What Santa Clara County renters, landlords should know about evictions

March 16, 2021March 18, 2021

What Santa Clara County renters, landlords should know about evictions

An apartment building is pictured in downtown San Jose in this file photo. Photo by Ramona Giwargis.

Renters affected by the pandemic likely took a sigh of relief when, early this year, California lawmakers extended the statewide ban on evictions for those facing financial hardships until the end of June. The law also created a rental assistance program to help lift lower-income renters out of rental debt. The program started taking applications this week.

Nearly one of five renters in California fell behind on rent in 2020, according to an analysis by the Bay Area Equity Atlas and the Housing NOW! California coalition. In Santa Clara County, the average back rent is $4,651—totaling more than $173.5 million across the county. Roughly 43,000 families are at risk of eviction, according to a February county report.

Here’s what renters need to know about the rent relief program and the newly extended eviction moratorium.

Q: What protections do I have under the moratorium?

The bill, known as SB 91, extends the ban on evictions based on unpaid rent through June. To avoid eviction after this period, renters must pay at least 25% of the rent due between September 2020 and June 2021, either monthly or altogether by June 30.

If a landlord wants to evict you for unpaid rent, they must provide information about the moratorium. Tenants also have 15 days to submit a declaration under penalty of perjury back to the landlords, saying they hadn’t paid rent because of financial hardship related to COVID. An example of a declaration form can be found here.

Landlords are not allowed to retaliate by locking renters out or shutting off utilities. Property owners may face penalties for not following the moratorium. The law also prohibits any late fees added on past due rent between September 2020 and June 2021.

Q: What should I do if I can’t pay my rent right now?

You are currently protected under the current eviction moratorium, as long as you submit a COVID-related financial distress declaration to your landlord within 15 days of a “pay or quit” notice.

You might be eligible to receive rent relief from the state, as of this week, if your household’s income is less than 50% of the area median income. Tenants can apply with or without their landlords.

Housing is Key: California’s COVID-19 Rent Relief; 833-430-2122 or call the program’s local partners, Nuestra Casa de East Palo Alto at 650-248-6886 or Project Sentinel at 408-720-9888; www.housing.ca.gov/covid_rr/program_overview.html#renter

There are also several local resources for tenants in Santa Clara County who are at risk of homelessness:

The Santa Clara County CAN: Resources and safety net programs; 408-809-2124; www.wpusa.org/programs/santa-clara-county-can-covid-19-assistance-navigation/

The Santa Clara County Emergency Financial Assistance Network (EAN): ZIP code-based homeless prevention resources. Consult the list of local agencies here. 866-896-3587; www.sccgov.org/sites/osh/NeedAssistance/Rent/Pages/home.aspx

The Santa Clara County Homelessness Prevention System: Homelessness prevention assistance through Sacred Heart Community Service; 408-926-8885; [email protected]

Q: So I can’t be evicted through June?

Not quite. The protections only prevent evictions due to nonpayment of rent under two conditions: tenants pay 25% of rent owed before the end of the moratorium, and they submit a declaration within 15 days of a “pay or quit” notice (weekends and holidays excluded).

Landlords can still evict tenants for several reasons. According to KQED, there were 145 eviction cases in Santa Clara County between March 19 and Dec. 31, 2020. That is because the moratorium doesn’t cover evictions related to other causes, including health and safety. Consult with legal resources if you think a landlord is violating your rights.

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley provides free legal advice and representation to low-income tenants in Santa Clara County. Call 408-280-2424 or fill out this form: https://www.lawfoundation.org/housing-intake-form.

Q: Will my rent be forgiven?

It depends. The eviction protections do not wipe away your unpaid rent, and landlords have the option to pursue past due rent through small claims courts starting August 1.

However, rent relief is now available. California’s rental assistance program of $2.6 billion has begun taking applications this week from landlords and tenants.

Under this program, participating landlords can get 80% of unpaid rent if they agree to waive the remaining 20% of rent owed between April 2020 and March 2021. Tenants will be asked to verify their landlords’ application. If your landlord is not partaking, eligible tenants can also apply to receive 25% of past rent due and avoid eviction after June 30. Tenants may also receive rent and utility assistance. The application does not ask for or require proof of citizenship.

