Opinion
I have heard rumblings in Lake County’s District 5 that there will be a recall effort against Supervisor Jessica Pyska. I hope that every person who is presented with an opportunity to sign a recall petition will recognize it for what it is, a waste of public money, a waste of public employee time, and most of all a harmful distraction from the important and necessary work that is facing our elected officials and other community leaders at this critical time.
This is a time of frozen federal dollars that won't be received by our schools or by our local health and human service entities, including our hospitals, and clinics. Those federal dollars have already been cut to The Gleaners, and other local resources that ensure healthy families and seniors, as well as early childhood education and by those who work on forest fire mitigation. The impact is already being acutely felt here in Lake County.
District 5 Supervisor Jessica Pyska won her election fair and square. She is steadfastly fulfilling her duties with dedication and expertise gained through experience and through important relationships she has built with other governing agencies and their leaders.
Her in-depth knowledge regarding local entities and how to work on their behalf with Washington bureaucracies has been gained through time on task, study and experience. I encourage all District 5 registered voters to not reward an ill-advised and wasteful recall petition effort with your precious signatures.
We are currently being served by a legally elected, devoted, competent, energetic and knowledgeable person, Jessica Pyska. Let's all put our energy and efforts into learning about what our supervisors and other county leaders are doing to support and protect Lake County in this very challenging time.
I want the person who publicly campaigned on clearly stated values, who was duly elected, who has expertise, who has strong relationships with other governmental leaders and who has an in-depth understanding of what faces Lake County to continue to represent me. Jessica Pyska has been and continues to be that person.
When an isolated recall for the position of county supervisor is successful, the position is left empty. At some point, the position is filled by appointment by the governor. I would much rather have the person most of us voted for in continuous service to District 5 throughout these challenging times and throughout her full term. If for some reason this recall effort forces a special election, there goes more Lake County money out the door.
Rather than supporting a recall effort with your signature, let those who want to be supervisor do it the way Jessica did, by publicly running for office with her skills, expertise and values on full display, during the normal election cycle. I believe in the power of the vote and will always protest frivolous recall efforts.
Mary Borjon lives in Kelseyville, California.
This is a time of frozen federal dollars that won't be received by our schools or by our local health and human service entities, including our hospitals, and clinics. Those federal dollars have already been cut to The Gleaners, and other local resources that ensure healthy families and seniors, as well as early childhood education and by those who work on forest fire mitigation. The impact is already being acutely felt here in Lake County.
District 5 Supervisor Jessica Pyska won her election fair and square. She is steadfastly fulfilling her duties with dedication and expertise gained through experience and through important relationships she has built with other governing agencies and their leaders.
Her in-depth knowledge regarding local entities and how to work on their behalf with Washington bureaucracies has been gained through time on task, study and experience. I encourage all District 5 registered voters to not reward an ill-advised and wasteful recall petition effort with your precious signatures.
We are currently being served by a legally elected, devoted, competent, energetic and knowledgeable person, Jessica Pyska. Let's all put our energy and efforts into learning about what our supervisors and other county leaders are doing to support and protect Lake County in this very challenging time.
I want the person who publicly campaigned on clearly stated values, who was duly elected, who has expertise, who has strong relationships with other governmental leaders and who has an in-depth understanding of what faces Lake County to continue to represent me. Jessica Pyska has been and continues to be that person.
When an isolated recall for the position of county supervisor is successful, the position is left empty. At some point, the position is filled by appointment by the governor. I would much rather have the person most of us voted for in continuous service to District 5 throughout these challenging times and throughout her full term. If for some reason this recall effort forces a special election, there goes more Lake County money out the door.
Rather than supporting a recall effort with your signature, let those who want to be supervisor do it the way Jessica did, by publicly running for office with her skills, expertise and values on full display, during the normal election cycle. I believe in the power of the vote and will always protest frivolous recall efforts.
Mary Borjon lives in Kelseyville, California.
- Details
- Written by: Mary Borjon
Dear Editor,
I am writing to share my concerns about the city of Clearlake’s new plan for rental homes. The city is thinking about changing the rules for people who own homes and rent them out. This plan may sound good at first, but when you look closer, it doesn’t seem fair or helpful. I hope the city will make substantial changes before making it official.
The city wants all rental property owners to register their homes every year. This means filling out an online form and paying $105 for each home. On top of that, each home must be inspected for habitability once a year. That inspection will cost $135. So, if someone owns two homes they rent out, they will have to pay $480 every year just to follow the rules. That’s a lot of money for small property owners or people who rent out property in their retirement or to make ends meet. The city may opt to place a property on a every-two-year inspection schedule, but the annual registration fee would still be required.
