Fantastic. So I'm going to list I have four here. So one of them is B, where it talks about failing to timely perform repairs and maintenance and so forth. Eight is provide false written verbal information regarding protections I related to refusing to acknowledge or accept receipt of tenants law for rent payment and K which is communicate with a tenant in a language other than the tenants priority language. I think on those, those are the ones where you want. We, I think want to be clear. Be clear on the on on on good faith or bad faith. But on the rest of them, I don't think that we need to just just have a, you know, payment with a broad brush. So if you accept those, I'm happy to support this motion. Happy to accept that. Thank you. Q Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. Council members. Good to hear the changes that were made. I wasn't sure where I was going to be on this, so I definitely appreciate this. I want to get one clarifying question. For. Information that's provided to the tenants. If the landlord provides some information that does not align with state law, what are the provisions? Where does that fall in line with all of the the ordinance that's written? I can give you an example, if that helps. And I'm asking the city attorney. Oh, sorry. Councilmember Pierce, this is. This is Deputy City Attorney Rich Anthony. If I understand your question correctly, each subsection is it would be 8.101.030 of the existing ordinance, subsection eight. That is the one that makes it that is the subsection that makes it harassment for a landlord to provide or to misrepresent the status of eviction moratoriums or landlord tenant law in in California or federally or locally. And that that is that's one of them that I heard the friendly which Councilmember Price accepted, which would now specifically require that mischaracterization would have to be made in bad faith in order for it to constitute harassment. Okay. I know that I'm I don't want to try to make tonight long. I feel like there's been from hearing Councilmember Richardson negotiations. I just want to make sure, you know, as a tenant myself who's experienced continual harassment and had rent increases after trying to get things done, maybe it's not right in this item, but I know that everybody with the apartment association is listening. I know that small landlords are listening. One of the biggest challenges that we have is that landlords might claim that they do not know that the law. So I got a letter from my landlord and he said, I got it from the apartment association. It didn't mention one thing about the California law, and it included a bunch of documents that he tried to get me to sign. This is an urgent issue that I hope that the apartment association will figure out how to work with their members in a more transparent way with the least amount of paperwork as possible. So it's very clear for landlords what the law is because as you as the membership organization, I'm looking to you guys to do a better job of that so that these situations don't happen. So I'll support the motion tonight. I appreciate the efforts that were made. We consistently try to find a way to work with landlords in respect that maybe they might not have all the information or might not intend to be. Acting in bad faith. But I think that I'm asking the apartment association locally and statewide to step it up and support your your members a little bit better. So with that, I'll support this motion. Thank you. Councilman's in the house. Vice Mayor, just a quick question for city attorney, if you would please clarify. What what do the what does the burden of proof on tenants in these circumstances after the recommendations by Councilmember Richardson. In the House. That's a difficult one to answer, as has been stated by some of the speakers and I think by some of the council members, the no doubt it will make it a bit harder on a tenant to prove harassment because now in certain instances, they are going to have to prove of bad faith. Exactly what that proof will prove in bad faith requires. I can't really speak to it's going to be very, I think, factually dependent. It's going to be very much up to the superior court judge who hears the case. So it's very hard for me to give you an answer on exactly how much more difficult this would make it for the average tenant to prove harassment. And I also don't know the experience that other jurisdictions have had. You know, I don't know if the bad faith requirement in other jurisdictions, which have it significantly tamps down the successful harassment cases or not. My guess is that it does not. But but I don't really know that that's just a gut feel. And I'm sorry I can't give you a more factually based answer, but it's tough. Oh, yes, it's understandable at the same time. And of course, I'm having a hard time because a lot of my residents are going through harassment by their landlords. And so it makes it tough. But I'm happy to see the amendments that were made to to this ordinance. