I did not stay around on April 5 to see City Council initiated matters at the end (item 7) but I did later look at the meeting tape online. I noticed no discussion of the mediation ordinance. None occurred earlier in response to my point about the insuuficiency of the retaliation section (43.30). So, I am missing when the City Attorney said anything to the City Council on the subject. I can tell you that any advice from City Attorney Jannie Quinn that the ordinance language she borrowed from another city bars preemptive eviction would be an utter falsehood. It does not. And that appears to be precisely why four councilmembers endorsed as candidates by landlord groups support the ordinance just as written.

I see that the article is NOT referring to the April 5 meeting at which I spoke but to the earlier March 22 meeting at which I also spoke about the manifest inadequancy of the ordinance's "retaliation" section (43.30) to outlaw preemptive eviction. I will examine the videotape of the March 22 meeting to see if the City Attorney misadviced the City Council about the ordinance. Before the March 22 meeting, the City Attorney told me she did not know whether the City Council (majority) wished to extend to tenants the legal protection I was proposing. I then so adviced the City Council at the March 22 meeting.

Misadvised.

I vhecked the online videotape of the March 22 City Council meeting and noticed no claim by City Attorney Jannie Quinn that the "retaliation" section (43.30) of her landlord-tenant mediation ordinance would outlaw serving (or pursuing) eviction notices instead of rent increase notices. If anyone finds such a (false) claim on the tape of any meeting of the City Council, please cite the date and elasped time so I can retrieve it.