Woodmark residents, fearing eviction, plead for help from the Sebastopol City Council
Woodmark sweetens the deal for residents who agree to move to one of two other affordable housing communities
More than a dozen residents of Woodmark appeared at the last city council meeting on Sept. 16, several of whom spoke during an extended public comment section for items not on the agenda.
The first comment was so eloquent we will quote it at length:
My name is Melissa Page. I am a single parent of a nine year old, a tenant at Woodmark and a citizen of the city of Sebastopol. I am here to speak about the displacement of 40 families and to ask the city of Sebastopol to enact local ordinances to prevent displacement of low-income families and essential workers. Concord passed a just-cause ordinance last year. Santa Rosa has relocation assistance rules. Berkeley and San Francisco have long-standing protections.
These measures weren’t imposed by the state. They were choices made by local leaders like yourselves, who recognized that housing stability is fundamental to community well-being. I believe that this is within your power to do as well. The population of Woodmark represents some of the most vulnerable residents in Sebastopol: single parents, people with disabilities, women escaping violence and seniors trying to maintain their independence.
If we can be pushed out by Woodmark without opposition, what message does that send to the rest of Sebastopol? And how do you plan to hold Woodmark accountable for this injustice? I respectfully ask that Sebastopol move quickly to draft and adopt municipal codes that prevents the mass un-renewal of leases without just cause, requires relocation assistance when tenants are displaced, and sets clear local protections that align with Sebastopol community values.
To put it simply, stable and affordable housing helps all of us, low-income or not. Please, choose action and help us. Help our children, seniors and neighbors continue to have a home where we finally feel safe and at home.
Another resident of Woodmark, who asked not to be named, said, “I am also part of over 40 families being displaced due to corporate greed, misrepresentation, and fraud…there needs to be more protections. Even when there are loopholes such as SB35 [the state law that allowed Woodmark to be built without going through the city’s planning process], there still needs to be oversight within the city to protect residents and restitution for victims of bad-faith evictions.”
On a more personal note, she added. “I am breaking a promise to my son that we would not fall into homelessness again…There should be emergency housing in place so this does not occur and more protections for residents because the damage does not have a price. My mental health has deteriorated even more, and I've lost some of the progress that I have so courageously worked towards.”
As a Latina herself, who came from a family of farmworkers, this resident said she wanted to emphasize that the current residents of Woodmark were not opposed to farmworkers in any way. What they are opposed to, she said, is the fraud and maltreatment of the current residents by the owners of Woodmark.
Several other speakers followed, including several elderly residents of Woodmark. Sandie Russell, a retired nurse, said “I’m pretty independent, and now for the first time in my life, I’m going to be homeless. I think it’s an absolute disgrace.”
You can see all public comments from Woodmark residents, starting at timestamp 1:45:21.
At the end of public comment, Mayor Zollman noted that the Brown Act prohibits the city council from discussing public comments, but he made the following statement: “I personally am very concerned about the abhorrent treatment of the residents there at Woodmark. Later on tonight, there’s an opportunity for each of us to request future agenda items, and mine will be to ask that our city attorney be able to explore ways to assist in this matter.”
At the end of the meeting, he followed through with this promise, requesting to agendize an item for the next city council meeting to have the city attorney “explore ways to assist in this matter.”
The thing that was odd about this request is that Mayor Zollman is actually on the Agenda Review Committee. He and the three other members of the committee are the ones that set the agenda for council meetings. Fully cognizant of the current crisis, he had a chance to add Woodmark—or a request to have City Attorney Alex Mog look into what the city could do in this situation—to that evening’s agenda and hadn’t done so.
Perhaps Woodmark’s residents’ pleas changed his mind.
On Sept. 20, four days after the council meeting, the Sebastopol Times asked Mayor Zollman if he had tried to reach out to Woodmark’s developer to discuss this issue. He wrote back, “[I] have had no communication with them.”
Woodmark residents receive new offers from management
On Sept. 16, the day of the council meeting, residents received their first written communication from Woodmark. In it, the owners admitted that they had tried to obtain a waiver [to house non-farmworkers] from the USDA’s Off-Farm Labor Housing program but had been denied. As a result, they wrote, “we are working to bring the property into compliance with the program requirements.” (The Sebastopol Times reached out to the USDA, regarding this waiver and the resulting Corrective Action Plan, but we have not gotten a response.)
The letter to residents noted that no legal notices have been served to households at Woodmark—which means a legal eviction process has not been started. The owners re-iterated their cash-for-keys offers—$10,000 for those that leave by Oct. 31, and $5,000 for those that leave by Nov. 30. Most of the residents’ leases end in December, though several residents told the Sebastopol Times that the company backdated their leases to start in December, even if they moved in later.
In the letter, Woodmark’s owners made two new offers if residents relocated to one of the complex’s “sister communities”: the Redwoods in Rohnert Park and Cedar Grove in Santa Rosa.
Tenants’ current rent will be honored for the first 12-month term of the lease. After the expiration of the new lease, each household would be eligible for a rent increase per TCAC (California Tax Credit Allocation Committee) regulations.
Woodmark tenants would not be charged an application fee or be required to pay a security deposit at the new community.
The letter also noted that Woodmark couldn’t guarantee placement at either of these apartment complexes, which are available on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Legal options
Some residents have met as a group with both Sonoma County Legal Aid and local attorney Omar Figueroa, who according to resident Sandie Russell has been generous with his advice but doesn’t want to take on their case.
We reached out to Patrick McDonell, supervising attorney for Sonoma County Legal Aid’s Housing Program, to find out what was happening from a legal standpoint.
“We’re obviously welcoming of people coming and seeking legal advice in their situation from us,” he said. “We are pretty strapped in terms of resources. Basically, I'm one of three attorneys here right now at Legal Aid working on housing issues, and that includes hundreds of eviction defense cases and every other housing issue that might come up for low-income tenants across the county. But we are actively meeting with folks [from Woodmark] and trying to get them advice on what their rights are, what their potential steps forward might be, and to try to get as good of a result as can be gotten for these vulnerable families.”
McDonell said that, as far as he knows, “There are no private attorneys that are involved. I do know that there are attorneys in the community who have expressed curiosity about the situation and interest.”
McDonell said he’s offered to give assistance to private attorneys willing to take on the case. He said it was unclear whether Legal Aid would agree to represent Woodmark’s tenants in court.
“We have historically not done large-scale lawsuits, largely because they're extremely resource intensive,” he said. “That’s not to say that we wouldn’t do it in this case or any future case, but if we, if it were a group representation, that would require a lot of resources.”
He also noted that, “A lawsuit isn't the only means to get people the resources they deserve,” suggesting that the residents apply some political pressure at the local and state level.
“The other option is trying to shame the developer and manager and ownership for what they’ve done to these families,” he said.
Affordable housing developers need to stay on the good side of politicians to stay in business, McDonell said. “They need political actors to be able to develop these properties. They need to remain in good standing with the city, the county, the state [Affordable] Tax Credit Committee, right?”
He urged the residents to come together and jointly create a group and present their needs and concerns to those political actors. “That can be a way to try to make sure that Woodmark does what it can to address their needs and make sure that there's a fair and equitable way out of this situation for the families that are there,” he said.
Residents have gotten together to brainstorm ways out of this situation. Their showing up en masse at the last city council meeting is part of this effort. In the meantime, they are continuing their Sunday morning protests in front of the complex to draw attention to their plight.
You can find the city’s response to the Woodmark dilemma on the city website. Included on this page is a list of state and national representatives to contact about the crisis at Woodmark.
Sigh, thanks for telling this story. Even our small village is challenged by predatory capitalism. From the CVS fiasco to this housing corruption, city leaders first focus seems on increasing possible cash flow.
Considering our governor’s statements of CA having the forth largest economy in the world, the quality of life in less prosperous places surpasses our offered choices.
Sebastopol Times, keep your excellent work growing.
Can Woodmark be forced to provide farmworker housing at the previously advertised rate at another location, at its expense if necessary?