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes. Thank you. You know, I've been listening to everyone speak on the side of Alan Reed very clear that, you know, supporting, you know, tenants, especially those on Orange Avenue, because I think I know that this is between a landlord and a slumlord and that one avenue should've been unacceptable. And those individuals, I myself would even go to court with them because I know that was total, total harassment. Anyone take down security bars and lights and fences to the back? That was harassment. But if our city attorney agrees, we need to be a little more clear on language avoidance, then we should do this. But, you know, other cities have bad faith language in the ordinance, and we want to model what other cities are doing. That was the point of threatening the owners. And so we should follow through. And I want to thank you, Councilman Richardson, on some of the changes that can be made this work for everyone. And that's what I'm really trying to do. I know everyone would not be happy, but there comes a point in these. Then, like you say, if you are in good faith. Or bad faith, someone is going to have to be held accountable on both ends. You have a landlord that is so in bad faith that that individual has to be held accountable for that and they should be taken to court. And I know the judge to ensure fair play in that situation. So I'm just hoping that there's a way that Councilman Richardson clarified this and we can lease, but most of us are on an even keel. I want to thank you very much. All my tennis resident. Everyone will join me in tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, customary ringa. Thank you very, very quickly. We practiced ordinance disposal. We debated this issue and it was shot down. So I'm not very I'm at the point in the motion. And then we have Councilman Price. Mr. Mayor. So just for just a little bit of clarification here, because I'm rereading the language here and it looks like. We the. I want to ask for some clarification from Councilman Richardson. I know we're going to be amending I'll start in alphabetical order, B, subsection B of 8.1 or 1.03 of subsection B to add in bad faith. At the start of that section, which was in bad faith, failed to timely perform repairs and maintenance required by a rental agreement . That's right. And then okay. And then J. I don't know if you mentioned the. Assets agents that are J. J. J is the one on one. Okay. That's good, because I think I feel like H has some protections in it. All right. So I, K, B and J or what I have written down. Does that sound right? Yes, that's absolutely right. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate hearing from my colleagues tonight. And again, hopefully there's there's a will to just at least hear what I'm saying and what I'm what I what this is about is, you know, we live in a country where our system, our court system is designed so that everybody can have an opportunity to have their day in court. And in talking with elected officials and attorneys representing some of these other jurisdictions that adopted kind of harassment policies, there's oftentimes and I know several cities have been cited, there is a mental state component, because the intent of this legislation is is not to give everybody, you know, not to deny anybody their day in court, but to have some sort of objective standard, a burden of proof, so to speak, to be met to determine if someone violated the law. So in the example, for example, somebody made a comment about someone providing maybe information that's inaccurate law. I'll tell you guys, every single year the legislature passes new laws and the law books that attorneys rely on change every single year. And so if you're relying on an old book of statutes, for example, you may miss some change that's not included in your version because you're looking at A to night 2019 edition of the Code and not the 2020 edition. But that may mean that you just made a mistake, that you're not you're not operating based on the current laws that include current legislation. And so we want to make sure that people have an opportunity to go into court and say, I'm so sorry that was a mistake, and have a judge be able to determine, based on all the evidence, if that person is acting in bad faith or if they genuinely made a mistake. Every single example we heard tonight from those who called in on 73 are absolutely examples of people who are bad actors repeated harassment, retaliation, intentional confusion. The evidence there is I could just tell from some of the accounts that we were told just during public comment that there's more than one incident, that there's more than one failure to act. There's more one act more than one act of negligence. Those that's all evidence that a tenant will have the right to present so that the tenants don't lose any rights by this modification. They can still sue whoever they want. But the the landlord now has an opportunity to be able to present their case, and the judge now has the burden of proof. And the burden of proof is what is the standard. It's did this person act with a bad intent? Because I don't think any of us here believe that anyone should be wrongfully accused and not have an opportunity to present their own case in a court of law. And I know we all fundamentally believe that in our justice system, and that's what this is about. It's not to take away any rights. It's to allow everybody to have a meaningful opportunity to present their case in court. And I do believe that our judicial officers, when listening to all the evidence, will make the right call. Our system works as long as we set up laws that allow everyone to have their day in court. So I want to thank my counsel colleagues that are open and willing. And Councilman Richardson is absolutely right. There are portions of the provisions that don't need the bad language because they sufficiently cover a mental state. Some of them don't, and they're too ambiguous. So thank you very much for your consideration of supporting this item. Thank you. Well, that will do a. Roll call vote. District one. No. District two. Yes. District three. Yes. District four. I District five. I. District six. District seven. They? District eight. I. District nine. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go to general public comment, please.