EAST BAY CITIZEN. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Memo shows Alameda landlords want to work with councilmember on counter measure to rent control

Alameda Councilmember Tony Daysog has been
open about putting a second rent measure on the
November ballot, but a memo shows landlords
are interested in helping his cause.
ALAMEDA | While one ballot measure advocating for rent control in Alameda is in the early petition stage, a second measure to roll back some new rent protections approved by the City Council last week, appears to be gathering steam and landlords are lining up to offer their support.

Councilmember Tony Daysog believes the long-debated rent ordinance, which received final approval Mar. 1, is too onerous for whom he refers to as “small mom-and-pop landlords.” Specifically a section in the ordinance requiring landlords to pay, in some cases, moving out expenses up to four months’ rent plus and additional $1,500.

“The relocation benefit is such a hammer that is going to fall heavily on these smaller landlords,” said Daysog. “I get it, in this day and age to advocate for smaller landlords--that is a position that can be easily attacked. You’re open season if you do that."

The ordinance makes it difficult for landlords to move in relatives to their units, he added. “A person should be allowed to move their senior parent to their single flat and not have to pay $9,000,” said Daysog.

Daysog voted for the rent stabilization ordinance, but is again offering some of the same criticisms he offered last week and on Feb. 16, which also include recalculating the five percent rent increase that triggers a review by the city’s non-binding Rent Review Advisory Committee.

Daysog wants to scrap the five percent annual threshold for rent increases subject to the rent review process and extend it to a cumulative eight percent over two years. The rest of the city council was cool to Daysog’s plan during deliberations last month, but he hopes voters might feel differently.

The threshold needs to be more flexible, he said. “It’s too low a trigger and two hard and fast.” He would also exempt property owners with five or fewer units, along with other exemptions for those with 6-10 units.

The push by Daysog for a competing ballot measure on rents for inclusion on next November’s general election ballot appears to dovetail with a memo sent out by a pro-landlord supporter.

The email sent by Karin Lucas, a former member of the city’s Rent Review Advisory Committee and well-known critic of the renters’ group, lays out a potential playbook for landlords to oppose the rent control measure filed by the Alameda Renters Coalition on Feb. 29.

In the memo, Lucas asserts the powerful California Apartment Association and Barbara Thomas, a former Alameda councilmember and likely candidate for Alameda County Superior Court judge this June, have contemplated suing the city over its recently passed rent ordinance. Most believe the California Apartment Association will be a central player in the push to defeat rent control measures this fall, not only in Alameda, but Richmond and Oakland.

In addition, the memo states the same group plans to seek a counter measure and suggests they work with Daysog.

“Tony Daysog wants to see small landlords exempted from some forms of rent control. He is considering a ballot measure for November. We should consider working with Tony and arriving at some provisions that should be specific for small landlords. Tony may need our help to gather the necessary signatures,” Lucas wrote.

“Tony wants to meet with us as soon as possible. Also, he is running for reelection in November and may appreciate our support against [Alameda Councilmember Marilyn Ezzy] Ashcraft who needs to run again, and Malia Vella, a declared candidate, who supports the tenants and will have lots of union campaign funds.”

Former Alameda Councilmmeber Stewart Chen and Jeff Cambra are two other names reportedly showing interest in running for the Alameda City Council’s two open seats next November. Both are considered to be more closely aligned with landlords than renters.

17 comments :

What about mom and pop tenants? Moms and pops who rent a single small apartment and live on a limited income. Where is justice for them, Tony Daysog?

Thank you for the write-up! Working on the material -- hopefully something will be ready by Monday :)

I'd just like to make it known that because of the ridiculous rents in Alameda and really all over the east bay, I'm currently homeless. I'm extremely lucky to have some amazing friends that are letting me stay in their living room for a short time. I have to travel 2 hours to get to and from work in Alameda. Thanks to these landlords that charge so much for such a small space, I'll probably lose my job, and with no income I'll have no chance of finding a place, even outside of the east bay.