The ordinance states that all property owners who rent out their homes will be required to also obtain a business license, but the city’s current rules on business licenses say that property owners renting out fewer than five homes are exempt from annual business license fees. It isn’t clear which rule to follow.
It’s not just about the money. The inspection part is also a big problem. The city says anyone from the city who shows a badge or papers can enter a rental home to do an inspection. They don’t even have to give much warning. The rules say they might give notice, but even then, they can say, “We’ll be there sometime during this four-hour window,” and renters or owners have to wait around for them. That’s not respectful of people’s time or privacy. Imagine someone you don’t know showing up to look around your house. That would feel uncomfortable for a lot of people. Renters are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property, and entitled by law to be given 24-hours notice before someone enters their home for an inspection. The Ordinance as it is currently written does not follow the current law regarding renters’ rights.
Also, the city says this new rule will help make homes safer and better. That sounds good, but they already tried a similar program before. From 2000 to 2005, they had a rental inspection program, and it was abandoned in 2005. If it didn’t work then, why do they think it will work now? Through this ordinance, the city is planning to re-activate that prior program, with some tweaks.
Another problem is that they’re treating every rental property the same, even when some homes are already being inspected. For example, homes rented under the Section 8 program already get checked every year. Property managers also inspect homes they take care of. But the city still wants these homes, and their occupants, to go through another inspection.
Even vacation rentals are included. These are homes that people rent out for short stays, like through Airbnb. These kinds of rentals already have online reviews, and if a house is not habitable, no one will rent those homes. Why make those properties go through the same inspections, too?
This plan might sound like it helps renters by making sure homes are in good shape, but it might do the opposite. Many property owners are already saying they’ll stop renting out their homes if the city adopts these revised rules. If that happens, there will be fewer places to rent in Clearlake. When there are fewer homes to rent, the prices go up. That means higher rent for everyone, and more people will have trouble finding a place they can afford.
The ordinance says this is about updating their local codes to match state codes for buildings and safety. But they don’t need to go into people’s homes to update their codes. That can be done without bothering renters or charging property owners.
The ordinance states that it does not intend to force property owners to upgrade their homes to current standards, but it also states its goal is to improve the standards of all rental homes. Are renters going to be forced to vacate their home with their children and pets if the city decides to require major upgrades to the house?
The worst part is what happens if someone doesn’t agree to these rules. If a property owner or renter refuses the inspection, the ordinance says both the property owner and the occupant could face fines and could even go to jail. That seems way too harsh, especially when the rules don’t seem fair to begin with. The ordinance references two different city codes when stating the potential penalties for refusing to comply: Municipal Code Sections 1-5 and 1-9. These Ordinances conflict with one another. Which code will be used? One sets a $500/day penalty for up to 6 months (Section 1-5), and the other sets a $100/violation penalty (Section 1-9).
It feels like the city is not thinking about the people who rent their homes or the people who live in those homes. Most owners who rent out their homes are not big companies. They’re regular people who worked hard to buy a home and rent it out. They don’t want to break the law or have problems with the city. But this plan makes it less attractive to invest in Clearlake. How will the city find the owners who are not complying with the ordinance?
We all want safe and clean homes. That’s important. But there has to be a better way to make sure of that. Maybe the city could focus on homes that already have problems instead of checking every single rental every year or every other year. Or maybe they could offer virtual inspections for homes to minimize the intrusions. Perhaps the inspectors should have body-cams so if there is an allegation of misconduct, the camera footage could be reviewed.
The city could consider more outreach to renters to encourage them to report issues with habitability and then schedule an inspection at that point. There are laws against property owners retaliating against renters for reporting problems, but a lot of renters do not know this.
The city should listen to the people who live and work here. We need more rental homes, not fewer. We need sensible, clear rules that make sense and help both renters and property owners. This plan, as it is right now, doesn’t seem to do that.
I hope the City Council reconsiders approving this ordinance. If they pass it the way it is now, it could hurt the very people it’s supposed to help. Let’s work together to find a better solution that keeps homes safe without driving up costs or chasing away the people who provide places to live. If you are concerned about this program, please make your views about Ordinance Number 279-2025 regarding rental housing unit registration known to the City by contacting the Administrative Services Director/City Clerk atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Mary Benson is a real estate broker with Realty 360 Wine Country. She lives in Lower Lake, California.
I am writing to share my concerns about the city of Clearlake’s new plan for rental homes. The city is thinking about changing the rules for people who own homes and rent them out. This plan may sound good at first, but when you look closer, it doesn’t seem fair or helpful. I hope the city will make substantial changes before making it official.
