Narrow Search

Comment Archives: Stories: News & Opinion

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

Thank you for this well-balanced, fair narrative of the situation in Alameda.

To be clear: I favor the local initiative called "L1", and do not support "M1", for the reason you accurately mentioned in the article, ie the formula results in an allowable rent increase that renders uneconomic especially smaller mom and pop landlords' units, which harms tenants and mom and pops equally.

I favor "L1" because it addresses the issue that brought us here in the first place, ie dealing with excessive rent increases, and does so (again, as you correctly wrote) through a mediation that (as a result of landmark ordinance Council adopted in March 2016) includes the power of binding arbitration (ie the ability to set a fair and reasonable rent increases case by case, ie mediation-based rent control).

Background: In March 2016, Alameda City Council adopted what many locally see as a landmark ordinance in an effort to address the crisis in excessive rent increases. Prior to this decision, Alameda has had for forty years a rent review advisory board who could only suggest a reasonable rent increase, when a tenant brought a matter before this board. With the March decision, Council finally gave that rent review advisory process the power of binding arbitration, ie the ability to establish a reasonable rent increase (ie mediation-based rent control on a case by case basis). Council adopted other provisions in the March ordinance, but the binding arbitration proviso is the hallmark of the ordinance.

Trends: There's been over 170 cases that have come before the rent review advisory board since adoption of the 2016 ordinance that "L1" would affirm and, of these, roughly 165 were settled between the tenant and landlord even before the actual hearing itself. The 11 remaining cases, it is my understanding, were settled during during the rent review board meeting itself, in a fashion mutually (heavy emphasis on mutually) agreed to by tenant and landlord, such that average rent increases have ranged from 5 to 7 percent. No cases have gone to the final level of binding arbitration as of yet, which indicates that mere presence of this level is acting like a cudgel forcing landlords to be reasonable with regard to rent increases. Check with the Alameda Housing Authority or Alameda Community Development Department for more info.

Summary: we are over with those days of en masse 30%, 20%, 15% excessive rent increases that characterized the rent crisis in the City of Alameda. In short, the landmark March 2016 rent ordinance that gave the rent review advisory board process the power of binding arbitration (ie the ability to set reasonable rent increase, ie mediation-based rent control) is solving the heady matter that brought us to this point in the first place (ie excessive rent increases). "L1" affirms that ordinance.

Request: we ask Alamedans to vote for "L1" as this has demonstrated itself to be a reasonable, practical, and non-ideological solution crafted with input from tenants, landlords, subject matter experts in housing law and operations, and city staff. Above all, it is working. Thank you.

/s/ Tony Daysog, Alameda City Councilmember

Postscript: many years ago while in grad school at Cal's City and Regional Planning (DCRP), I worked on a project with a Berkeley rental property outfit called St. John's and Associates, in a project funded by the Pacific Legal Foundation. It was I believe 1992 and, by then, Census 1990 was available, allowing for a comparison of 1980 Census (since Berkeley's rent control started in June 1980) and 1990 Census. What struck us was how South Berkeley over the decade of the 1980s lost en masse its African American population. I think out assessment was that this occurred not because landlords suddenly became racists but rather that for small mom and pop African American landlords in South Berkeley operating under the Berkeley style rent regime proved too difficult with the passage of time after 1980 -- hence the loss of African Americans in South Berkeley. That was a hypothesis. As Alameda seeks to emulate the Berkeley-style rent control via "M1", this is something to think about.

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/02/2016 at 9:29 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

This has become a biased newspaper with little or no accountability. You are supposed to report the news and not take sides! You lie and say candidates where invited and come to find out you never invited them!!!! Your credibility needs to be addressed as well as the knowledge of your reporters on the subjects they claim to cover! People can actually think for themselves but you have taken it upon yourselves to think you are "know it all's" and you have proven that you are not! You owe public apologies to candidates that you have ignored and saw fit not to give your readers the "right" to know!!! Don't go covering transparency cause you don't know the meaning of the word!!!! Your rudeness and immaturity begs the question!

Posted by Nancy Sidebotham 1 on 11/01/2016 at 9:15 PM

Re: “How a Handful of Pro-Charter Billionaires Flooded Oakland's School Board Elections With Cash

Did I miss where it says how much they spent on the district 1 race?

Posted by Rafael Cruz on 11/01/2016 at 8:18 PM

Re: “Oakland-Based Amanda Reiman With Drug Policy Alliance Discusses Prop. 64, Legalization, and What's Next

Good job, Ms Reiman! You say:

>>>" Legalization in California is a necessary step toward ending prohibition on the federal level."

Exactly. Prop 64 not only frees Californians, but the whole country - and most of the planet!

Posted by John Thomas on 11/01/2016 at 6:40 PM

Re: “Months Later, Still No Charges Against Oakland Cops Who Sexually Exploited Celeste Guap

Comment above-- "Alan Blueford" was changed to "Bluebird" although I corrected it several times. Grrrrr.

Posted by Cynthia Morse on 10/31/2016 at 8:02 PM

Re: “Months Later, Still No Charges Against Oakland Cops Who Sexually Exploited Celeste Guap

Kamala Harris has had many opportunities to show that she won't stand for police corruption and to use her Attorney General's office for its intended purpose--to supercede local politics on crimes that local da's will never have the guts or principles to prosecute.

In the last few years , police murders of young black men have been brought to her for action that only an Attorney General can take, and she has closed her eyes to the crimes (Alan Bluebird's murder, for example).