This is not a first-come, first-serve system. It will prioritize lower-income and more at-risk applications—Call 833-430-2122, or the program’s local partners Nuestra Casa de East Palo Alto (650-248-6886) or Project Sentinel at (408-720-9888) for more assistance.

Separately, Santa Clara County and San Jose are also working to roll out their own rent relief programs through Destination: Home and Sacred Heart Community Service. The programs, funded by about $57 million, will prioritize extremely-low income families who earn less than 30% of the area median income. Destination: Home representatives said the local programs need to follow federal guidelines. They complement the state’s aid.

Q: Can my landlord raise my rent right now?

Yes, but not exactly for tenants in San Jose. The City Council voted in February to reinstate a rent freeze through June 2021. Tenants who suffer from COVID-related financial hardship can submit a declaration to their landlords before any hike occurs to avoid paying more.

Outside of San Jose, annual rent increases are limited to 5% plus the rate of inflation. This excludes most single-family homes and apartments built after 2004.

Contact Tran Nguyen at [email protected] or follow @nguyenntrann on Twitter.

Comment Policy (updated 5/10/2023): Readers are required to log in through a social media or email platform to confirm authenticity. We reserve the right to delete comments or ban users who engage in personal attacks, hate speech, excess profanity or make verifiably false statements. Comments are moderated and approved by admin.

Comments (18)

transparency and accountability are needed in San Jose Mar 16, 2021 at 9:48AM

No, your rent will not be forgiven. That requires a straight answer.

Log in to Reply
- Steven Goldstein Mar 16, 2021 at 4:19PM
  
  Transperancy,
  
  And by not working on the rental assistance that SB91 provides, and also trying not to help your tenants, you lose that money, and the courts will not force tenants to pay it.
  
  Remember that this is “free money” to the landlords for services rendered, ESPECIALLY if the only rents not paid are the ones after passage of the original rent protection that started on September of 2020. Especially where since the “rental debt” does no get reduced under SB91 for the partial payment of 25%. Thus with the 80% federal assistance, the landlord goes away with 105%.
  
  Fortunately the law does say that failure to act on that program in effect nullified the tenants unpaid rent. I hope that the state will after the new relief law, they will extended the current one AND make it practically mandatory that the landlords apply for the federal funds they are in fact ENTITLED to receive.
  
  Log in to Reply
  - Transparency and Accountability are Needed in San Jose Mar 16, 2021 at 6:17PM
    
    Hi, Steven. I only have one tenant down south, and thankfully they were not impacted by the pandemic, in terms of their job.
    
    I simply wanted to state, because the article creates some confusion around the question “will rent be forgiven?” – that here is no rental forgiveness program. And, this program will only help a small fraction of the people who need it – and really just focuses on households making 0%-50% AMI. Leaves a huge gap, and landlords, especially mom-pops, are getting screwed. The state should work with the feds on making landlords whole, or include them in programs like PPE to get grants/forgivable loans…the governments created the burden, and should make it right. And guaranteed, many people took advantage of the moratoriums.
    
    Log in to Reply
    - Steven Goldstein Mar 16, 2021 at 8:54PM
      
      Transparency,
      
      There has been major problem with the claim; ” And, this program will only help a small fraction of the people who need it – and really just focuses on households making 0%-50% AMI. Leaves a huge gap, and landlords, especially mom-pops, are getting screwed. ”
      
      Yes the so-called “priority” will be that those in that group will get the fastest results, BUT the program is designed to assist all tenants up to 80% AMI.
      
      The real problem regarding the “mom and pop” landlords is they are not “professionals” and they do not know how to act in a timely manner, with the proper processes, and the correct records, to make use of most “assistance”.
      
      Isn’t that why you have trade groups like the California Apartment Association? Doesn’t their membership fees provide them with timely information so that they SHOULD have had all their records and information all prepared for today regarding the program? I am certain that many “professionals” are already entering their tenants information into the government portal to get their funds resolved.
      
      The CAA has not lived up to their responsibilities regarding establishing good performance of their members to comply with many of the laws involving their business.
      
      For example my buildings balconies need a complete overhaul, but my landlord submitted for a building permit nothing but a simple sketch of the existing balcony and no work plan for the proper recovery of the safety of the structure. In fact the building permit paperwork doesn’t even have any designer or architect consulting on it.
      