Alameda's March 1 rent ordinance is window dressing. it gives only the appearance of renter protection, giving them a false sense of security while putting landlords even more firmly in control.

It's exactly what would be expected from a City Council packed with lawyers whose client list is packed with landlords. Lawyer legerdemain--something that looks like one thing, but is actually the opposite.

The Renter Coalition's Feb 29 ballot measure will plug the loopholes and provide REAL CHANGE.

Here's a comparison...

CERTAINTY
 The Measure is Permanent; an Ordinance the City Council can withdraw at any time
 Rents are Capped, whereas the Ordinance's "Trigger" can allow unlimited rent increases
 The Ordinance means going before a tribunal of appointees for relief. Who has that kind of time?

FAIRNESS
 The Measure ties rents to the CPI -- a rational basis vs the Ordinance' arbitrary 5% (or more)
 The Measure is based on a broad survey of California municipal best practices.
 The Ordinance has loopholes -- like the Fixed-Term Lease
 The Measure has Homeowner protections.

ECONOMICS
 Spiraling rents starve the local economy by siphoning off disposable income
 Spiraling rents destabilize the community by driving out established citizens
 Eventually, it could be YOU who EVICTED.

REMEMBER: What the Council gives it can take away, as just happened in Richmond, where residents are filling a ballot measure to reinstate the previous renter protection ordinance.

Alameda's March 1 rent ordinance is window dressing. it gives only the appearance of renter protection, giving them a false sense of security while putting landlords even more firmly in control.

It's exactly what would be expected from a City Council packed with lawyers whose client list is packed with landlords. Lawyer legerdemain--something that looks like one thing, but is actually the opposite.

The Renter Coalition's Feb 29 ballot measure will plug the loopholes and provide REAL CHANGE.

Here's a comparison...

CERTAINTY
 The Measure is Permanent; an Ordinance the City Council can withdraw at any time
 Rents are Capped, whereas the Ordinance's "Trigger" can allow unlimited rent increases
 The Ordinance means going before a tribunal of appointees for relief. Who has that kind of time?

FAIRNESS
 The Measure ties rents to the CPI -- a rational basis vs the Ordinance' arbitrary 5% (or more)
 The Measure is based on a broad survey of California municipal best practices.
 The Ordinance has loopholes -- like the Fixed-Term Lease
 The Measure has Homeowner protections.

ECONOMICS
 Spiraling rents starve the local economy by siphoning off disposable income
 Spiraling rents destabilize the community by driving out established citizens
 Eventually, it could be YOU who EVICTED.

REMEMBER: What the Council gives it can take away, as just happened in Richmond, where residents are filling a ballot measure to reinstate the previous renter protection ordinance.

No,actually I'm pretty confident that the rent ordinance Council passed will stop the problem that brought us,ie excessive rent increases on the order of 10%, 15%,20%, 25%,30% and even higher.

I'm confident that the binding hearing process will provide the teeth in stopping excessive rent increases that the previous Rent Review Advisory Board only regime couldn't do.

But . . . . I do feel that, when it comes to penalties, the ordinance is much too harsh on small'mom and pop'landlords. So, tomake this BOTH a renter protection and small landlord protection, device, I will offer a few fixes that keep in tact the part that protects renters from excessive rent increases, and protects small landlords from having to dish out maybe around $10,000 if they want tomove their family members back into a unit.

Thanks! :)

/s/ tony

Tony Daysog: Who do you think is in greater financial need, mom and pop landlords or mom and pop tenants? You seem to care more about some mom and pops than other mom and pops.

Mr. Daysog,

What would you consider your top three accomplishments from your first 12 years on the Alameda City Council? What is your legacy as a legislator?

The banks should be required to subsidize the construction of affordable housing or subsidize landlords who provide affordable housing...Read Real Estate Crisis or Government Sanctioned Racketeering?...It's on Facebook...

i will make sure that Marilyn and Malia gets elected, whatever it takes!

i will make sure that Marilyn and Malia gets elected, whatever it takes!

