I'm confused

"If a tenant or prospective tenant wishes to rent a rental unit from a landlord and if said landlord wishes to rent said rental unit to said tenant or prospective tenant, the landlord must offer to the tenant or prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year."

AJ Capital does NOT "...wishes to rent said rental unit to said tenant or prospective tenant..."

So how does this appy? Is the city claiming that they can force a landlord to rent to a tenant against the landlord's wishes? This theory would imply that a landlord never gets to choose what they get to do with their property. the city will force landlords to rent property forever.

I believe AJ rented to the tenants a a month-to-month basis for ~6 months. They apparently should have offered the tenants the option of a 1-year lease.

What a mess and a field day for landlord/tenant rights attorneys.

Palo Alto's 1-year rental/lease mandate conflicts with CA state law as rental term length is to be mutually agreed upon by both the landlord & tenant.

Evictions & Civil Standby measures are handled by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and not the PAPD.

AJ has signed documents from the majority of the tenants who vacated and received relocation bonuses/assistance for doing so. Only two tenants remain claiming a personal inconvenience?

Remaining President Hotel tenants now wish to sue the City of Palo Alto for not enabling them to remain at the hotel?

Is this an actual violation of civil rights? In otherwords, the right to lifetime rental options or a basic landlord/tenant dispute that has gotten totally blown out of proportion?

Speaking from experience, I have been forced to move several times when the landlord sold the property to another buyer. I don't recall it being such a major catastrophe or conflict other than an inconvenience.

Moral of the story...had I been a home owner rather than a renter, I would only be answering to the bank and not a landlord.

Must not forget that AJ Capital hired TWO former City manager's staff members, Steve Emslie and Richard Hackmann. TWO!

[Portion removed.]

from the PA Weekly...
> "Karen Kao, a physical therapist who remains a tenant, told the City Council on Monday that she and her fellow tenants are considering litigation against the city for not enforcing its laws and enabling AJ Capital to move ahead with its hotel project."

No. You have failed to source an alternative place to reside. You cannot blame the developer AJ or City of Palo Alto for one's own shortcomings or failure to make other arrangements.

also from the PA Weekly...
>"The Project Sentinel letter requests that AJ Capital provide "reasonable accommodation" to the two tenants,"

As in subsidized rent or possible accomodations at the hotel? Didn't the tenants receive relocation assistance already?

Incredible...and only in PA.

Is the city aware of the Ellis Act or does Palo Alto think that the can selectively choose which laws to obey.
Web Link

I would suggest getting legal advise from someone else besides you know who.

"Is the city claiming that they can force a landlord to rent to a tenant against the landlord's wishes? This theory would imply that a landlord never gets to choose what they get to do with their property. the city will force landlords to rent property forever."

If a landlord wishes to be a landlord then aforesaid landlord must rent at least a fraction of aforesaid landlord's property to tenants. Else aforesaid landlord is not considered to be a landlord under the provisions of commonly accepted logic.


"I'm confused"

I agree.

The landlord (AJ) demonstrated that they wished to rent the property by offering tenants 30 day leases. Palo Alto law requires landlords who wish to rent property to offer one year leases.

RBG- the is ni such thing as a 30 day lease. That is known as month to month. Regardless, as someone pointed out there is the Ellis act which allows landlords who want to get out of the renting business to evict all the tenants. AJ obviously wants to do that so the city law does not matter

Ellis evictions require a one year notice for senior and disabled tenants, 120 days for all others.