1. Mutual Housing California and the Sacramento Housing Alliance

2.  California and local laws set forth standards for renters’ rights, requiring landlords to keep housing sufficiently safe and healthy for their tenants.  However, there is no consistent process for enforcing these standards across all the various jurisdictions in the state.  In many locales, it is up to the tenant to complain if they believe there are unsafe or unhealthy conditions in their home. This is called a reactive enforcement system.

3.  Problems with reactive enforcement: ◦ Fear of retaliation/eviction ◦ Lack of familiarity with or fear of public agencies ◦ Language barriers  To address these issues, some jurisdictions have taken the lead by creating proactive enforcement programs, through which inspectors check on all local rental units over a specified period of time.  Before we get into that, let’s look at the scope of the issue locally.

4.  [Tammy Derby is working on getting me numbers from 2012 to illustrate violations they find both through call investigations and their non-policy-dictated proactive inspections.]

5.  During its 2008-2009 fiscal year, the City of Sacramento conducted inspections at 2,943 rental housing units. ◦ Inspectors found one or more violations in 69 percent of the units they inspected. ◦ There were a total of 9,892 individual violations; often multiple violations in a unit. ◦ What are the most common things they find? Let’s take a look.

6.  Missing smoke detectors  Faulty electrical service

7.  Lack of GFCI protection  Lack of weather protection

8.  Lack of door viewer at front entry  Faulty water heater installations

9.  Improper venting systems  Faulty plumbing

10.  Hazardous wiring  Inadequate heating

11.  Health ◦ Asthma ◦ Infection  Safety ◦ Fires ◦ Shocks  Community Character and Property Values

12.  The earlier-cited numbers from the City of Sacramento were for the first year of its proactive rental housing inspection policy.  For the 2011-12 fiscal year, the City inspected 6,847 rental units. ◦ Only 30 percent had health and/or safety violations, down from 69 in 2008-09. ◦ There were 9,223 violations found, less than in 2008-09 in over twice as many units inspected.

13.  City adopted the program thanks in part to a strong advocacy effort among groups that represent diverse low-income renters  Key policy/program points: ◦ All rentals inspected once every five years ◦ Mandatory registration, $28/unit annual fee ◦ 30 days to correct violations ◦ Re-inspection fees if non-compliant ◦ Self-certification for landlords who pass, with some audits even for those units

14.  Self-certification system by owners  $12 per unit annual fee  Still basically a reactive system, with burden on renters. Inspectors do proactive checks, but it is not institutionalized in policy.  Some indication that the county may follow the city’s example and overhaul their program  Communities must be vigilant to make sure the County adopts a proactive policy

15.  FAQ’s [try to anticipate some q’s from community]- make brief

16.  Full list of best policy/program practices available on request.  To report unsafe or unhealthy living conditions, call: ◦ City of Sacramento: 311 ◦ County of Sacramento: 916-876-9020  Call or write your elected officials  To get involved with promoting best policy/program practice, contact Rachel Iskow of Mutual Housing California at rachel@mutualhousing.com rachel@mutualhousing.com