That really depends. There are others like me who were hit hard by the recession and had to move out of state to find a job. We want to return so rent a tiny place to live in and rent out our Alameda house. We pay rent ourselves in addition to mortgage, HELOC, property taxes, taxes on the rent income, etc. If after a couple of years, we are able to return and move back into our house, we will have to bear the cost of our move, the cost of the tenants' move, and the loss of the rental income. I have no problem with caps on rent increases but the relocation costs could be as high as $15,000. I moved to another state including shipping my car for less than that. I don't see why my tenant, who makes six figures, needs so much help from me to move. I'm also willing to give more than 60 days notice, I just don't think that in my case, when I have no expectation of recouping that expenditure on future rent since I will be living in the house myself, that it's fair to ask of me what is being asked of someone who owns a 20 unit apartment building.

See what people aren't understanding is that real small "mom-and-pop" landlords pay some of the highest property taxes in almost the whole country. These taxes are continuously adjusted and also voter-approved for hikes to pay for schools, roads and overall upkeep of Alameda. If we keep rents the same and bills go up because trash bills go up, water bills go up, cost of maintenance go up, what are the mom-and-pop" landlords to do? So yes it sucks that someone doesn't make enough money or that life has changed but income has stayed stagnant, this is real life and this isn't the days of yesteryear where you stayed i a job for 20+ years and have a retirement but just as tenants are faced with increasing rents, so are we faced with increasing taxes, increasing utility bills and the like. Now they keep on saying Mom and Pop but what about folks in a situation where it is owner-occupied meaning truly a mom and pop operation that are well below the 4 unit threshold because they only rent 3 units. They should not be held accountable to the same financial spankings especially those whose current rents that they charge are so below market rate that the same people that are campaigning against landlords are jealous of the people who pay the rent they charge. This also brings up a huge loophole of evicting the bad tenant. You know, the people that make the rant of the day on every Alameda social media page for numerous reasons. What happens to the mom and pop who are already losing time and money just picking up after the bad tenant? Oh, they have to pay upward of a 5-10K care package for them?
Now yes, there are a lot of abuse and greed going on but an advisory board that doesn't look at behavior of tenant and landlord and assumes tenant is always the one being taken advantage of.

- Alameda live-in landlord, renting to three units, has NEVER raised rents and doesn't plan on it

Tony, I'm just a 'pop' tenant with a good paying Union job and a kid - if my landlord can't afford to keep my building up to code and habitable - without raising my rents excessively. Then he can't afford to own a building. I'm not asking for a free pass, I just need you to give a damn and not pretend to care about the financial stability of landlords. There are more tenants on this island and I will not forget your opposition to rental protections..neither will my neighbors. So give a shit - get off the pot. Cause there's a line at the door waiting to take your place and I'm in the mood to give it to them this November.

I just checked my property tax bill. 31% of the total is attributable to special charges and other fees that tenants get to vote to approve, but don't have to pay if rent control protects property owners from passing the fees on.

Only 69% of my property tax bill is actual Prop 13 protected property tax.

It seems to me that many tenant activists simply don't want to pay what it takes to maintain a property - they want the property owner to subsidize them.

Tony - I'll support you in your efforts to exempt the small independent landlords from this lunacy.

Hello dear blog Admin,

I read you whole blogpost. Really nice post Thanks for sharing this types post.Please keep it up.


Having a written agreement between Landlord and Tenant is always better because in the event of any dispute between the landlord and the tenant, terms of the agreement in written form can always help when legal aid is necessary to resolve the dispute. Nevertheless, it is possible for a rental agreement to be in verbal form, provided the lease is only for a three year period and if the rent stated by the landlord is according to the current market rate.To learn more about this cantact below-

Thanks
Angelina Jukic
See about: landlord tenant legal help

We don't oppose rent control, but it should be fair to small mom & pops who only have 1 units on their sixties and will be in a fix income in a couple of years, who wants to move in in their unit, where is the justice with that. I will not vote for a politician who have no common sense and will only says and do for them to be elected.

Post a Comment