Salinas City Council repeals recently adopted tenant protections; 5–2 vote draws extensive public comment

The Salinas City Council voted 5–2 on Tuesday to repeal four recently adopted ordinances that had established local rent stabilization, a rental registry and tenant anti‑harassment protections.

Council member D'Arrigo moved to adopt an ordinance repealing ordinances 2663, 2681, 2682 and 2683; Council member De La Rosa seconded. The motion passed with five votes in favor (Barajas, D'Arrigo, De La Rosa, Salazar and Mayor Donahue) and two votes against (Barrera and Sandoval).

Why it matters: The ordinances being repealed had contained a package of tenant protections adopted earlier in the year, including local rent increase limits, a rental‑unit registry, and anti‑harassment provisions. Proponents said the package addressed immediate threats to housing stability in a city whose majority of households rent; opponents said the measures imposed burdens on property owners and duplicated state protections.

Public testimony: The council heard hours of public comment before the vote. Tenants, community organizers and school‑district leaders urged the council to retain the local protections, saying they provide concrete help for residents who face eviction or sudden rent increases. Maggie Power, a Salinas teacher, told the council, “If you vote no, don't pretend you care about renters. You care about protecting the comfortable, not the 53% of the city whose rent and suffer.” Mirpa policy manager George Villa, the co‑founder of a local nonprofit boxing gym, said repealing the measures “is gonna decrease the health. It's gonna create more overcrowding.”

Landlords and other speakers urged a pause or a different approach. A property manager who identified herself as having more than 30 years of experience said additional government controls historically drive costs higher; a local landlord asked the council to “give this a hard look” and consider amendments rather than a full repeal.

Council debate and motion: Council members split on process and timing. Supporters of repeal said the city should rely on state law (the California Tenant Protection Act and related statutes) and pursue other approaches such as rental assistance or supply‑side measures. Council member D'Arrigo, who made the motion to repeal, said the council should consider alternate strategies; Council member Breyer urged colleagues to delay action for further analysis and outreach but was in the minority on the final vote.

Vote and immediate next steps: The motion carried 5–2. City staff did not announce a new local replacement policy during the meeting. Council members and residents asked staff to pursue tenant assistance options and to provide implementation details for any future proposals; several speakers requested additional education and legal help for tenants on state protections in the interim.

Context and records: City staff earlier prepared and presented the local ordinances after a multi‑year process; the ordinances included mechanisms such as a rental registry intended to provide the city data to measure impacts and administer tenant protections. Several residents said the registry and the ordinances’ monitoring requirements were tools for enforcement and analysis that should remain in place while alternatives are developed.

What happens next: With repeal effective per the ordinance adoption, residents and landlords must rely on existing state protections and any city programs staff may propose. Council members asked staff to return with information about rental‑assistance options and how the city will provide tenant education and enforcement under current state law.