      There is no evidence that the “repair” will be up to the building codes, especially the new ones passed after the Berkley Balcony disaster.
      
      Here is a video of the property (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J_begLQoTCaGWdDrQMzB7gt7IO6aCxZW/view?usp=sharing). Later I will share the PDF files of the paperwork submitted to the City. That paperwork is public record, so there is not rules broken when I publish them.
      
      Sorry, but many got into this “business” with no understanding of the responsibilities, and that is a REAL problem.
      
      Log in to Reply
      - transparency and accountability are needed in San Jose Mar 17, 2021 at 5:04PM
        
        The County is absolutely prioritizing 50% AMI and lower, and they will eat up the majority of the funds, most likely all of this allocation. The 80% AMI number is the top of the “low-income” designation, and it’s a percentage commonly cited when using federal or local housing funds. 80% or lower makes them eligible for the assistance – but that doesn’t mean the County has to serve those between 51% and 80% AMI. So, they will be helped later, maybe when it’s too late – because evictions will inevitably start.
        
        And the issues with providing rental assistance like this to those between 0%-50%, without some sort of permanent housing link, is they are already so far behind – most likely zero or extremely low-income, and won’t transition to self-sufficiency with this level of short term assistance. It’s a can kicking down the road approach.
        
        It’s the same reason Measure A projects have an issue with financing because all of the funds went toward those making 0%-30% AMI – without long-term funding revenue, like a Section 8 program. So developers can’t get financing stacked because you need a mix of AMI’s in a building to make it sustainable.
        
        You can’t just believe what the County says – because if you look at their power-points and one-pagers, you would think they solved homelessness, but we all know the reality.
        
        Here is a blurb from the County:
        
        “CA COVID-19 Rent Relief Program
        
        Here are some details on the State program:
        
        • The program provides assistance to help low-income tenants pay rent and utilities.
        • The program is available to low-income tenants (< 80% AMI) who have been financially impacted due to the pandemic.
        • Priority will be given to tenants who make less than 50% of the area’s median income.
        • Applications can be submitted by both tenants and landlords.
        • Details and the application link will be available at: Housingiskey.com or via a toll-free phone number 833-430-2112."
      - transparency and accountability are needed in San Jose Mar 17, 2021 at 5:10PM
        
        And your points are the exact reason why Hoapres advocates for mom and pops to leave the rental business. How is someone that owns property who can’t collect rent supposed to have reserves for repairs and maintenance? I mean, i’m trying to be realistic here.
        
        Also, i’d agree that mom and pops entered into a business agreement – but they never could’ve foreseen 13+ months of rent moratoriums. I mean, look at all the failed businesses during the pandemic due to circumstances out of the businesses control. Isn’t that the same for a landlord?
        
        So, I disagree that some education from the CAA would’ve solved the current issue for landlords who have suffered massive losses and do not get nearly the support tenants do from the City or legal entities paid by the City. They don’t get PPE loans like other businesses either.
        
        The cards are stacked against them, and you refuse to acknowledge that because you seemingly have an issue with property owners. Definitely not an objective thought process.
    - hoapres Mar 17, 2021 at 10:14AM
      
      If you are a mom and pop landlord then get out of the business as fast as you can.
      
      Log in to Reply
      - transparency and accountability are needed in San Jose Mar 17, 2021 at 5:06PM
        
        100% agree.
      - Steven Goldstein Mar 18, 2021 at 2:49PM
        
        Yes I agree too.
        
        These people were sold into getting into a business they didn’t have any understanding of the complications.
        
        And what RISKS or INCIDENTS they could and did encounter.
        
        Unfortunately, most people start businesses with only thinking about the possible positive benefits of getting into them, and not taking the real work to uncover the steps they are to take as “best practices” to avoid major problems.
        
        And NOW Fauci just demonstrated that the Vaccines we have are not going to protect you from many variants of the COVID. Meaning that even when we are vaccinated, that does not mean we are safe. In effect, he just disclosed that the idea of once your vaccinated you can do what you want, is not the TRUTH. There are variants HERE and NOW that are not able to be vaccinated at this time.
Jacob Mar 16, 2021 at 10:18AM

August 1st will be an interesting day. Twitter is probably going to explode with public shaming of rental providers who just want to have their services paid for after being stolen from for the past year.