The most action she has taken is calling the CHP to attack the petitioners, then never make any statement at all--always with her political future in mind. She will be the most glad-handing system player DC has ever seen.

Posted by Cynthia Morse on 10/31/2016 at 7:59 PM

Re: “Experts Confident Marijuana Legalization Will Pass in California on Election Day

Thank you David Downs and EB Express for pointing out that the "cannabis industry" has donated little to this campaign and that most of the money comes from social justice organizations. Far from being a "corporate" initiative, this is a restorative justice initiative with a business regulatory arm that enfranchises our existing cannabis cottage industry to the greatest extent possible. I have worked with DPA and other groups and am proud to have them on board. I am so sick of the conspiracy theorists and it's good to have some solid reporting on this situation. On to November and let's win big. Yes on Prop. 64

Posted by Chris Conrad on 10/31/2016 at 11:28 AM

Re: “Racial Profiling Via Nextdoor.com

I totally agree with the all questions you raised. I also can share my experience in filling forms. I've forgotten the last time I filled out a form on paper. I mostly use PDFfiller to edit. You can easily fill NJ Garden State MLS Multiple Listing System Property Profile Sheet here http://pdf.ac/9h4ewU

Posted by Jaren Jona on 10/29/2016 at 10:40 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

I would like to thank the Eastbay Express for bringing AC Transit issues to the forefront. As a retired bus driver running for the board of directors with 23 years of
experience I've seen AC Transit at it best and it's worse now than ever before, so for many reasons you've already stated I'm running. Also I will not support buying a house, AC Transit is not in the real estate business. Thank you to those who have supported me in the past and
read this paper!!! Dollene C. Jones

Posted by Dollene Jones on 10/28/2016 at 2:33 PM

Re: “How to Happy Hour Like a Tech Bro on an 'I Only Live in Oakland Because My Apartment is Rent Controlled' Budget

I think we could all learn to enjoy earning money like a "tech bro"....just saying....and the title seems like a horrible attempt at being "tongue in cheek" if in fact that was the intention of the author. Otherwise the title just makes that writer sound like a class bigot who is envious long time residents who signed leases before she did...I'm not sure which it is...

Posted by Chantrea Nok on 10/28/2016 at 1:45 PM

Re: “How to Happy Hour Like a Tech Bro on an 'I Only Live in Oakland Because My Apartment is Rent Controlled' Budget

While I understand the title was meant to be a joke. It almost twists the knife in the back of all the longtime residents who have been here for decades/generations. Working as a community ally in Oakland is tireless work. With the rapid influx of newcomers...its extremely difficult to try to keep, promote, and educate in a community based fashion, who the residents are, and how to preserve what this city represents historically.

Posted by Shashlyks.Dacha on 10/28/2016 at 1:40 PM

Re: “Proposition 64 Leads in the Polls. But Insiders Say Weed Prohibition's End is No Sure Thing.

I have seen no ads about prop 64 in California - why has this been kept so quiet?

Posted by gary goodman on 10/28/2016 at 1:01 PM

Re: “Low-Income Tenants to be Directly Displaced by Development in El Cerrito

I know the people in the photo, and it breaks my heart to hear of this. I pray they all have found safe and affordable housing. I too find myself now in search of affordable housing. There is no way I can return to the Bay Area or other desirable places, but there are lots of good agencies out there who are being more compassionate and helpful than before, understanding how many people are losing their homes.

Posted by Carolyn R. Cox on 10/28/2016 at 8:36 AM

Re: “How to Happy Hour Like a Tech Bro on an 'I Only Live in Oakland Because My Apartment is Rent Controlled' Budget

Seriously? Why would anyone want to do anything "like a tech bro"?

Posted by Hanya Ruane-Gonzales on 10/27/2016 at 12:55 PM
Posted by Veronyca Mawusi Abena on 10/27/2016 at 11:56 AM

Re: “How to Happy Hour Like a Tech Bro on an 'I Only Live in Oakland Because My Apartment is Rent Controlled' Budget

Because not being able to live and work in the city you grew up in is a laughing matter ...

Posted by Anya Isabel on 10/27/2016 at 9:17 AM

Re: “How to Happy Hour Like a Tech Bro on an 'I Only Live in Oakland Because My Apartment is Rent Controlled' Budget

I can't believe this is in the EAST Bay Express. What a rude title. If this is how you feel, please move to SF, we don't want you. Consider a revision.

Posted by Trawets Aifala on 10/27/2016 at 9:02 AM

Re: “How a Handful of Pro-Charter Billionaires Flooded Oakland's School Board Elections With Cash

Will hundreds of thousands buy a better Oakland School system or an Oakland School Board that supports Republican ex New York Mayor Bloomberg's stop and frisk education policy of growing unregulated charter schools?

A way for Oakland voters to disrespect the 50th anniversary of the Black Panther Party is by electing bought Oakland School Board majority that will grow more charter schools. Some of existing Oakland charters refuse to provide the Feds free breakfast program likely for fear hungry students might lower their test scores.

Posted by Jim Mordecai on 10/26/2016 at 11:15 PM

Re: “Get Bourgie on a Budget With These 20 East Bay Happy Hours

4 to 6 is early bird.....

Posted by Matt Thayer on 10/26/2016 at 2:13 PM

Re: “Hayward, the City that Banned Happy Hour

Happy hour is still illegal in Hayward for bars unless they serve food. The ban was lifted only for restaurants. Any bars caught serving a happy hour is fined by the HPD.

Posted by Aric Yeverino on 10/26/2016 at 12:19 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation