When the Alameda Superior Court ruled that the county’s Covid-19 eviction moratorium did not apply in a housing dispute between a tenant and the city of Alameda, even the judge overseeing the case didn’t expect it to have larger ramifications.
So it came as quite a surprise when city officials claimed Friday that the “landmark ruling” resolved a so-called “long-standing ambiguity” about the amount of power California counties have over the cities within their boundaries.
Alameda contends the ruling has now set a precedent for whether counties can regulate incorporated cities during times of emergency. If its interpretation is correct — which has yet to be tested by further lawsuits — cities in Alameda County would have broad power to ignore ordinances set by the county – from mask mandates and curfews to eviction moratoriums.
“When there’s a set of local laws, whether it’s curfews or emergency response, there is one set of laws that applies to you, not two,” said Alameda City Attorney Yibin Shen. “The local government in Alameda is the city council.”
Does the court’s ruling signify a massive shift in the balance of power between counties and cities around the state?
According to the defense attorney in the case, it does not. Marc Janowitz, who represented the tenant, said the city’s statement in a news release was “a wish rather than a fact” and “exaggerating to the point of misleading.” As a matter of law, decisions made by lower courts, including the Alameda Superior Court, do not hold precedential value.
Judge Victoria Kolakowski, in her decision, wrote that her judgment would “only apply to the parties in this case,” and that it would not affect the county ordinance more broadly.
By the judge’s own words then, the county’s statement is not a landmark case, Janowitz said.
The issue began in April 2022, when the city of Alameda moved to evict tenants from two separate single family homes on the island’s old military base. At the time, the county had – and still has – a moratorium against evictions when a tenant is unable to pay because of COVID-19 related rent debt.
The moratorium, which is sent to expire in May, states that it covers incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county.
As a matter of procedure, when evictions are filed, a judge examines at the lawsuit and determines if the county’s eviction moratorium should apply. In this situation, the City of Alameda chose to argue that the moratorium was unconstitutional, because counties cannot legally regulate incorporated cities.
That approach forced the tenants to defend the constitutionality of a county ordinance, rather than the merits of their eviction cases. Although the moratorium was ruled constitutional in a different federal lawsuit challenging the same ordinance, in this case the judge ultimately ruled in the city’s favor.
Even if the ruling doesn’t ultimately set a larger precedent, more cities may attempt to do so – especially those that have resisted pandemic-era restrictions enacted by county governments.
The notion of autonomy granted to a local government by the state constitution is a thorny one, said Tom Hogen-Esch, a political science professor at California State University Northridge.
“Once you draw that boundary and you’re a city, you basically have home rule over a bunch of different things, for better or worse,” Hogen-Esch said. “This is a longstanding, probably 100-year debate over ‘How far does the extent of home rule go?’”
According to Shen, the city has taken the position numerous times throughout the pandemic that county ordinances do not apply to incorporated cities. One such instance was when the county declared a state of emergency during protests after George Floyd’s murder and issued an 8 p.m. curfew. The City of Alameda declined to extend that curfew, creating a confusing situation for residents.
“Issues like this come up and there’s not a lot of clean, clear law,” said Hogen-Esch. “One judge in one part of California might say one thing, and another might say another thing. It will have to work its way up through the legal system in California, and ultimately the California Supreme Court draws lines about who has this authority.”
Alameda County could have stepped in to defend the constitutionality of its eviction moratorium, but did not. Janowitz hypothesized that the deaths of two pro-tenant supervisors, Richard Valle and Wilma Chen, may have shifted the political center of the board of supervisors, making them less willing to defend a now 3-year-old ordinance. The case will now move forward as a regular eviction dispute.
Shen said the city’s goal was not to debate the merits of an eviction moratorium, but rather to provide more clarity about whose laws applied, and when.
“It has nothing to do with which sets of laws are better,” Shen said. “I’m sure the city and county of San Francisco have adopted great laws. They just don’t apply to the city of Alameda.”
Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our Twitter, & Facebook
We are now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@TechiUpdate) and stay updated with the latest Technology headlines.
For all the latest Health & Fitness News Click Here
