Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee advances ordinance barring landlords from asking tenants’ immigration status, adds anti‑retaliation enforcement
Loading...
Summary
The committee moved forward an ordinance that would prohibit landlords from inquiring about or acting on tenants’ immigration or citizenship status, forbid denying applicants for using an ITIN and add municipal enforcement tools including license actions and fines under Title 12.
Chair Jason Chavez presented an ordinance April 15 that would ban landlords, operators or their agents from asking about or acting on a rental applicant’s or tenant’s immigration or citizenship status and would prohibit denying applications solely because an applicant uses an Internal Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Chavez said the measure also includes an anti‑retaliation provision to bar increasing rent, cutting services, altering agreements or contacting state or federal law enforcement in response to tenants asserting rights under the ordinance.
Chavez, who authored the measure with Council members Chowdhury, Ty and Vice President Osman, described exceptions that would allow compliance with state or federal legal obligations (for example, verifying eligibility for federally administered rent assistance) and an amendment to permit status checks when necessary to connect a tenant with supportive services that require immigration‑status eligibility. “We have an amendment that adds another exception … to connect a tenant … with supportive services or programs where immigration status is an eligibility criteria,” Chavez said.
Council member Rabin Bell asked for a plain‑English explanation of enforcement. A city attorney explained the new ordinance would preserve existing remedies—including civil suits and human‑rights complaints—and add immediate municipal enforcement options such as rental license revocation, adverse license hearings and administrative fines under the city’s Title 12 schedule. Chavez noted violations of Title 12 carry a $250 fine for a first offense under the administrative schedule, doubling for subsequent violations up to a $2,000 maximum.
Council member Vitale asked to advance the ordinance without a committee recommendation to allow members time for additional review; Chavez agreed and moved the item with the revisions he described. With no public testimony, the committee voted by voice to move the ordinance forward as presented.
The committee’s action advances the proposal to the next step in the council process; additional amendments and a final council vote will follow the committee’s upcoming review and public notice requirements.