Log in to Reply
Better Before Mar 17, 2021 at 2:45AM

“They hired the housing, didn’t they? They agreed to pay to live in it.”

That’s what a real governor would be saying, in so many other words.

Log in to Reply
- Steven Goldstein Mar 17, 2021 at 9:10AM
  
  Better Before,
  
  Yes, to the simplest degree, that is correct.
  
  But given the current trend of the decentralization of the valley workforce, and the current drop in demand for housing, the “hiring” is now demanding much lower prices. In the most practical terms, the current landlords are not in a good position to say, “if they can’t pay, just leave”.
  
  In my city the rents are the prices they were in 2014, and are not showing any signs that it will recover to pre pandemic for maybe at least 2 to 3 years. And we have a “record” vacancy rate, meaning that there are less units occupied then there has been in that many years too.
  
  What your really expressing is that landlords and such are in the weakest position they have been since 2007 at the least and maybe the DOT.BOMB era where the valley lost so much during 2001-2003.
  
  And if you try to say the Governor is responsible, you really have an unrealistic view of what any “Governor” can do.
  
  You should know that IF all of the unemployed due to COVID got evicted alone, the market would collapse so bad, that no property would survive. Because there is NO ONE to replace them.
  
  In effect, the “housing providers” are in the weakest position regarding the market power it has been in decades. And a recent court case reinforced the idea that no property owner is protected regarding not making profits:
  
  “A Manhattan judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by five New York City landlords in the latest ruling upholding the constitutionality of sweeping rent reforms passed by the state Legislature in 2019.
  
  Manhattan Federal Court Judge Edgardo Ramos in his March 8 decision found the landlords’ case to overturn the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act couldn’t continue EVEN IF THEIR FINANCIAL WOES WILL.
  
  “Plaintiffs … cannot argue that the 2019 Amendments interfered with their reasonable investment-backed expectations. Rent regulation has existed in some form in the city for over seventy years, and rent stabilization in particular has existed for over fifty years,” Judge Ramos wrote.
  
  The judge added the landlords “knowingly entered a highly regulated industry.”
  
  The sweeping consumer protection laws, which apply to one million rent-stabilized New York City apartments, made it unlawful for landlords to reject tenants based on their history in court with previous landlords, lengthened the time they have to evict renters, and made it harder to convert rent-stabilized units to condos or co-ops.
  
  The package also made the rent regulation system in the five boroughs permanent and allowed municipalities outside of the city to opt into rent regulation.
  
  Three of the landlords who brought the suit manage buildings with a mix of rent-stabilized and unregulated apartments at 335 and 337 W. 14th St. in the Meatpacking District; 226 W. 16th St. in Chelsea; and 172 Prince St. in the West Village.
  
  The two other plaintiffs in the suit are no longer landlords — one managed a rent-stabilized apartment building in the Bronx, 699 E. 137th St., and the other owned a rent-stabilized building in East Harlem, 309 E. 110th St.
  
  All claimed they’d suffered enormous financial damage from the 2019 regulations, WHICH THE LANDLORDS CLAIMED PREVENTED THEM FROM PROFITING FROM THEIR PROPERTY, USING THEIR UNITS HOW THEY WANT, AND EXITING THE MARKET IF THEY WISH TO DO SO.
  
  Judge Ramos accepted the landlords’ litany of complaints as true in his ruling — including their assertion that the sweeping reforms had “an enormous negative economic impact” on their lives — BUT DISMISSED ALL OF THE LAWSUIT’S POINTS AS MOOT.
  
  “LOSS OF PROFIT ALONE” does not count AS A REGULATORY TAKING OF THEIR PROPERTY, Judge Ramos wrote in his decision, adding that landlords “HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN UNREGULATED MARKET.”
  
  The landlords filed the now-tossed suit against the city, the Rent Guidelines Board, and RuthAnne Visnauskas, who heads the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, a state agency that monitors New York’s rent regulation rules.
  
  It’s the fifth lawsuit brought by landlords since state Democrats, in control of the state Senate and Assembly for the first time in years, passed the comprehensive reforms that radically strengthened New York’s tenant protections.
  
