Editorial News Alert Oxnard Adopts New Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance
Editorial News Alert:
Oxnard Adopts New Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance
By Janet M. Gagnon
Chief Corporate Affairs Officer & SVP, Government Affairs
On July 15, 2025, the Oxnard City Council rubber stamped a new Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance (TAHO) from its Community Services, Public Safety, Housing and Development Committee. This was the second and final vote by the City Council and passed on a vote of 6-to-1, which was the same as the initial vote that happened at the City Council at its April 29th meeting. The ordinance applies to all rental housing providers and goes into effect on August 14, 2025.
KEY ASPECTS OF THE NEW ORDINANCE
Applies to ALL rental housing providers, including multi-family, single-family, accessory dwelling units, and condominiums.
Statutory damages of $10,000 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater AND punitive damages AND attorneys’ fees and costs.
Criminal prosecution as a misdemeanor with jail time of up to six months for a single violation or a fine of up to $1,000 or both.
Harassment, includes, but is not limited to, the following (see Section 27-42):
-
- A reduction or elimination of housing services as the term "housing service" is defined in this Article.
- A reduction of maintenance or failure to perform and timely complete necessary repairs or maintenance as set forth by contract or by State, County or local housing, health or safety laws.
- Failing to exercise due diligence in performing and completing repairs to a rental housing unit after obtaining possession of the unit for the purpose of performing the repairs.
- Engaging in any act or omission which interferes with the tenant’s right to use and enjoy the rental unit.
- Refusing to acknowledge or accept receipt of lawful rent payments as set forth in the lease agreement or as established by the usual practice of the parties.
- Engaging in any act or omission constituting a disturbance of a tenant’s possession of rental premises, whereby the premises are rendered unfit for occupancy, or the tenant is deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises.
This ordinance will now cost the city at least $505,000 per year with the hiring of two additional staff positions composed of one full-time housing inspector (at a salary of between $60,000 and $113,000) and one partially dedicated Assistance City Attorney (at a salary of between $157,000 and $216,000).
AAGLA had zealously advocated for mediation in place of this ordinance to settle disputes between parties modeled on the existing Santa Barbara program that is highly successful and uses volunteer mediators to keep costs low to the City. We also warned that this ordinance will now cause a chilling effect between rental housing providers and renters in discussing daily living disputes in a friendly and amicable manner. Housing providers will now be afraid to speak directly to renters for fear of being wrongly accused of harassment at some later date.
Unfortunately, only City Council Member Aaron Star was courageous enough to support mediation and stand up to Central Coastal Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy’s (CAUSE) demand for this ordinance that will waste half a million dollars in city funds on a program that has not been substantiated as needed by any concrete data. The fact that only two housing providers bothered to show up to the City Council meetings either in-person or via Zoom meant that the City Council felt empowered to pass this horrifically damaging ordinance.
We urge all AAGLA members with properties in Oxnard to familiarize themselves with this new ordinance and, in the future, to actively participate in fighting against similarly harmful policies against rental housing providers by showing up to City Council meetings. We also encourage the generous contribution to our AAGLA PAC, so that we can work to get more business-minded candidates on the City Council. Please go to https://aagla.org/candidatespac/
UPCOMING: Comments were made by City Council members in response to comments made during public comment about the recent ICE enforcement activities at the marijuana farm that the plan to do something “big” to help households that have been impacted. We are keeping a close watch to see what that entails and hope that it will be something similar to Los Angeles County’s recent actions to provide food assistance for households that have lost the primary income earner due to detention or deportation.
This article is for informational purposes only. If you have any questions regarding your property or specific leasing issues and the requirements of any legal changes described herein, please consult with an attorney.