“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” So goes the ancient proverb. The City Council of Clearlake wants to help its citizens by improving the quality of its housing. That is its good intention.
It is concerned that tenants living in the city are afraid to go to code enforcement to complain about their sub-standard housing out of fear of reprisal from the landlord, even though that is already illegal in California.
We are not sure how the current method of addressing code enforcement complaints is being addressed, if at all, but the city has a better idea, which is to require every single rental property, every single vacation rental, and every single hotel room to register with the city and to allow for regular annual inspections, through enforcing an ordinance which has been on the books for some years, but has not been actioned till now.
They cannot leave it to the people, or to code enforcement or to the market. City staff are counting 6,600 of these properties.
Every property must be registered, by the owner, for a $105 annual fee, as well as another fee, when the inspection happens of $135, more for re-inspections. There will be fines if repair conditions are not rectified. Do the math on that? It’s a substantial amount of money. Very close to a million dollars annually.
It has been suggested that, if the City Council is concerned about the quality of its housing and their citizens being afraid of reporting to Code Enforcement, they educate their citizens as to what is considered a safe and healthy home. That would be cheaper to do, but, no, it is not helpful enough, and it would not require the collection of fees, and produce income for the city.
Every tenant would have to make their home available for inspection, and will be given a four hour window during the work week, to await the arrival of the inspector. The inspector may require upgrades, which may be inconvenient for the tenant, might even require them to move out?
The property owner will be required to pay these fees, but because landlords view their rental properties as a business, will they take these additional fees into account when setting or raising the rent? I think we know that answer. The extra money for the city has to come from somewhere.
Will this increase or reduce the supply of housing in the city? Some landlords are already now looking to sell and get out of the business. If supply reduces, will rents increase?
If you live in Clearlake, do you think this is a good or bad idea? If you are a tenant or a landlord, it will affect you, so it might be the time for you to be part of the consideration?
The problem with good intentions is unintended consequences. That is the road to hell. Is that one Clearlake should risk taking? The city of Salinas in Monterey County just repealed a similar ordinance after passionate pushback from its citizens over increased rents as a result. Larkspur in Marin County just did the same.
There is a suggestion that rental properties under professional realtor management be exempted because the landlord is already paying for annual inspections to ensure the rental property is healthy and safe. Otherwise, these landlords would be double billed.
There is another suggestion by county Supervisor Bruno Sabatier that a pilot program be put into place before jumping in the deep end with this considerable expansion of city authority and intervention into its citizen’s housing.
Are these good ideas? You are invited to be part of the conversation before it is too late.
Timothy Toye has been selling real estate in Lake County, California, for more than 30 years. His brokerage, Timothy Toye & Associates is one of the largest property managers of homes in the county. He can be contacted at 707-928-6900 or
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