  “We understand that part of the reason for bringing these cases — part of the reason there are five cases — IS THAT THERE’S A WELL-FINANCED PLAN TO TRY TO GET ONE OF THESE FIVE CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WITH THE NEW JUSTICES,” Ellen Davidson, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society who represented several tenant advocacy groups in the suit, said Monday.
  
  “An immense amount of money is being spent on this effort,” said Davidson. “Not because there’s a belief that so much has changed constitutionally with the new law. THERE’S A BELIEF THAT THEY CAN BUY THEIR WAY UP TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND THEN BRING PROPERTY LAW BACK TO 19TH CENTURY JURISPRUDENCE.”
  
  I think that the New York case is very close to what is going on here in CA now. CA is about to undergo a transition into this kind of MARKET, and these property owners better either DIVEST now or simply watch their market power slip away.
  
  Log in to Reply
  - hoapres Mar 17, 2021 at 10:23AM
    
    If you can’t pay then just leave. Actually the landlords can say that because the vacancy rate isn’t into double digits. There hasn’t been a drop in rents in lower price units. That is somewhat understandable since if you lower the rent for a new tenant then that lower rent becomes the base rent and can only be raised 5% or less a year.
    
    If I had to choose between a non paying tenant versus a vacancy then a vacancy wins every day.
    
    Some of these older buildings are at the end of their useful life especially those near downtown San Jose and the East Side. Just get out the bulldozer and put in either owner occupied housing or new apartments not subject to rent control.
    
    Log in to Reply
Steven Goldstein Mar 17, 2021 at 12:48PM

Hoapres you wrote:

“If you can’t pay then just leave. Actually the landlords can say that because the vacancy rate isn’t into double digits.”

THe price drops are logarithmic, meaning just a 1% difference starts at perhaps a 3 to 4% drop in prices. That is why even San Francisco has seen a 27% rent drop. As far as:

“There hasn’t been a drop in rents in lower price units. That is somewhat understandable since if you lower the rent for a new tenant then that lower rent becomes the base rent and can only be raised 5% or less a year.”

Yes, and like in my city RENT CONTROLLED units do not drop. BUT, the fact that so many other units are getting CHEAPER that are NOT rent controlled, and they are NOT likely to increase for some time. Those RENT CONTROLLED units become vacant, and they drop too. My building has seen the non-rent controlled units drop by 30% and even a friend that lived in the RENT STABILISED unit when she left the unit dropped about 20% for the NEW tenant. That is demonstrating SHORT SIGHTED thinking. You wrote:

“If I had to choose between a non paying tenant versus a vacancy then a vacancy wins every day.”

Actually, as long as people have followed SB91 and the previous rent law, they are PAYING what they are lawfully required to do. And again, if the landlords do choose to not file for their federal relief, that is THEIR mistake. They will walk away with 5% more than they are lawfully entitled to if they do. What your really saying is that “NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO”. That kind of behavior will be spread through various “social” media, and it will make it so NO ONE will ever rent from them again. You wrote:

“Some of these older buildings are at the end of their useful life especially those near downtown San Jose and the East Side. Just get out the bulldozer and put in either owner occupied housing or new apartments not subject to rent control.”

BUT under SB330 any unit being removed has to be under the condition that another “like kind” affordable unit must be provided. Called no NET LOSS. Thereby the Cities are now not able to provide approval of any “STRATEGIC” attack on affordable housing. Again, very SHORT-SIGHTED ideas with major bad consequences.

Here is one document submitted regarding the “REPAIR” of my balcony (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g0O1h9tHZUUdnHvz0Q136Jw1iPyyHHty/view?usp=sharing) I strongly urge any person encountering this kind of bad management of a property to share it so that people can avoid problems. Again this is PUBLIC records.

Log in to Reply
Not SJ Kulak Mar 18, 2021 at 8:22PM

To those that think rents and valuation will drop permanently in the bay area simply have no clue what they are talking about. The game is rigged, there will NEVER be enough supply. H1Bs will keep coming, “status” immigrants will keep coming, and nothing substantial will ever get built. The bay area is one of the most attractive places to live in the world. Affordable rental stock is old and deteriorating, but will see rents grow in the limit due to distortion from poorly managed land use and regulations. It is simply a rent-seeking scam. Its inefficiency is compellingly efficient. Unintended genius, but its just to well constructed to be by accident.

