I see no report here of an actual extension - only an expression by 5 county supervisors of a current intent to extend. The county board of supervisors ordinarily lacks the legal authority to legislate in this area extending to the various cities. The board's claimed authority stemmed from an order from the Governor which, in turn, stemmed in part from laws passed by the State Legislature many years ago. City councils should be ready to act on eviction moratoriums (aka moratoria) in their cities - at least to forestall unfair RESIDENTIAL EVICTIONS that could begin in early September.

Gary,

I am very confused about this news too, The San Jose Spotlight and CBS news reported that the eviction moratorium was voted on Aug 10, thus it has already been decided. But I also read that a second reading might be necessary to make it official, that is scheduled on Aug 25.

As far as the County authority to order a city to have no evictions, this is also a little confusing. It turns out that Santa Clara County is a Charter County itself. It appears to be on its face neutral regarding the County authority over a city action.

BUT some research I have found says that the County being a Charter County has the same authority over the entire county. This research I found here from the web page California Association of Counties titled “County Structure & Powers” (Web Link says this as far as authority over cities:

“County Powers

The California Constitution authorizes a county to make and enforce local ordinances that do not conflict with general laws. A county also has the power to sue and be sued, purchase and hold land, manage or dispose of its properties, and levy and collect taxes authorized by law. Many additional powers have been granted to counties by the Legislature. The powers of a county can only be exercised by the Board of Supervisors or through officers acting under the authority of the Board or authority conferred by law. In addition, the Board must follow the procedural requirements in the statutes or its actions will not be valid. For example, if the Legislature has provided a method by which a county may abandon a road, that method must be followed. Also, where state law requires land use zoning by an ordinance, this statutorily prescribed method is binding on the county. On the other hand, where the law does not specifically prescribe a method for accomplishing a task, the county may adopt any reasonably suitable means.”

Thus it looks like the County is using the statement “On the other hand, where the law does not specifically prescribe a method for accomplishing a task, the county may adopt any reasonably suitable means.” Thus as long as there is no law that prohibits a rent eviction moratorium, they have the power to enforce one.

And if the City of Mountain View chooses to not comply, then the County can and will withhold any revenues and funds from the City collected for the Cities purposes by any taxes collected by the County. Thus all property taxes and sales taxes would be lost. Do you really think the City is that insane to bankrupt itself. Of course the City may go to direct billing for property taxes and sales taxes, but their might be a state law that is in play regarding this. So they are prohibited from acting in that way.

I think it is simply a matter of time before we get an absolute clear document of extension now.

The article says: "The board echoed similar sentiments, agreeing that the moratorium was a short-term solution aimed to buy the county more time to come up with lasting policies to combat the impending housing crisis."

Who is "buying" this time for us? Landlords are "buying" the time, making payments for insurance, property taxes, loan and interest payments, maintenance costs, and so forth, with no moratorium on those expenses. For some landlords, this will be unsustainable, and they will lose everything, becoming yet another victim of this pandemic depression. The county, itself having massive income shortfalls, cannot make the tenants or the landlords whole. In this situation, there are no winners, only losers.

Waldo,

Those choosing to be in this business should have had adequate business disruption or continuity insurance. Given that we ALL knew about a PANDEMIC risk for decades. What your complaining about is that many of these people cut corners by not having prepared for this problem.

Who is the real blame for this, organizations like the California Apartment Association that did not inform nor provide guidance regarding this risk. That is because the CAA has no experts regarding RISK management on staff nor provided any advisories regarding this practice. Why should they? They are not an educational group, they are a Political Action Committee and a Private Trade Group, nothing more. Al they do is act as political agents and nothing more

Your making complaints to the wrong people here, you should be going after your peers and your trade groups for not preparing you for this.

Landlords are not specially targeted for this disaster, there is currently 5.1 Million people out of work by NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. So you cannot claim the landlords are especially burdened in this situation.

You should be getting the Congress to establish a long term extended and enhanced unemployment insurance plan so that the people out of work can PAY their rent. But you do not want that especially if you can evict those in rent controlled units, thereby achieving vacancy decontrol.

In effect you want to take advantage of COVID to purge the low rent units of their occupants, isn't that the TRUTH?

@ Stephen Goldstein:

I am not complaining, per se, just observing. I made no comment that landlords are especially burdened. There are no winners, only losers. That includes, you, me, everybody.

Waldo,

I have been reading article after article where landlords claim they are bearing the total cost of the COVID pandemic impact on the economy.

In fact many landlords and even the CAA in California have been constantly saying this.

So I kind jumped the gun, I am tired of this argument because it clearly is false. And I know I will get it again and again.

So I am sorry about jumping on you so hard, I was just very defensive i admit. That was not fair to you. This is an unconditional apology.

I greatly appreciate that you see the bigger picture and expressed it so well.

@ Stephen Goldstein:

It takes a strong individual to make the sort of statement you made in your most recent comments. Hopefully, others will emulate your behavior. Thanks for your example.

Waldo,

I wish I am strong. It doesn't take strength if you have self honesty and you listen to others. We have had our differences, but I have also observed your attempts to not make it personal and your sincerity.

So it really makes it easy for me. I know your trying to be constructive.

But I really appreciate you and your efforts. I just hope you have the same experience.