The city wants all rental property owners to register their homes every year. This means filling out an online form and paying $105 for each home. On top of that, each home must be inspected for habitability once a year. That inspection will cost $135. So, if someone owns two homes they rent out, they will have to pay $480 every year just to follow the rules. That’s a lot of money for small property owners or people who rent out property in their retirement or to make ends meet. The city may opt to place a property on a every-two-year inspection schedule, but the annual registration fee would still be required.
The ordinance states that all property owners who rent out their homes will be required to also obtain a business license, but the city’s current rules on business licenses say that property owners renting out fewer than five homes are exempt from annual business license fees. It isn’t clear which rule to follow.
It’s not just about the money. The inspection part is also a big problem. The city says anyone from the city who shows a badge or papers can enter a rental home to do an inspection. They don’t even have to give much warning. The rules say they might give notice, but even then, they can say, “We’ll be there sometime during this four-hour window,” and renters or owners have to wait around for them. That’s not respectful of people’s time or privacy. Imagine someone you don’t know showing up to look around your house. That would feel uncomfortable for a lot of people. Renters are entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property, and entitled by law to be given 24-hours notice before someone enters their home for an inspection. The Ordinance as it is currently written does not follow the current law regarding renters’ rights.
Also, the city says this new rule will help make homes safer and better. That sounds good, but they already tried a similar program before. From 2000 to 2005, they had a rental inspection program, and it was abandoned in 2005. If it didn’t work then, why do they think it will work now? Through this ordinance, the city is planning to re-activate that prior program, with some tweaks.
Another problem is that they’re treating every rental property the same, even when some homes are already being inspected. For example, homes rented under the Section 8 program already get checked every year. Property managers also inspect homes they take care of. But the city still wants these homes, and their occupants, to go through another inspection.
Even vacation rentals are included. These are homes that people rent out for short stays, like through Airbnb. These kinds of rentals already have online reviews, and if a house is not habitable, no one will rent those homes. Why make those properties go through the same inspections, too?
This plan might sound like it helps renters by making sure homes are in good shape, but it might do the opposite. Many property owners are already saying they’ll stop renting out their homes if the city adopts these revised rules. If that happens, there will be fewer places to rent in Clearlake. When there are fewer homes to rent, the prices go up. That means higher rent for everyone, and more people will have trouble finding a place they can afford.
The ordinance says this is about updating their local codes to match state codes for buildings and safety. But they don’t need to go into people’s homes to update their codes. That can be done without bothering renters or charging property owners.
The ordinance states that it does not intend to force property owners to upgrade their homes to current standards, but it also states its goal is to improve the standards of all rental homes. Are renters going to be forced to vacate their home with their children and pets if the city decides to require major upgrades to the house?
The worst part is what happens if someone doesn’t agree to these rules. If a property owner or renter refuses the inspection, the ordinance says both the property owner and the occupant could face fines and could even go to jail. That seems way too harsh, especially when the rules don’t seem fair to begin with. The ordinance references two different city codes when stating the potential penalties for refusing to comply: Municipal Code Sections 1-5 and 1-9. These Ordinances conflict with one another. Which code will be used? One sets a $500/day penalty for up to 6 months (Section 1-5), and the other sets a $100/violation penalty (Section 1-9).
It feels like the city is not thinking about the people who rent their homes or the people who live in those homes. Most owners who rent out their homes are not big companies. They’re regular people who worked hard to buy a home and rent it out. They don’t want to break the law or have problems with the city. But this plan makes it less attractive to invest in Clearlake. How will the city find the owners who are not complying with the ordinance?
We all want safe and clean homes. That’s important. But there has to be a better way to make sure of that. Maybe the city could focus on homes that already have problems instead of checking every single rental every year or every other year. Or maybe they could offer virtual inspections for homes to minimize the intrusions. Perhaps the inspectors should have body-cams so if there is an allegation of misconduct, the camera footage could be reviewed.
The city could consider more outreach to renters to encourage them to report issues with habitability and then schedule an inspection at that point. There are laws against property owners retaliating against renters for reporting problems, but a lot of renters do not know this.
The city should listen to the people who live and work here. We need more rental homes, not fewer. We need sensible, clear rules that make sense and help both renters and property owners. This plan, as it is right now, doesn’t seem to do that.
I hope the City Council reconsiders approving this ordinance. If they pass it the way it is now, it could hurt the very people it’s supposed to help. Let’s work together to find a better solution that keeps homes safe without driving up costs or chasing away the people who provide places to live. If you are concerned about this program, please make your views about Ordinance Number 279-2025 regarding rental housing unit registration known to the City by contacting the Administrative Services Director/City Clerk at
Mary Benson is a real estate broker with Realty 360 Wine Country. She lives in Lower Lake, California.
- Details
- Written by: Mary Benson
How to resolve AdBlock issue?