One can be a successful mom and pop landlord in the bay area, goodness knows my wife and I were, but you have to game the system in a way our ethics wouldn’t jibe with. When we realized that rent control would actually help less than ethical landlords, we sold out and moved to redder counties. It was clear the city did not want us to own them, the true believer activists were in a zealous rage that blew up in the face of the poorest tenants, raising rents every year because we could and buying up foreclosures brought on by downturns and regulation just felt dirty. And life quality and emotional state are far more valuable than a few more percentage in returns.

Now we are in a place of great peace, we are grateful for our tenants and their character (pay something or voluntarily move on) and they are grateful for how we treat their home as an asset not “just a rental.” To any landlord wondering why is the world so crazy, well, it just is – In progressive cities. In the real world, rent is fair, the profits are fair, and you aren’t counting the days till you can sell.

America is a great place, a place where home ownership is still the dream, not the “right” to pay rent forever. If you set up shop in the real America, you will give people the time to organize their finances to buy their own home, or a safe harbor in a storm during a troubled period, not tempt them into lifelong Marxian alienation.

See you when you get here….

Log in to Reply
Steven Goldstein Mar 19, 2021 at 1:23PM

Not SJ Kulak you wrote:

“One can be a successful mom and pop landlord in the bay area, goodness knows my wife and I were, but you have to game the system in a way our ethics wouldn’t jibe with.”

First WHERE IS SJ KULAK?

WOW! You just admitted you are part of a scheme to exploit the market? Well, there goes the “clean hands” doctrine, you cannot be provided equity in court if you are acting in a way that either forces others to act badly, or your acting against public policies. Thannk You for your confession. Yopu wrote:

“When we realized that rent control would actually help less than ethical landlords, we sold out and moved to redder counties. It was clear the city did not want us to own them, the true believer activists were in a zealous rage that blew up in the face of the poorest tenants, raising rents every year because we could and buying up foreclosures brought on by downturns and regulation just felt dirty. And life quality and emotional state are far more valuable than a few more percentage in returns.”

THe City had nothing to do with targeting you in any way. If there was a policy that was acted on equally to all persons there is no targeting regarding anyone. That was just you trying to say you were unfairly treated because of who YOU were. That is not what happened. You wrote:

“Now we are in a place of great peace, we are grateful for our tenants and their character (pay something or voluntarily move on) and they are grateful for how we treat their home as an asset not “just a rental.” To any landlord wondering why is the world so crazy, well, it just is – In progressive cities. In the real world, rent is fair, the profits are fair, and you aren’t counting the days till you can sell.”

In your RWAL world you play in areas where the laws give very little protection to anyone but yourself. That is not the REAL world, but is simply again your previous admission that you “game the system” every chance you can. You wrote:

“America is a great place, a place where home ownership is still the dream, not the “right” to pay rent forever.”

You again are telling people, either you OWN your home or you are just garbage right? You know that is exactly what you are dictating to everyone. But that again is not only unrealistic, but simply not even accurate. You wrote:

“If you set up shop in the real America, you will give people the time to organize their finances to buy their own home, or a safe harbor in a storm during a troubled period, not tempt them into lifelong Marxian alienation.”

WAIT, what id MARX have anything to do with this. The market is not communist nor is it close to being a socialist market. This again is just a RED SCARE and NAME CALLING effort for just getting people so upset they don’t even understand the poor argument you just made. This is done by design, most PROPAGANDISTS like FASCISTS tend to arrange their wording this way to “sugar top” the bad cake.

Log in to Reply
Pepi Mar 19, 2021 at 7:13PM

Actually most supportive housing is funded by Projecr based Section 8 vouchers
Second Street Studios and Villas on the park are examples of this

In addition the supportive housing management companies pay a series of bonuses monthly to the landlord for equity

Log in to Reply
- Steven Goldstein Mar 19, 2021 at 8:50PM
  
  Pepi,
  
  Section 8 vouchers are not owned by the government. They are a “Private/Public” arrangement.
  
  Meaning that the government provided subsidies and gifts to the private developers and on top of that the government pays for part of the rents.
  
  So it is not a Socialist market, it is a greatly manipulated private market.
  
  Log in to Reply

What Santa Clara County renters, landlords should know about evictions

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Don't miss a story.

Related Stories

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply