Water demand

Cal Am’s commentary on March 13 states we need 14,480 acre-feet a year of water by 2050. Dave Stoldt, general manager, MPWMD, rightly pointed out, “this would be a 52% growth rate for a 25-year period, a gross exaggeration.” Why is Cal Am the only party stating this high supply estimate in the current CPUC hearing? In this proceeding, 2050 demand forecasts were submitted by the CPUC Public Advocates Office, Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Marina Coast Water District, and City of Marina -- all were within a few hundred acre-feet of each other. Their estimates showed an average of 11,000 AFY would be needed by 2050. Cal Am’s inflated “complex” forecast is thousands of acre-feet higher. With Pure Water Monterey Expansion, we’ll have over 12,000 AF of annual supply.

Let’s hope the CPUC is not swayed by Cal Am’s false arguments. The Cease-and-Desist Order (CDO) could be lifted now--Monterey One’s recycled water, already in the system, has made over pumping the Carmel River unnecessary for more than three years. But Cal Am refuses to request the state lift the CDO because they need it to justify building a desal plant that would raise our water rates another 50-75%. The voters’ choice for buyout under Measure J is now in court. If the decision is in favor of the district, we will finally have an honest water provider who has the public’s interest in mind.

— Susan Schiavone, Seaside

Rental inventory

The recent doubling down on the rental inventory by the city of Monterey is very disappointing and counterproductive. The only thing the rental inventory has achieved is divisiveness.

The city is now requiring “mom and pop” landlords (with less than four rentals) to register, without paying a fee, thereby doubling down on the invasion of privacy between a landlord and their tenant. Until this ill-advised inventory, a rental contract was strictly between the landlord and tenant. The tenant was free to reveal any portion, if they felt there was anything illegal about the contract. Otherwise, they were comfortable knowing the details of their contract was not a public record.

In reading the staff report leading to the 3-2 council decision to continue this virtue signaling farce (Smith and Rasch dissenting), we were amazed to see that the driver of this policy was diversity, equity and inclusion. Please, someone explain how counting properties, rent, square footage or vacancies, has advanced or will advance, DEI one iota. If any tenant, or prospective tenant, feels they’ve been discriminated against both the Federal Government (HUD) and the State of California (CA CRD) can investigate.

Additionally, the staff report estimates that 73% of property owners have complied (paid a $50 fee), leaving 27% non-compliant, estimating there are 8,130 residential rental units in the city. If you know that already, why are we playing this game? Any property management company can tell you the average rent. What else do you want to know?

Vacancies occur daily, your inventory will tell you nothing about current vacancies. Then, to add a further layer of audacity, the staff report recommends landlords no longer split the $50 fee with tenants (we never did). To justify this position, the staff report states, “Property owners receive rent from these tenants, and they accrue equity through the properties. They would likely be able to make up the cost in other areas.”

Yes, the tenants pay rent (hence the term “rental”). The rent is used by the landlord to pay mortgages, utilities (up 300% in three years), insurance (up 300% for many in one-year), ever-increasing property taxes, maintenance, property management, repairs, business license, legal fees, etc. Accrue equity? Sure, but only on paper unless we choose to sell our properties, taking them off of the rental market. Make up the cost (fee) in other areas? Where, other than increasing costs for our tenants?

The cost of the program was $243,354 in the first year! For what? We provided (and paid for) all the information, all the city had to do was add it up.

Finally, is the $50 fee even legal? According to the CA Department of Finance Section fee definition for property 1.4.9: “The fee or charge is not imposed for general governmental service where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to the property owners.”

— Anthony J Sollecito, Joan Smith, Monterey rental property owners